In article
,
keith wrote:

On Aug 12, 8:23*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*keith wrote:
You *obviously* don't understand patents. *He has this one locked up
tight. *It has nothing to do with "technology", rather "function". *A
better brake wouldn't get around the patent, nor would a better
detection device. *It has nothing to do with "attitude". *Sorry, but
that's the way it is.

Sorry, but *you* are clearly the one who doesn't understand patents.

I worked for a large multinational for *many* years on a very active
patent review board (we reviewed around 200 patents a year). How many
patents do you hold?

You absolutely, positively cannot patent a "concept."

Absolutely false. The has the patent on a sensor connected to a saw
blade detecting a human limb activating a blade brake. *ANY* sensor
that detects human contact with the blade and activates *ANY* sort of
blade brake falls under this patent. That's a pretty damned broad
concept. Have you even read the subject patent?

And its breadth is exactly what makes it illegitimate. You can write any
kind of b.s. verbiage into a patent. But it won't hold up in court. I
repeat: a patent is NOT legally binding until it has been *successfully*
defended in court.

Patent Paradox 101:

If a product's market *profit* potential is less than $10,000,000, a
patent is a waste of time and money, because you won't have the money to
defend it. If it's more than $10,000,000, others can't afford *not* to
steal it. The photocopier is the quintessential example of that. You
think Xerox lacked legal funds and expertise?

Patents are like fences, they keep honest people out. For all your
background, you don't appear to have learned some very basic
fundamentals.

But g'head, I'll give you the last word.