Skinner - Verified Friend of Mark Sievers - Q & A thread

[Webjunkie]

An application was filed but then what? No followthrough?

I don't know much about the process, but I would think it would be the first step, to file an application. Then they have to research to make sure it truly is original. That can take years in some cases. Then when approved, it would belong to the applicant. It's very costly and time consuming from what I understand.

 

[relay]

I thought there was also spec that RB was about to expose something that CWW was doing (I think having to do with stealing computers or something like that--it was in one of the articles posted here).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I recall that RB was reportedly going to tell about CWW's criminal acts as well.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I don't know much about the process, but I would think it would be the first step, to file an application. Then they have to research to make sure it truly is original. That can take years in some cases. Then when approved, it would belong to the applicant. It's very costly and time consuming from what I understand.

I believe there is a step in between. ..

1. Application made, number assigned
2. Preliminary review, if passes application is published
3. Full review, patent granted

It appears, since the application can't be found in the database, that it was never published (step 2). Perhaps someone who has been through the patent process a few times can clarify?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[coastal]

Interesting. .. I had interpreted that as "ms inherited a bunch of guns," not money.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I read it that way too, Wyle_E - which is interesting in light of JR's history of trouble with his own "inherited guns":

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/crim...-rodgers-appears-in-federal-court-in-st-louis

>>>snip

...Rodgers was indicted in 2009 after being caught with dozens of pistols, shotguns and rifles. He was a convicted felon and was barred from possession firearms, court records show...

<<<snip

Did JR know that "MS inherited inherited a bunch, many, guns and gun safes from his dad"? Did JR travel to Florida to steal MS's guns, "knowing" that the Sievers were on a scheduled vacation? But TS interrupted him, and he panicked, killing her?

 

[Webjunkie]

As did I. Are we sure that MS inherited money as well? Or is this speculation or the telephone game at work, I wonder?

If someone could have that amount of investment in a gun collection, they probably had money as well. As a veterinarian, they probably had enough for a comfortable life. Not celebrity status, but maybe upper-middle class? Minus getting the MD degree of course. IMO

 

[human]

I read it that way too, Wyle_E - which is interesting in light of JR's history of trouble with his own "inherited guns":

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/crim...-rodgers-appears-in-federal-court-in-st-louis

>>>snip

...Rodgers was indicted in 2009 after being caught with dozens of pistols, shotguns and rifles. He was a convicted felon and was barred from possession firearms, court records show...

<<<snip

Did JR know that "MS inherited inherited a bunch, many, guns and gun safes from his dad"? Did JR travel to Florida to steal MS's guns, "knowing" that the Sievers were on a scheduled vacation? But TS interrupted him, and he panicked, killing her?

Why not go when no one is home?

 

[creepingskills]

Of course I am sure. It was my invention.

And I do not remember if it was you, or someone else, who was so sure that anybody working on a patent would have their name associated with the documentation. Well, you (or the other) were wrong.

I was, am, the sole owner of the invention.

Hi Skinner, it was me who was so sure that as an inventor, CWW would be listed on the patent. In my experience, anyone who contributed in a meaningful way to the development of what is patented, has their name listed. I stand by this statement.

Let's go back to the original bio claim:
In 2000, Wright created an internationally distributed patent pending commercial web application allowing fully interactive dynamic e-commerce web sites to be created in minutes for the restaurant industry.

I think what you're trying to say is you (wrote?) and filed the application and decided to keep CWW's name off the application. Patent owner and inventor are two different areas - they are not always the same, so while you may be the sole owner of the invention, CWW could be listed as an inventor. I have found no proof that CWW is listed on any patent application, and while this may have been a personal choice, the fact is that CWW doesn't have a patent if he isn't listed on the application, for whatever reason.

I am unclear how your statement that you are the sole owner of the "invention", makes my claim that any inventor who contributes to the development of a PATENT is credited as an inventor (not OWNER) on said patent. If you chose not to give credit to CWW as an inventor on YOUR application, why give him credit now?

 

[creepingskills]

Ok, I'm confused. An application serial number is not the same as a patent

When you first file a patent, an application number is assigned while the patent is awaiting review and publication by the USPTO. The process takes a long time, years, and then hopefully the patent is "issued" meaning the USPTO has deemed the patent novel (patentable) and legal rights vest in the patent owner to license, sell or prosecute others for patent infringement.

 

[beach]

Re-opening. Post your questions directed to Skinner here.

 

[Skinner]

Hi Skinner, it was me who was so sure that as an inventor, CWW would be listed on the patent. In my experience, anyone who contributed in a meaningful way to the development of what is patented, has their name listed. I stand by this statement.

Let's go back to the original bio claim:
In 2000, Wright created an internationally distributed patent pending commercial web application allowing fully interactive dynamic e-commerce web sites to be created in minutes for the restaurant industry.

I think what you're trying to say is you (wrote?) and filed the application and decided to keep CWW's name off the application. Patent owner and inventor are two different areas - they are not always the same, so while you may be the sole owner of the invention, CWW could be listed as an inventor. I have found no proof that CWW is listed on any patent application, and while this may have been a personal choice, the fact is that CWW doesn't have a patent if he isn't listed on the application, for whatever reason.

I am unclear how your statement that you are the sole owner of the "invention", makes my claim that any inventor who contributes to the development of a PATENT is credited as an inventor (not OWNER) on said patent. If you chose not to give credit to CWW as an inventor on YOUR application, why give him credit now?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you read CWW resume, he did not claim to be the inventor of anything. He said he was working on, or helping to develop, a US Patent Pending invention. Right?

And you then made the leap to think that his name would have to be on a USPTO application. Right?

And I'm telling you, that that assumption of yours was, and is, wrong.

There's really not much more to say.

 

[relay]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you read CWW resume, he did not claim to be the inventor of anything. He said he was working on, or helping to develop, a US Patent Pending invention. Right?

And you then made the leap to think that his name would have to be on a USPTO application. Right?

And I'm telling you, that that assumption of yours was, and is, wrong.

There's really not much more to say.

Hi skinner . You thread is reopened in case other members would like to ask you questions.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you read CWW resume, he did not claim to be the inventor of anything. He said he was working on, or helping to develop, a US Patent Pending invention. Right?

And you then made the leap to think that his name would have to be on a USPTO application. Right?

And I'm telling you, that that assumption of yours was, and is, wrong.

There's really not much more to say.

I believe the word used was "created," which implies much more than just "worked on"

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

 

[creepingskills]

This site and topic is not, nor should be, about me. But to answer your question, after 8 long years (patent decisions are supposed to be made in roughly 14 months), my application was denied a second time on a likewise bogus reason by the examiner.

The first denial, almost 4 years after application, was denied on faulty grounds due to the examiner relying on another patent application which was filed several months AFTER mine. So my law firm filed an appeal on that ground and the usual course of action is for the examiner to say, "Ooops. You're right. Sorry. My mistake. Here is your patent and certification thereof."

Not so in my case. She went on a witch hunt, taking another 4 years, to find a buzz word (i.e. language) in which the patent she now brought up, had absolutely nothing to do with my invention, in any way shape or form. But by uniting a different patent concept using a buzz word from that application, she said that you could take two different existing patent ideas and come up with my idea, and so REJECTED again.

I kid you not. I tell people, it would be like inventing an actual teletransporter like used in Star Trek, and the examiner rejecting the invention because the concept had been shown in movies and TV series.

Can you imagine such a thing? You actually invent something that can teletransport an object from one location to another, but the patent is rejected because it was referred to in a book or movie.

Except my Star Trek example is not even as egregious as what happened in my case. The buzz word from the 2nd patent, was not related in any way to my invention. It just used a common word, that I was using to describe my invention.

= = = =

I had my idea in the mid-1980's, prior to the advent of the world wide web (www) protocol. The www protocol came about in 1990. I continued to develop my idea on paper and add flow charts and blueprints. By the late 1990's, nobody on the web was doing what my invention was to do.

I had basic computer programming skills, but not the type of skill necessary to bring my application to life on the internet. Few did, nor do.

When Wayne saw my flow charts and blueprint for the idea, he said "Wow. I think you're really onto something here." And he loved the challenge of bringing it to life. Even to this day, my invention remains state-of-the-art, and is not being done properly by companies, who still do not understand the proper ideas, nor the technology that should be in place to give them great profits and super customer service.

So I contracted with Wayne and his partner's company to bring my invention to life, but in the contract I was sole owner with all rights. That is why Wayne's name does not show up in the Patent search, and why the idea that somebody working on a patent will have their name on the application process, is simply not true.

Skinner, I'm sorry the patent office rejected your application. It sounds like you had a very interesting idea, so please do not take any of the posts regarding CWW and his skills personally. Unless you're a large, wealthy tech corporation it can be very painful to take an application to issue because of some of the problems you've described re: writing the claims in a way that is not derivative or in violation on already patented inventions.

I do not doubt that you were the sole patent application owner, per the contract with CWW. Ownership rights include the ability to license, derive, prosecute infringement. Inventors do not have ownership rights in the patent unless they're also named as owners, or later if ownership is assigned to the inventors.

I'm not a verified professional so you can take my words with a grain of salt, but I will tell you that I have worked on hundreds of contracts between large software companies and consulting engineers. Ownership is never an issue or part of the negotiation because if you are familiar with the concept of 'work for hire' the second there is a contract outlining the relationship (i.e. employee/contractor is hired to make X for Company) whatever is created by the engineers during that session is not their own, the company owns the work product. This is not to say that the contract wouldn't outline ownership but it would be understood by all parties before memorializing the agreement. And in my experience, engineers only care about being 'credited' on the application and rightly so. At my company, as an incentive our employee-inventors receive a bonus and recognition if credited as inventor on an application that was submitted. Also, engineers are adamant about being credited because its their body of work, the only way they can show OTHER employers, hey look what I've worked on. I've seen patent applications with over 20 inventors, 1 corporate owner. Inventors have no rights in the patent. I can't stress this enough, so that you understand why I'm confused about CWW not being credited, if in fact he brought your idea to life. If CWW consented to not being credited on the application, who was named as the inventor, you?

Lastly, I know it can be an expensive battle to prosecute a patent when the examiner is of the opinion that your invention is not novel or infringing. I say this with no snark at all, but perhaps if you credited CWW as an inventor, and he met with the examiner they could have talked it out. Engineer to engineer.

 

[Paulas88]

Skinner, did MS ever tell you that he had previously met JR? (before the wedding pictures were discovered)

 

[creepingskills]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you read CWW resume, he did not claim to be the inventor of anything. He said he was working on, or helping to develop, a US Patent Pending invention. Right?

And you then made the leap to think that his name would have to be on a USPTO application. Right?

And I'm telling you, that that assumption of yours was, and is, wrong.

There's really not much more to say.

It is not CWW's resume, its a bio where he claimed to be the creator of an internationally distributed patent pending commercial web app. Creator = inventor. As you've said, CWW is the person who brought your idea to life. He created it. Much different from saying you're working on or helping to develop.

Its not a leap. If CWW claims to have CREATED a patent pending web app, it follows that if in fact an application was filed, his name would be listed as an inventor. Its not an assumption, its a basic tenant of patent law.

 

[DexterMorgan]

But Skinner. Did you still promote and make money from your invention while waiting for a patent approval for 8 years? Couldn't money still be made while waiting for an approval during those years. Even if someone took you to court. You still would have been able to prove that it was your original idea from years ago that is clearly documented in your patent application. So did you just shelf your invention while waiting all of those years. I hope not.

 

[Skinner]

BBM:
Well, did CWW 'bring it to life' using it on Dr. Sievers computers to create 'super customer service and great profits'? This is your intellectual property, isn't it? Could it be used without your knowledge? Also, did it have anything to do with the sale of vitamins and/or treatments or just sales of generally anything?

ETA: With CWW's name not being on your invention and you owning sole rights, what was in it for him? Flat fee?

TIA

Flat fee, plus ongoing server fees for using their servers, and fees to do some technical setup on each business that got created using my invention.

I might add, that while the program was coming to life, Wayne contributed some ideas that improved the overall program that were simply brilliant, and new to the web at that time. And in my heart, I had always known I would treat him better than the agreement they signed with me.


Now head's up everybody. This is something that is very important to your understanding about Wayne. I'm not sure I understand the implication to your sleuthing, but this is a fact about Wayne:

He did not have time & money managerial skill. He seemed indifferent to money matters. He let his partner do the negotiating with me on our contract. But in all of his working, he was more excited about state-of-the-art technology, doing things with computers that had never been done by others, and that was his real "Kick". And he would estimate a job at X number of hours, and it would end up being Y number.

You'll notice something in that bio about laser-disks for Sony. I saw it. That was ground-breaking at one time, even though it never went forward in the market place, like Betamax vs VHS.

And that thing about the Apollo mission. He showed it to me.

The guy needed and got money for his work, just like all people do, but money was not a big motivator to Wayne. He was happy talking about computers with anybody who had an aptitude to understand.

Since I had met Mark in college, and had shared my idea with him way back then about my computer invention, Mark would respond by telling me, "You gotta meet my buddy Wayne!" Mark would tell me things about Wayne's work on rendering images for film for companies, way back in the 1980's. And when I bought a new PC and it had a 40 MB hard drive (yes, not GB, but MB), he told me Wayne had just installed hard drives in a computer he built (yes, built himself at that time) with 1GB drives.

I dismissed what Mark was telling me, because it was above my pay grade, as you might say. I was an avid reader of PC Magazine, and a couple other computer magazines, but what Mark was telling me about this guy, Wayne, seemed like puffery to me. Exactly the same way all of you guys here on WebSleuths reacted to the same information, without knowing any better.

So when I finally met Wayne a decade later (late 90's), and we sat down at a restaurant with Mark there, we started talking computers and software, and within 2 minutes, I knew this guy was something special. Way something special. Mark laughed and later laughed again, at how we ignored him at the restaurant because all Wayne and I wanted to do, and did do, was talk computer jargon for the next 2½ hours. It was pretty funny.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Flat fee, plus ongoing server fees for using their servers, and fees to do some technical setup on each business that got created using my invention.

I might add, that while the program was coming to life, Wayne contributed some ideas that improved the overall program that were simply brilliant, and new to the web at that time. And in my heart, I had always known I would treat him better than the agreement they signed with me.


Now head's up everybody. This is something that is very important to your understanding about Wayne. I'm not sure I understand the implication to your sleuthing, but this is a fact about Wayne:

He did not have time & money managerial skill. He seemed indifferent to money matters. He let his partner do the negotiating with me on our contract. But in all of his working, he was more excited about state-of-the-art technology, doing things with computers that had never been done by others, and that was his real "Kick". And he would estimate a job at X number of hours, and it would end up being Y number.

You'll notice something in that bio about laser-disks for Sony. I saw it. That was ground-breaking at one time, even though it never went forward in the market place, like Betamax vs VHS.

And that thing about the Apollo mission. He showed it to me.

The guy needed and got money for his work, just like all people do, but money was not a big motivator to Wayne. He was happy talking about computers with anybody who had an aptitude to understand.

Since I had met Mark in college, and had shared my idea with him way back then about my computer invention, Mark would respond by telling me, "You gotta meet my buddy Wayne!" Mark would tell me things about Wayne's work on rendering images for film for companies, way back in the 1980's. And when I bought a new PC and it had a 40 MB hard drive (yes, not GB, but MB), he told me Wayne had just installed hard drives in a computer he built (yes, built himself at that time) with 1GB drives.

I dismissed what Mark was telling me, because it was above my pay grade, as you might say. I was an avid reader of PC Magazine, and a couple other computer magazines, but what Mark was telling me about this guy, Wayne, seemed like puffery to me. Exactly the same way all of you guys here on WebSleuths reacted to the same information, without knowing any better.

So when I finally met Wayne a decade later (late 90's), and we sat down at a restaurant with Mark there, we started talking computers and software, and within 2 minutes, I knew this guy was something special. Way something special. Mark laughed and later laughed again, at how we ignored him at the restaurant because all Wayne and I wanted to do, and did do, was talk computer jargon for the next 2½ hours. It was pretty funny.

Cww sounds like a nice guy. So why did he kill his brother's wife?

 

[Skinner]

But Skinner. Did you still promote and make money from your invention while waiting for a patent approval for 8 years? Couldn't money still be made while waiting for an approval during those years. Even if someone took you to court. You still would have been able to prove that it was your original idea from years ago that is clearly documented in your patent application. So did you just shelf your invention while waiting all of those years. I hope not.

I had set up a few using the program and it was really exciting to see it in action. Even now, there is nothing out there doing what my technology can do, but the real hurdle is having a sales force. And salesmen, good ones, do not work on commission only. I did not have the bankroll to offer salaries. It gave me a new respect for salesmen. They are needed to make the economy roll. haha

The US Patent, had I gotten it, would have given me protection for 20 years, and allowed me to get Venture capital corporations involved if I chose.

 

[Frigga]

Hi OceanBlueEyes,

1) My wife picked up on the same thing, that "both are vicious killers" seems to imply that both were in the house.

2) I do not know if MS knows JR. No knowledge at all.

3) You'll find this to be interesting: One of the properties that you sleuths found out that MS owned in Fenton, MO, was a house that MS rented to WW at one time, and when MS found out that WW was dealing or making (I really do not remember which) meth out of his (MS) house, he told WW "You gotta go, and now."

WW respected MS wishes, and moved.

If I recall, MS told me "Skinner, in drug deals, they confiscate the house, regardless of the owner not being in the house, and I'm not taking any chances. I need the rent money to make the mortgage on that house."

4) Money access to her computers, yeah, maybe. Probably not. But maybe.

5 and on > The rest of your questions I have nothing to say or add to. I do not know what the FBI is up to, or what their intentions are, etc. Nor about a walkthrough in the house with Lee County police.

Quotes bolded by me.

To be honest, I don't see this as noble or good. It seems to me by your statement that MS was worried about his own possession (house) and financial interest (mortgage) not that his long time friend was selling (or worse) a very harmful illegal drug.

If it is my house and my friend I am turning him in- to hopefully save him and get him help, to prevent others obtaining the drugs (I'm not just sending him and his illegal operation elsewhere).

Protecting my house and my investment would be secondary and the last thing on my mind- but that's just me.

I certainly would be ending the 'friendship' were this my 'friend'.

Please help me understand this friendship, I am having a very difficult time.