Thursday, December 14, 2006

More on the purported Cosby link to Jackson's anger

One wonders if Chicago news organizations have been barking up the wrong tree in suggesting the Cosby patent was the origin of Jackson's anger. NBC5 wrote on Dec. 12:

Joe Jackson wrote: "I feel with no uncertainty that he [McKenna] sold or stole my project because after one year I walk(ed) into his office … a (patent) was issued to someone else."

IPBiz notes that the Cosby patent, US 6,240,576; application 09/067,976 filed April 29, 1998, had issued BEFORE Jackson saw McKenna in 2002. Thus, the Cosby patent doesn't seem to fit the "after one year" part of Jackson's writing.

The next sentence in the NBC5 report is --> Leslie Cosby is the patent holder for a similar device. She received the patent through work with another attorney in the same firm.

IPBiz notes that Michael R. McKenna rented space from the law firm Wood, Phillips, Katz, Clark & Mortimer. McKenna was not otherwise affiliated with Wood, Phillips, and would not likely be discussing confidential matters with Wood, Phillips attorneys. Cosby used Wood, Phillips for her patent, but because McKenna is NOT an attorney with Wood, Phillips, one observes NBC5's reporting of "another attorney in the same firm" is questionable.

The NBC5 report then states:

C.L. Sparks, Jackson's reverend, said that fact aroused Jackson's suspicion.

"He found out who owned the patent -- that didn't drive any trucks, had no relationship with trucks -- and come to find out that this person had an involvement with his lawyer," Sparks said. "It really didn't sit well with Joe that he had invested all of his money in a dream."

Separately, NBC5 reported:

There was one person at the wake who felt eternally grateful to McKenna.

McKenna helped Chicago area resident Sharon Johnson develop a patent and filed it for her when her mother was ill and dying -- something for which Johnson is very thankful.

As a result of McKenna's quick work, Johnson said she shared a nice moment with her mother.

"I was able to show my mom before she died in '05," said Johnson. "This is the type of man he was."

In a Dec. 11 report (which was updated Dec. 12), NBC5 (WMAQ) wrote the following:

Jackson's family and friends have said he felt his portable-toilet-for-trucks invention had been ripped off.

McKenna's family denies that. They say Jackson paid patent attorney McKenna a standard $825 fee to conduct a patent search. The search showed a patent already existed for his device.

NBC5's Charlie Wojciechowski reported, in fact, that the patent is held by a Chicago woman who is represented by the same law firm Jackson had turned to.

Jackson's family has said that the gunman sought revenge against the lawyer he believed pilfered his idea for a portable toilet.

In the above, one notes that it is NBC5's Charlie Wojciechowski (and not the McKenna family) who is saying that the patent is held by a Chicago woman (presumably Leslie Cosby). Aside from the fact that Cosby's disclosure does not anticipate what Jackson was trying to do, there is a basic logic problem. If McKenna told Jackson about the Cosby patent in 2002 in the patentability opinion that was sent to Jackson in March 2002, why would Jackson be getting upset about the patent a year later, as just having issued? If Jackson was totally deranged, how could he forget that McKenna told him about it (assuming the Cosby patent is mentioned in the opinion, which IPBiz has not heard one way or another) BUT still be able to make the connection between solo practitioner McKenna and Wood, Phillips? Even assuming Jackson thought McKenna and Wood, Phillips were the same (as NBC5 did), was Jackson so deranged that he murdered McKenna for a patent that already existed when he first saw McKenna in February 2002?

It would be helpful for news organizations in Chicago to provide two parts of the puzzle:

#1. Which patents did McKenna identify in his opinion of March 2002 as foreclosing Jackson's ability to get a patent? (ie, who did McKenna say had done it before?)

#2. What specific document set off Jackson? (ie, why did he think McKenna cheated or deceived him? One expects the answer to this is within the disciplinary complaint Jackson lodged against McKenna.)

IPBiz notes that, to date, no one has provided any evidence that McKenna cheated Jackson. In fact, the action of the disciplinary board suggests that McKenna didn't cheat Jackson. McKenna provided Jackson with a patentability opinion in a timely manner. Nevertheless, no one has provided concrete evidence of what truly was bothering Jackson. No one has provided a plausible explanation for why Jackson thought McKenna cheated Jackson. There is no reason for uncertainty here. The art mentioned by McKenna in his opinion AND Jackson's complaint are all documented in writing. Among others, patent attorneys might want to know what really happened here so they can take affirmative steps to see that this does not happen again.


Post a Comment

<< Home