laywer logic?

[your_man_in_Hamburg]

Hm,
it suddenly struck me that if the Synchronar was the first digital electronic watch, then how come
* Roger did not market it as such? All the ads I have only say it is the first truly automatic or solar powered watch.
* Ragen/Riehl Time/whatever never sued Pulsar about their false claims?

Yours

Johannes

[Synchroserious]

Joannes were trying to move on to better conversations,like how can I help you repair the watch you broke and just received back?

As for why his adds make no Worlds first digital claims is simple.He knew there was so many things unique to the Synchronar that a consummer would have a hard time accepting that additional claim.
Also it is true that annother watch made it to market a few short months prior and that is the claim for that watch.Btw Time computer(the old one) stated "One of World,s First " right on the Gift box.The inventing and technical know how belong to engineers that seldom are given credit.

[dot matrix]

Hm,
it suddenly struck me that if the Synchronar was the first digital electronic watch, then how come
* Roger did not market it as such? All the ads I have only say it is the first truly automatic or solar powered watch.
* Ragen/Riehl Time/whatever never sued Pulsar about their false claims?

You raise some good questions. I doubt we can ever know the answers for certain, but can only speculate.

You say that Pulsar made "false claims" - but did Pulsar ever actually claim to be the first digital watch, or only "one of" the first digital watches? If neither side made the claim of being the first, perhaps they were each avoiding the issue because they knew how muddy it was.

Or perhaps neither Roger nor Pulsar sued the other party because neither considered the issue of "who was first" to be that important. At the time, they were looking to the future, not to the past.

Another possibility is that Roger didn't claim to be the first because, whether he was or not, he would still have faced a lawsuit from Pulsar. And whether one is in the right or in the wrong, it's still an expensive battle against a big company with a large legal department and probably just not worth the hassle.

As far as Riehl suing Pulsar, probably the same thing - not worth the hassle and expense going up against a big company and perhaps he wanted to spend his time and money on getting his watch gig going instead.

Or most likely a combination of the two reasons: It made no sense to waste time and money on a big legal battle that had no clear answer either way. Maybe each side was afraid of forcing a definitive answer, because then they could each have risked losing what claim they had to the other side. ie, as things stood, both Synchronar and Pulsar could claim to be "one of the first," but if they went to court, they each risked losing that claim in a 50/50 flip of the coin.

[Seer Taak]

Here's an idea. What if Pulsar and Synchronar, didn't get involved in legal battles for all of the above, and because of their mutual desire to promote, the new digital watch concept, and establish it as more than just a gimmick in the eyes of manufacturers and consumers?

If Pulsar and Synchronar had started legal battles, would the myriad of other watch/electronics companies have been so keen to make their own LED's, and would consumers be so keen to a buy a product with a possibly uncertain future?

As it turned out, according to a jeweler I know, in the 70's, there really was a period when much of the industry thought digital was THE future of watches, because almost every watch company was making them!

[bruce wegmann]

As far as Pulsar making a claim of priority, their banner advertising slogan was "The first completely new way to tell time in 500 years". That sounds pretty definitive to me [and it was an understatement, at that; it was more like 800 years]. No doubt that Time Computer felt they had a valid claim to the No.1 position...

[The Time Computer]

As for why his adds make no Worlds first digital claims is simple. He knew there was so many things unique to the Synchronar that a consummer would have a hard time accepting that additional claim.

Time computer stated "One of World's First " right on the Gift box.

Absurd! ???.Never?.no way did you ever see this printed anywhere on anything to do with the Pulsar project? Where did that come from, show me one example! The Pulsar was ALWAYS advertised as ?The First Digital Watch?! Every advertisement stated this, every historical document also says this, every museum says this, every technical article says this. Why??because they were the first and had ?LEGAL? rights to say so, they were NEVER challenged by ANYONE. Stop talking, start proving?.I proved everything I said, you have proved nothing.

The Synchronar has absolutely no rights to the ?First? claim?..show me one document that would stand up in a court of law to support the claim. If they ever made that claim (not 30 years latter) they would have been sued. Show me something dated to the 70s that Synchronar made this claim! All I have seen on this forum are mentions of this and that with dates that far exceed the Pulsar project? I have not seen anything yet that comes close to proving anything in reference to the Synchronar? Show me something, please!

Just look at the Synchronar patent posted on this forum http://dwf.nu/viewtopic.php?t=41 , it clearly proves the facts on it?s own. Download it, read it, you will see without going any further than the front page that the dates and previous inventions ?Referenced? show the Synchronar was far from being the first. You will also see the US Patent Office specifically uses the ?Timely Topics? http://www.oldpulsars.com/pics/ad3.gif which announces the ?First Digital Watch? as a ?Reference?. It?s easy to wait after 30 some years to make a claim but why not then? There are and were many avenues that could and would have reversed the records if evidence was submitted and proved. The truth is there isn?t any, not then, not now! Show me, I am asking yet again for evidence, anything but hearsay, something on paper, something on video, something that can?t be disputed!

It?s a joke to think Synchronar could challenge the Pulsar project or any other company in respect to infringement. They had absolutely no legal leg to stand on, their own documentation puts them both legally and historically long after the Hamilton, and even some others! It would be ridiculous to even compare the Synchronar to the Pulsar in any scale, no watch could be compared to the size of the Pulsar project and the impact it had on the world!

Somewhere in this forum I mentioned reference to patent infringements and royalties paid to Time Computer, Inc. I said ? ALL? were paying but I should have said ?Most?. Not all companies were considered a threat, only the companies that Time Computer thought were worthy of pursuing infringement were sued and forced to pay royalties. I asked Mr. Bergey awhile back about this, here is what he said

"Synchronar was never a factor in licensing or patents issued by US Patent Office. They never had sufficient sales of their product to pursue them for patent infringement.?

[dot matrix]

As far as Pulsar making a claim of priority, their banner advertising slogan was "The first completely new way to tell time in 500 years". That sounds pretty definitive to me ...

Possibly. But if I decided today to manufacture a digital watch and advertise it as "the first new way of telling time that doesn't involves hands going in a circle," I am technically correct - my hypothetical watch would be using that first new method, but nowhere am I stating that I am the first manufacturer of such a watch. In fact, I'm not, since other people have been making them for over 30 years. I believe this is how lawyers (and legal departments) think.

You will also see the US Patent Office specifically uses the ?Timely Topics? http://www.oldpulsars.com/pics/ad3.gif which announces the ?First Digital Watch? as a ?Reference?.

It's not clear to me - is this a publication of Pulsar, or of the Patent Office? If of the latter, I'd still like to see an actual Pulsar ad where they claim to be the "first digital watch."

[The Time Computer]

In addition to the primary ?Slogan? almost every advertisement described the Pulsar as:

"The World?s First Solid State Timepiece?

?The World?s First solid-state Time Computer for your Wrist? is what was printed in the first paragraph of the May 6th, 1970 special edition Timely Topics. The ?Timely Topics? was an inner company news letter at Hamilton Watch Co.

Hamilton?s publication for it?s Retailers, simply called ?Hamilton Times? described the Pulsar in it?s June, 1970 issue as ?The Worlds first totally electronic wrist timepiece?!

At the time of the Pulsar release, the term ?Digital? wasn?t really watch language. Solid State was the term most used for many new electronic devices. It was sometime after that the word ?Digital? became recognized. I think anyone who viewed any Pulsar advertisements new it was a ?LED Digital? watch by the picture.

As for the reason the Timely Topic was included in the ?References? of the Synchronar Patent was because it was "Dated" public evidence of the Pulsar?s existence prior to the Synchronar. In the patent language this is known as ?Prior Art?.

[dot matrix]

So the question now becomes - did either watch publicly claim to be the "first solid-state timepiece"? I would say that internal publications for employees and retailers don't count - I'm asking about public claims, intended for and made to the general public.

You state that

almost every advertisement described the Pulsar as:

"The World?s First Solid State Timepiece"

but the only ads I've been able to track down give the line that bruce quoted:
http://www.oldpulsars.com/pics/ad1.gif
http://www.oldpulsars.com/pics/ad2.gif
which, as I've pointed out, is legally dubious enough not to be a claim.

Do you have or have a link to a copy of an advertisement, intended for the public, that states "The World?s First Solid State Timepiece"? Everyone is stating that Pulsar made such a claim, but I'd like to see it for myself.

[The Time Computer]

Well, you bring something to my attention that says I have misspoken!

I looked at many of my Pulsar brochures and advertising documents and I don?t see any that actually say ?timepiece?. The term was used in the Hamilton Times and countless articles by media and other publications but not in the Time Computer marketing campaign.

As I understand what your trying to say here, I personally don?t agree that there is any ?hidden message? in any of the marketing terminology. Hamilton marketed their product as a ?Time Computer?, not a wristwatch or timepiece. I think most that look back at the Pulsar project will agree the marketing program was substantial to the success of the watch. I think most would see the creative terminology of ?Time Computer for your wrist? to mean ?timepiece or wristwatch?. What else could it mean?

Again, looking back, it was a huge achievement to make anything ?Solid State? back then. The biggest achievement was that the watch had no moving part, the display method was important but could have very well been LCD and the Pulsar would have been historically the same. The slogan ?New method of telling time? was used to cover the LED accomplishment that was evident in photos that always accompanied any advertisements. The term ?Computer? was also an icon for electronic innovation. I think the use of these terms in their campaign was brilliant! I also can?t imagine the terminology used not to be interpreted as meaning the Pulsar was anything other than a watch?

All the federal courts in every case involving patent infringement sided with Hamilton (by then under the Time Computer, Inc. name). In every case Time Computer was granted a settlement and the company sued was ordered to pay royalties for all future production. As we are under the ?Legal Side? subject I think any attorney for those big firms like Hughes, Texas Instrument, and Sanyo (to mention a few) who were sued would have used the fact that Hamilton didn?t have the rights if they could have. It should be noted that none of the Hamilton patents which certainly made claim to ?The First Digital LED Timepiece? were ever challenged.

[LiquidLed]

All the federal courts in every case involving patent infringement sided with Hamilton (by then under the Time Computer, Inc. name). In every case Time Computer was granted a settlement and the company sued was ordered to pay royalties for all future production.

Wow - didnt realise there where court actions in the past... do you know what the royalities paid for/against? design infringement maybe

[The Time Computer]

As one could imagine, there were many companies around the globe that tried to manufacture LED Digital watches without having to pay royalties. Time Computer was vigilant in filing against any company who threatened their sales potential. Hughes put up the longest fight as they were a powerful force and Howard (Hughes) had the big money to fund the fight. Eventually they reached an out-of court agreement and like all such litigation, the terms and monies are never fully disclosed.

In addition to the previously mentioned companies, others who were forced to pay from these ?Royalty Hearings? either through judgment or out-of-court settlements were Hudson Harris, Fairchild, Uranus, Frontier, Litronix and Ricoh of Japan.

It should be noted that there were many companies who didn?t go against the grain like Omega, Bulova and many others! They simply made arraignments prior to manufacturing.

Please take note that my list in both categories is incomplete, obviously it?s hard to research 35 year old records, only the companies mentioned do I have documentation.

This posting is protected under the US Copyright laws and shall not be reprinted without the permission of Dennis L. Klein.

[LiquidLed]

That's really interesting, that a company would fight for exclusivity for the way we tell the time! (Hope I?m understanding ok here)

I do understand why a company would want to protect its market, but it never crossed my mind it would include the way we tell the time!

NOW thinking back it would have been so revolutionary at the time that I can now see why protection of the led market was so vital.

Understanding that this is a difficult subject as it was over 30 years ago, but noticed that Synchronar or it?s manufacture is not in your [The Time Computer] list of companies to pay royalties or get a licence, maybe they came to some gentlemen?s agreement, maybe due to it being such a 'grey' area back then (late '60s, early 70's) as we are all finding it today?

Maybe the debate regarding Pulsar/Synchronar at being the first at something is like flogging a dead horse.

I have written the above regarding the way we tell the time i.e. led's regardless of its location on the watch (drivers view)

Cheers
G

[The Time Computer]

Humm?..I guess I should consider what time of day it is in other parts of the world and take in consideration some have had their fill of alcohol for the day before we here in the US have had lunch!

[LiquidLed]

Humm?..I guess I should consider what time of day it is in other parts of the world and take in consideration some have had their fill of alcohol for the day before we here in the US have had lunch!

You make this forum so difficult sometimes! :?

A simple none compulsary open question @ 07:52am - Do you know(or anybody else) if Synchonar was involved in any litigation/out of court settlement over copywrite/royalty infrigement regarding LED watches brought on by Hughes?

Answer:

A. Yes
B. No
C. Don't know
D. Rather not say
E. Go to this thread (please paste thread with reply)

If B. then does this mean it was too close to call? (omitted flogging dead horses)


Much appreciated
G

FYI don't drink - the liver is fine

[your_man_in_Hamburg]

Joannes were trying to move on to better conversations,like how can I help you repair the watch you broke and just received back?

If I want to switch topic, I just do it. I don't have to try. As for my watch that you finally
returned to me, it stopped working without any provocation from my side.

This is, of course, quite a different matter than my speculations on the lack of legal battles
between Pulsar and Synchronar, and I can't understand why you bring it up.

Johannes

[retroleds]

I'm thinking NEITHER PULSAR or SYNCHRONAR could pursue a patent on the actual watch function, because as I pointed out, MR. Barbella had ALREADY fully exploited the novelty of an all electronic watch circuit AND digital display almost 6 years earlier - Mr.Barbella even explained that for a device like this, you would necessarily need a display that changed in the precise increaments the device was calibrated to "tick" at,unlike an analoge, where you get the "almost X time". Hamilton/Pulsar (with engineering employees Bergey, Walton and others) and Synchronar/Riehl(with inventor Roger Riehl) were able to exploit the minituarization possible thru RCA's chips and other folks LED's. BFD - Big F'n Deal.

:( I'd dropped out of this discussion because it was starting to seem like a vanity party - people trying to get their kicks by proving or creating a connection to what they perceive as greatness. Come'on guys, it was and is a freak'n consumer product....businessmen were throwing big dollars at the wave of new solid-state devices. "First to the consumer's wrist" doesn't prove any "greatness", in the same way that someone going to a big-name university doesn't prove you have brains - as a current country-western song states," you guessed it, it'll just take money". 8)

Finally, the U.S. PAtenet office, like Patent Offices in other countries, has been known to have problems with: making mistakes; failing to find/mention relevent "Prior Art";and, it's employees taking bribes to stymie small inventors while helping large corporate interests. Probably nobody wanted to press the patent issue because, as it is often said," the best patent searches are done when there is patent litigation going on."

[The Time Computer]

"You make this forum so difficult sometimes! :?"

Even considering your ?attitude? and comments in the past, I respectfully answered a question YOU asked of me. I believe it?s evident that I answered your question factually and professionally without any provocation. In return, you post some sarcastic childish comments? Instead of taking this chance to mend your hostilities towards me you elected to continue with the same old declamatory comments?

[dot matrix]

In return, you post some sarcastic childish comments? Instead of taking this chance to mend your hostilities towards me you elected to continue with the same old declamatory comments?

Dennis, I think you're a bit out of line here.

Well, you bring something to my attention that says I have misspoken!

I looked at many of my Pulsar brochures and advertising documents and I don?t see any that actually say ?timepiece?. The term was used in the Hamilton Times and countless articles by media and other publications but not in the Time Computer marketing campaign.

As I understand what your trying to say here, I personally don?t agree that there is any ?hidden message? in any of the marketing terminology. Hamilton marketed their product as a ?Time Computer?, not a wristwatch or timepiece.

And that is my point.

Saying "the world's first solid-state timepiece" is not the same as saying "the world's first solid-state Time Computer." "Time Computer" is a brand name.

The first statement is debatable - but the second is a fact - the watch was the first solid-state device manufactured by Time Computer, Inc.; and the first device sold under the name "Time Computer."

So saying that the Time Computer was the world's first solid-state Time Computer is just as true as saying that the Synchronar was the world's first solid-state Synchronar. ie, both statements are redundant, both are correct, and they do not conflict with each other.

I stand by my position that as far as marketing was concerned, Hamilton was definitely wording things to creat the impression that they were claiming to be the first, but they never actually stated it directly.

[LiquidLed]

"You make this forum so difficult sometimes! :?"

Even considering your ?attitude? and comments in the past, I respectfully answered a question YOU asked of me. I believe it?s evident that I answered your question factually and professionally without any provocation. In return, you post some sarcastic childish comments? Instead of taking this chance to mend your hostilities towards me you elected to continue with the same old declamatory comments?

Im sorry 'The Time Computer' but you have obviously missed all I had to say in the past - still cannot see your site, and instead of banging on at me why not ask "What browser are you using", "I use Firefox, is that a problem" would be my reply.

You will also notice when you look back you will notice I havn't commented is that OK, and it was you who gave a pre-emptive strike - but I chose to ignore.

I am thank full of your answers but you suddenly you go off on one If I want more information or a point clarifying I didn't expect ... quote: "you post some sarcastic childish comments?"

Are you confusing me with someone else, maybe? Yes our time zones are different but what is funny in that... but i was not expecting a stupid remark back to what I thought was another question/comment, You could have said something like "Your are missing the point" or "I see you have some catching up to do, let me expand" something in which a solid interation can be based on and be shared by all.

you must remember I have not lived the 'Pulsar' as long as you have, I DON'T KNOW the full story of LED and I thought forums like this fine DWF one here is a base for information from people like your good self to people like me.

bye

[The Time Computer]

LiguidLed

In the barrage of bashing my new watch you posted this http://dwf.nu/viewtopic.php?p=8223&highlight=#8223

By quoting a previous post and then agreeing that ?I spent more time on the website than on the watch?, then admit you haven?t even ?seen the watch yet? clearly qualified you as hostile, don?t you see my point? Why would one think after that comment I should contact you to ask what type of browser your using? I got many emails requesting optional ways to see the watch by many others that couldn?t see it, I was glad to do what I could. I even revised the site, did you check back? Also Phil posted pictures (without my permission I might add) on this forum that were there for weeks, did you not see them?

You next asked me to reply to your question, I did, yes? Did I answer the question in subject?

Your reply mentioned nothing about appreciation, at least not that I could see. Your honestly saying now that nothing in that post was sarcastic ??..that I should have taken it as friendly fire?

I believe your initial post, mentioned above drew first blood! My reply to that was withdrawn?at my request! I replied to your question (in good faith) under this subject even after your previous negative comment towards me ........I was stunned at your reply! Also, your previous comment along with most of the others are still out there with no defensive reply!

As always, show me were I am wrong and I will apologize!

[LiquidLed]

The Time Computer, looked at your link against your last response

"By quoting a previous post and then agreeing that ?I spent more time on the website than on the watch?, then admit you haven?t even ?seen the watch yet? clearly qualified you as hostile"

I hold my hands up, I read wrongly I thought it was referring to the same problem I am having, so apologies for that. I don't know why you should think I?m 'hostile', did it not cross your mind that I had read it wrong with what I wrote, what I wrote does not make sense.

FYI - I couldn't blow a skin of a rice pudding!

I have been back to see the web site (at you request) there is only one broken link now, the large area on the left is showing broken.

I did see the pics but chose not to participate.

Regarding the other stuff - well, I think we just come from different parts of the world where we are only joined by the www and a common language, but that?s it, we are both going to have to get used to it. Unfortunately I cannot apologise for that.

I will use my best endeavours not to join active DWF threads where you are contributing ? I feel this is the best I can do for you.

Kind regards
Geoff