Re: Facebook Account

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:36:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 22:28:57 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>

On Wed Aug 21 14:53:57 2024 Jeff Liebermann  wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:35:17 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 

I was one of the first to program AI into products...

 
"Was Thomas Kunich one of the early adopters of artificial
intelligence?"
<https://search.brave.com/search?q=Was+Thomas+Kunich+one+of+the+early+adopters+of+artificial+intelligence%3F>
"There is no evidence to suggest that Thomas Kunich was an early
adopter of artificial intelligence."
 
Tom, the AI has spoken and you are not among the patriarchs.

>

Remember when you looked for patents in my name?

>
Yes, I do remember.  You never specified which company, patented your
unspecified ideas that they used in what unspecified products. Perhaps
I'm also being too vague.  Which patent numbers have your name
attached?
>
(Aug 31, 2023)
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/YAgynT7Dw2I/m/R6lf39FEAgAJ>
"The companies I worked for registered and patented their products -
my inventions under their names."
>

Actually I believe that the system works this way. The patent is made
in the name of who owns it. If the inventor works for a company then
obviously the company owns his output and thus the patent. But in all
the cases that I've seen the individual(s) who actually did the work
is given credit.
see https://patents.justia.com/assignee/sturm-ruger-company-inc

Magazine for firearm
Patent number: 10921075
 Type: Grant
Filed: July 9, 2019
Date of Patent: February 16, 2021
Assignee: STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC.
Inventors: Nathan Brown, Matthew S. Willson, Dean M. Cousino, Maksim
Sakalouski

or

UNIVERSAL MAGAZINE LATCH MECHANISM FOR FIREARM
Publication number: 20140325886
 Type: Application
Filed: May 5, 2014
Publication date: November 6, 2014
Applicant: Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.
Inventor: Jonathan Philip MATHER

So, it seems likely that any invention made by Tom would include his
name. If he did the work on his own time then logically the assignee
would be his name and of done on "company time" the company's.

Since you were unwilling or uninterested in producing some patents
with your name attached, I had to resort to proving that there was no
patent.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but it works well
enough to demonstrate that you don't have any patented inventions.
>

And in your case that's saying a whole lot.

>
Thanks.  I do tend to say "a whole lot", which is better than you
saying little or nothing of value.

--
Cheers,

John B.