On 8 Jan 2006 02:32:56 -0800, wrote:

An alternative would be strain gages in the spindle
reporting loads.

Those would be total loads, not per-unit of cutting edge.
--
Cliff

On 8 Jan 2006 07:34:07 -0800, "Bill" wrote:

The reality is a metal removal patent is about as usefull as a
ditch digging patent. I can't wait to see what happens when Delcam
tries to enforce the patent.

It seems to be a software matter ... I doubt that
banquercadcam has the nerve to try to steal it.
http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/index.html
(3358 hits thus far)
Customer comments:
http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/beaver.html
--
Cliff

On 8 Jan 2006 07:34:07 -0800, "Bill" wrote:

Nothing revolutionary about "raceline" machining.

A bit hard to compute ... ?
--
Cliff

On 8 Jan 2006 22:09:15 -0800, "Guy Fawkes"
wrote:

This **** happens every day, now it's come to the machine shop thanks
to the C in CNC and closed source proprietary software.

Pay for legal software.
--
Cliff

wrote in message
oups.com...
Apparently, these days you can patent anything your assigned examiner
has never bought from The Sharper Image! I'm serious, it's just awful.
They hand patents out like candy now and let the lawyers figure it out
in court.

Doug

The reason why every one and their brother seems to have a patent on
something has to do with some recent changes in the patent law. Don't fool
yourself that all these are real patents because most of them are called
"provisional" patents. You can get a provisional patent on anything. All
it does is protects your claim by date, and a few other details like you can
try to market it without "patent pending". A provisional patent is not a
patent pending because you are only protected for 1 year, then you have to
go through the standard patent process. That's where the money pit starts.
The real cost of getting a patent is the search for "prior art" and the odds
are if it is anywhere near ( and what isn't?) something then the examiner
denies it ... then you go back with your lawyer and try to tell him why it's
different ..and on and on.
I have 5 patents and know a little about what you can patent and what you
can't. You can't patent something that is an "obvious" use of something
already patented. The idea must be unique, not a simple deviation of a
standard practice.

98% of all patents never make a dime for the inventor

Black Dragon wrote:
Guy Fawkes wrote:

as far as black sausage

By "black sausage" you're referring to me, and I happen to be a very
staunch Open Source Software advocate despite what you appear to think.
Hell, I'm even posting from a computer running an Open Source Operating
System (FreeBSD) with an Open Source newsreader (slrn). You're posting
with Microsoft Windows. Heh. You ought to try practicing what you preach
someday yourself, hypocrite.


hey, I'm a very staunch heterosexual sex advocate, but I have been
known to enter drinking establishments and drink beer with men.

what I'm _actually_ posting with is a web browser and google groups,
and web browsers will report themselves as being anything you like.

of course a true open source advocate would know that.



The difference between you and I (besides you being a hypocrite)

hypocricy is one thing that those who know me have never accused me of

on the
subject is that I don't believe the FUD, lies and misinformation emanating
from the GNU Linux camp, such as the ones you're regurgitating about
patents and proprietary software in this thread.

I'm not a big fan of lies and misinformation either, but the classic
example of FUD is someone who labels someone else's differing opinion
as FUD...

c'mon down black sausage

When I'm interested in
that kind of nonsense. which isn't very often these days, I read
comp.os.linux.advocacy which is overflowing with people who think like
you, so why not leave us (tinu) alone and join them? At least there you'd
probably get some pats on the back for your long winded whinging.

ohh you ancient mariner of the open source, you sure do walk like a
duck, sound like a duck, and look like a duck, eg you don't act like
open source, you act like closed source
I've-got-my-fingers-in-my-ears-and-I'm-not-liteeennnnniiiiiinnnnnnnnnng...

"invntrr" wrote in message
news:_dswf.8217$Lh1.1666@trnddc01...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Apparently, these days you can patent anything your assigned examiner
has never bought from The Sharper Image! I'm serious, it's just awful.
They hand patents out like candy now and let the lawyers figure it out
in court.

Doug

The reason why every one and their brother seems to have a patent on
something has to do with some recent changes in the patent law. Don't fool
yourself that all these are real patents because most of them are called
"provisional" patents. You can get a provisional patent on anything. All
it does is protects your claim by date, and a few other details like you
can try to market it without "patent pending". A provisional patent is
not a patent pending because you are only protected for 1 year, then you
have to go through the standard patent process. That's where the money
pit starts. The real cost of getting a patent is the search for "prior
art" and the odds are if it is anywhere near ( and what isn't?) something
then the examiner denies it ... then you go back with your lawyer and try
to tell him why it's different ..and on and on.
I have 5 patents and know a little about what you can patent and what you
can't. You can't patent something that is an "obvious" use of something
already patented. The idea must be unique, not a simple deviation of a
standard practice.

98% of all patents never make a dime for the inventor
I have 4 patents. The best of them was initially turned down by the PTO.
Which was good, because they didn't understand it, thus making it
"non-obvious" We had to send photos to finally get them to understand it.
I used to show it actually working at trade shows. Some people would stand
there for half an hour watching it. Some of them would say "Okay I see it
works, now tell me how the hell it works!" At one point I had 3 companies
licensed to make it. Not big royalties, but they came to us because they
couldn't find a good work around. One patent I got royalties on for about
12 years. I think I got about $100K in total. The other two haven't made
me a dime, and one I lost because the renewal came at time when I was
unemployed and couldn't afford to pay it. Hence I lost my whole investment
of about $6K.

I could be wrong about this, but I think the provisional patent is sucker
bait for the little guys. You apply for the provisional and then find out
you don't have the bucks to apply for a real patent. The PTO then makes
your provisional patent public, so essentially you have given away your idea
without a fight. Good for big companies trolling for ideas they can use,
free.

Gary H. Lucas

John R. Carroll wrote:
Guy Fawkes wrote:

which leads to the question, do I buy another 3 CNC machines, or fight
this and spend the money on lawyers.

It's the old National Cash Register "sue everyone else out of
business" ploy all over again.

Which leaves you with two choices.

1/ go open source

2/ offshore to somewhere that sticks two fingers up at the (US) patent
office


I think the real problem here is one for open source community.
Prior works won't be affected but if something within this filing were
suddenly in the wild as open source, prior works wouldn't apply.
They have stuck a bone in your open source throat Guy. You will have to come
up with a better response than public sniveling.

Wrong. There's no monetary returns to gain hassling Open Source project
leaders.

The entire value of owning these patents lies in 1. "IP Boutiques"
collecting patents they then use to extort large corps. out of cash, and
2. Large Corps. collecting big portfolios they then use to bash any
competition too small or too stupid to do the same.

I'm sure a strategy will evolve to deal with the issue among the open source
community and if the collective mind is as sharp as you are wont to
indicate, they will. This is an issue that will need addressing across many
markets so I am sure it will be dealt with seriously and thoughtfully.

Now I'm going to contradict myself.

Microsoft, and other large slow giants, that have become reliant upon
their dominance of a market to perpetuate a cash flow, see threats to
that business model and will wage attacks against Open Standards and
Free Software if they perceive it as such.

That wasn't what came first to mind though. What occurred to me was that
Delcam was preparing for a public equity offering. Patents can add a lot of
value in that scenario and it makes more sense. The time to head off
minority shareholder litigation is before those actions can be filed. Maybe
we'll see them on the pink sheets or AIM shortly.

Oh yeah, the investor market. The patents are contestable if you have a
lot of money, but it's always easier (for large companies with
resources) to bend over and give, rather than fight. So the investor
perceives value, and supports it.

er
--
email not valid