"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
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

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.


That's cool. I can relate. I was a corporate technologist for 40 years,
got lucky and exited stage right.
(Or sometimes left depending on the subject matter). Got involved in a
"retail" business of sorts about 9 months ago and am still adjusting to the
non-logical and fickle personalities of semi-pro and professional musicians.

I have an associate who is a rock and roller by heart (started in the 60's
with a couple of billboard hits) but quickly determined that he and his
family liked to eat. He went to law school and became a trial lawyer which
he did for 30 years before giving up his practice to return to his true love
of building fine acoustic guitars.
Interesting fellow .... and probably has one of the finest engineering minds
of anyone I've ever met, combined with a true craftsman's talent.

So, it proves there is hope for all lawyers.

Eisboch

On Mar 8, 10:52*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:


*Got involved in a "retail" business of sorts about 9 months ago and
am still adjusting to the non-logical and fickle personalities of
semi-pro and professional musicians.


Not counting the PITA's that call you during your busiest moments.

?;^ )

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

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

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

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.


That's cool. I can relate. I was a corporate technologist for 40 years,
got lucky and exited stage right.

I felt like I had to get out or lose my soul. It was the right time
soul-wise and financially.

(Or sometimes left depending on the subject matter). Got involved in a
"retail" business of sorts about 9 months ago and am still adjusting to
the non-logical and fickle personalities of semi-pro and professional
musicians.

Musicians are a special breed... my ex dabbled in it (semi-pro). He was
obsessed to say the least with it. But, we're still good friends.

I have an associate who is a rock and roller by heart (started in the 60's
with a couple of billboard hits) but quickly determined that he and his
family liked to eat. He went to law school and became a trial lawyer
which he did for 30 years before giving up his practice to return to his
true love of building fine acoustic guitars.
Interesting fellow .... and probably has one of the finest engineering
minds of anyone I've ever met, combined with a true craftsman's talent.

So, it proves there is hope for all lawyers.

Eisboch

Lawyers can be ok from time to time.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 3/9/2010 12:14 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

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.


That's cool. I can relate. I was a corporate technologist for 40 years,
got lucky and exited stage right.

I felt like I had to get out or lose my soul. It was the right time
soul-wise and financially.

(Or sometimes left depending on the subject matter). Got involved in a
"retail" business of sorts about 9 months ago and am still adjusting to
the non-logical and fickle personalities of semi-pro and professional
musicians.

Musicians are a special breed... my ex dabbled in it (semi-pro). He was
obsessed to say the least with it. But, we're still good friends.

I have an associate who is a rock and roller by heart (started in the 60's
with a couple of billboard hits) but quickly determined that he and his
family liked to eat. He went to law school and became a trial lawyer
which he did for 30 years before giving up his practice to return to his
true love of building fine acoustic guitars.
Interesting fellow .... and probably has one of the finest engineering
minds of anyone I've ever met, combined with a true craftsman's talent.

So, it proves there is hope for all lawyers.

Eisboch

Lawyers can be ok from time to time.


Present company excluded.
An Observation by Sandra Day O'Connor
"There is no shortage of lawyers in Washington, DC. In fact, there may
be more lawyers than people."

"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.