Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Conversational Programming

> From: Tim Barnard <tbarnard@...>
> I understand each company that paid Hurco wrote a check for at least
> $400,000 each. Then Haas goes and fights Hurco and wins ! They only paid
> lawyer and court cost. About 1/3rd the cost.

Thank goodness! I thought I'd never be able to sleep again...

From:
http://www.cph.com/New/content.html

"Major Patent Case Won

We recently won an important patent infringement case in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On October 2, 1998, the
Court entered a summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of our client,
Haas Automation, Inc., a leading manufacturer of CNC (computer numerically
controlled) machine tools. Ted Pianko and Art Hasan led the team of lawyers,
paralegals, and support staff that worked on securing this significant
victory for Haas.

The plaintiff in the case was IMS Technology, Inc., a Virginia "shell"
corporation created by its parent, machine tool manufacturer Hurco Companies,
Inc. Hurco formed IMS in Virginia in order to enforce one of its patents
against Haas and other CNC machine tool manufacturers, and to take advantage
of the fast-paced "rocket docket" of the Eastern District of Virginia federal
court.

The patent asserted against Haas has claims to an apparatus and method of
programming a CNC machine tool in a question-and-answer format, as well as an
apparatus for manually adjusting the speed at which a CNC machine tool
operates, known as a "feed rate override." A host of U.S. and foreign machine
tool makers had previously taken licenses to settle actual or threatened
litigation under the patent, paying in excess of $33 million to the
plaintiff. Haas was the only company in the machine tool industry to fight
rather than settle, despite facing a damage claim exceeding $270 million.

To even the odds in the litigation, Haas took the offensive and filed several
summary judgment motions against IMS, arguing that the patent was invalid,
unenforceable, and not infringed, and that the plaintiff's nine year delay in
filing suit should bar it from any recovery. On the eve of trial, the court
considered the noninfringement arguments and ruled in Haas's favor. Haas's
belief that complex technology could be successfully explained to a lay judge
or jury and its courageous determination to resist the improper assertions of
infringement despite the widespread capitulation of others was rewarded with
a hard-fought but satisfying win."

Also see:
http://www.computerpatent.com/resume.html

"Centroid v. Hurco, et. al.; IMS v. Centroid, et. al.

This case, with a 53 page Complaint, was one of the few RICO-patent-unfair
competition cases that have been filed. Favorable settlement for our client
occurred soon after filing the Complaint."

Finally:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315374/0000315374-00-000004.txt

"Substantially all of our machine systems and computer control systems
are
manufactured to our specifications by contract manufacturing companies in
Taiwan
and Europe."

Matt