"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Frogloogyherringsnacks" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

You're a liar. Nothing like that is in the database under the name
you're using.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Incompetent troll.
Maybe she doesn't know Bill is short for William?
I don't think so.
I had no trouble finding your patent using google.
No "database" needed. Well, google is essentially a database.
Took all of 10 seconds.
But you're probably right about her being a troll.
The giveaway is "under the name you're using."
Cute. A dishonest way to try to cut somebody down.



I put my name and "patent" in Google. Returned as number two on the list,
the first being a Richard with a last name spelled differently than mine.

I didn't Google using "Eisboch".

I have bad memories of dealing with patent attorneys. When I sold my
company and the buyer began the due diligence process, two patent
attorneys were the first people I met with. One was a corporate type for
the buyer, the other was a hired consultant. Spent the better part of
two days with them, and finally they left to go do whatever it is that
they do.

What was the bad experience? The exhaustive process? Unfortunately, if you
don't go through that process these days, your patent will either be denied
or can be subverted.


We then went through the (almost 3 month) exhausting process of due
diligence, looking at all our financials, taxes, liabilities, etc. and I
was getting worn out by the whole process. The buyer was a large, public
company and had many resources, including a staff of lawyers, accountants
and marketing types. Any small business owner who goes through this will
understand how grueling the process is and at some point you basically
become committed to the deal, just to get it over with.

The day before the official closing (almost 3 months later) the two patent
attorneys came back with a 3 inch stack of patent copies. They started
going through them, one by one, asking if we built anything like what was
on the patent papers. It was ridiculous. It was like being Ford and the
attorney hands you a patent by Chevrolet and asks if you make anything
similar.

The CEO of the acquiring company was a gruff, tough talking, no-nonsense
type and nobody in his company cherished getting on his radar screen. By
8 pm, the evening before the closing, we were only halfway through the
stack of papers that his patent attorneys had prepared. Exasperated, I
called for a break and told them that I had had enough and one of them
was going to have to call the CEO of their company and tell him the
closing would have to be postponed to a later date because we still had a
pile of papers to go through.

The patent attorneys looked at each other with panic in their faces,
picked up the remaining paperwork and stuffed it into their briefcases.
They then announced that everything was fine, there didn't appear to be
any patent conflicts or infringements to be concerned with and left.

The closing occurred on time the next morning.

Eisboch

It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much trouble
with engineers/scientists.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what I
wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what
I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was ridiculous
for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask specific
questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you weren't that
prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be typical of people
in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all that, but sometimes hoops
have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of what
I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask
specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you
weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be
typical of people in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all that,
but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read what
people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3 month
due diligence process.
2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.
3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back to
review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20 discussion on
each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard to
tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of
what I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask
specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you
weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be
typical of people in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all
that, but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read what
people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

I didn't read what you wrote in its entirety. I'm not being paid to read it.



Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3
month due diligence process.

So, that seems pretty reasonable.

2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.

Also reasonable.

3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back to
review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

I'm sure they had other priorities. Was it a merger between Exxon and Mobile
or was it, as you said a small business being eaten by a much larger one?
You're likely not their first priority.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20 discussion
on each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Without knowing the specifics of the questions and your answers, this seems
pretty reasonable. I'll ding them for waiting to last minute, but it still
probably needed to get done.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?


--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?

Very clear. I assume you no longer practice.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?

Very clear. I assume you no longer practice.

Eisboch

I don't do corporate stuff any more. I don't the engineering at companies
patent filings, and I don't do acquisition investigations, such as what you
when through.

I do individuals' patent work on a very part-time, very particular (my
particular) basis. I find it much more rewarding. I own a full-time,
non-related retail business with a few part-time employees.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch


Was my response?

Very clear. I assume you no longer practice.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard
to tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of
what I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to
ask specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems
like you weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I
found to be typical of people in your situation. I know it's your
"baby" and all that, but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you
got what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read
what people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3
month due diligence process.
2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.
3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back
to review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20
discussion on each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch



And if the attorneys had more time it would have been a 5 inch thick stack.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard
to tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of
what I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to ask
specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems like you
weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I found to be
typical of people in your situation. I know it's your "baby" and all
that, but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you got
what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read
what people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3
month due diligence process.
2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.
3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back
to review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20 discussion
on each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch



And if the attorneys had more time it would have been a 5 inch thick
stack.


Many get paid by the hour. I did for a lot of things... $300+ .. not bad.


--
Nom=de=Plume