On page R2 of the 17 October 2011 issue of The Wall Street Journal, in
the midst of WSJ's Innovators' Awards, a purely mechanical innovation
was recognized, the ZeroG arm from Equipois
http://equipoisinc.com/products/.

What it does is to mechanically cancel the weight of a tool, so the
worker can use a very heavy tool as if it were weightless.

The original invention was to stabilize the big video cameras used by TV
stations and the like.

For technical details, see US Patent 7,618,016, available from
www.pat2pdf.org.

There is a series of related inventions by the same person, Garrett W.
Brown, but 7,618,016 explains the problems with each of these prior
approaches.

This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?

On 2011-10-18, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On page R2 of the 17 October 2011 issue of The Wall Street Journal, in
the midst of WSJ's Innovators' Awards, a purely mechanical innovation
was recognized, the ZeroG arm from Equipois
http://equipoisinc.com/products/.

What it does is to mechanically cancel the weight of a tool, so the
worker can use a very heavy tool as if it were weightless.

The original invention was to stabilize the big video cameras used by TV
stations and the like.

For technical details, see US Patent 7,618,016, available from
www.pat2pdf.org.

There is a series of related inventions by the same person, Garrett W.
Brown, but 7,618,016 explains the problems with each of these prior
approaches.

This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

On Oct 18, 10:23*am, Ignoramus25480 ignoramus25...@NOSPAM.
25480.invalid wrote:
I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?


Yes but this one uses a easily obtained spring and can be made at
home.

Dan


This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

"Ignoramus25480" wrote in message
...
I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?


It isn't really new, but the Wall Street Journal thought it was.
I suspect that there is a limited amount of tool use going on at the WSJ.

Paul K. Dickman





On 2011-10-18, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On page R2 of the 17 October 2011 issue of The Wall Street Journal, in
the midst of WSJ's Innovators' Awards, a purely mechanical innovation
was recognized, the ZeroG arm from Equipois
http://equipoisinc.com/products/.

What it does is to mechanically cancel the weight of a tool, so the
worker can use a very heavy tool as if it were weightless.

The original invention was to stabilize the big video cameras used by TV
stations and the like.

For technical details, see US Patent 7,618,016, available from
www.pat2pdf.org.

There is a series of related inventions by the same person, Garrett W.
Brown, but 7,618,016 explains the problems with each of these prior
approaches.

This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 10:23*am, Ignoramus25480 ignoramus25...@NOSPAM.
25480.invalid wrote:
I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?


Yes but this one uses a easily obtained spring and can be made at
home.

Dan

Goodness, I've got three of these around the farm. I used car leaf
springs to zero balance very heavy things. I didn't even think it was
worthy of a note to RCM as they are so common. Guess I should have got
a patent about 20 years ago when I built the first one.

Karl



Karl

Ignoramus25480 fired this volley in
:

I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?

Not only that, but tool balancers on swinging trolly arms have been
around forever, too. I'm not sure I see the advantage of a big, bulky
spring arm attached to my tool.

That bit about the swinging trolley is important if you're moving the
tool around in a work envelope that might pull the balancer cable off-
angle from the reel. When it draws at an angle, it both fails to balance
the weight, and also tends to pull the tool toward the reel horizontally.

The arm swings an arc that covers the (say) NE-SW corners of the work
envelope, and the trolley allows it to move along the NW-SE lines.

I think that could be hammed up by an HSM faster and more easily than the
pantograph style arm depicted.

LLoyd

--Many moons ago when Steadicam was new and kewl and very expensive
a guy reverse engineered it and made one with a pair of aluminum crutches
and some garage door springs. He got an article published in Super 8
Filmmaker magazine. Steadicam had a **** fit and by court order every copy
of the magazine was recalled and destroyed. Not sure what happened to the
guy who wrote the article but I bet it wasn't nice. If you decide to clone
this thing just be aware of the lawyers that'll be in the loop in short
order. 'Course nowadays if you put a page up showing how to do it, it'll go
viral and no amount of legaleze will be able to re-cork that bottle, hehe.

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

On Oct 18, 7:40*am, "Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

I suspect that there is a limited amount of tool use going on at the WSJ.

Paul, you got that right. Many years back I worked as a Product Review
Journalist in the computer industry. In those 12 years, in many
different magazines and newspapers I worked for, I never once met
another journalist working there who was technically adept with
computers. They were hired for their journalistic skills (???) and not
their knowledge of computers. No surprises that the WSJ figured this
is new. The guy reporting probably got to take home a few freebies.

The support arms on my $12 double-parallelogram desk lamp has two
almost identical set ups. Not sure exactly when I bought the lamp but
it was before we moved to this house and that was 14 years back.

Dave

On Oct 18, 12:04*pm, steamer wrote:
* * * * --Many moons ago when Steadicam was new and kewl and very expensive
a guy reverse engineered it and made one with a pair of aluminum crutches
and some garage door springs. He got an article published in Super 8
Filmmaker magazine. Steadicam had a **** fit and by court order every copy
of the magazine was recalled and destroyed. Not sure what happened to the
guy who wrote the article but I bet it wasn't nice. If you decide to clone
this thing just be aware of the lawyers that'll be in the loop in short
order. 'Course nowadays if you put a page up showing how to do it, it'll go
viral and no amount of legaleze will be able to re-cork that bottle, hehe..

--
* * * * "Steamboat Ed" Haas * * * * : *Steel, Stainless, Titanium: *
* * * * Hacking the Trailing Edge! *: *Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
* * * * * * * * * * * * *www.nmpproducts.com
* * * * * * * * * *---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

I imagine steadicam did have a **** fit and *wanted* every copy
destroyed, but showing a reverse-engineered trade secret or patent
violates no patent or trademark law that I can think of, and fairly
sure you can't copyright such.

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Of course that does not mean the aforementioned plague o' lawyers
won't occur.


Dave

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:



Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:



Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.


I didn't know that. Thanks, Ned!

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-24

"The [patent] grant confers 'the right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the
United States or importing the invention into the United States'".

Another childhood illusion STH!

--Winston

On Oct 18, 4:21*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67

wrote:

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Doing some reading, the enforcement mechanism still won't work if
there are no damages.

Anyway, if you made a copy of a patented item they may be able to keep
you from using it, issue an injunction to keep you from making more,
but no enforcement mechanism exists to make you destroy it or not
display it.


Dave

Dave__67 wrote:
On Oct 18, 4:21 pm, Ned wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67

wrote:

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Doing some reading, the enforcement mechanism still won't work if
there are no damages.

Anyway, if you made a copy of a patented item they may be able to keep
you from using it, issue an injunction to keep you from making more,
but no enforcement mechanism exists to make you destroy it or not
display it.

Basically a U.S. patent is a patentee's 'license to sue'
"*to exclude others from making*, using, offering for sale,
or selling the invention throughout the United States or
importing the invention into the United States'".

The Patent Office does not enforce patents.
Only wealthy companies can do that.
(The same companies that purchased the judge
and your lawyer.)

--Winston --Emphasis mine. All MINE, do you hear me?

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:

On Oct 18, 4:21*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67

wrote:

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Doing some reading, the enforcement mechanism still won't work if
there are no damages.

Anyway, if you made a copy of a patented item they may be able to keep
you from using it, issue an injunction to keep you from making more,
but no enforcement mechanism exists to make you destroy it or not
display it.

From the page Winston pointed to:

"If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the
appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an
injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may
also ask the court for an award of damages because of the
infringement."

Recoverable monetary damages may be nil, but a motivated patent holder
could still prevent an infringer continuing the patent violation. In
other words, force him to destroy the offending device.

In addition, it's apparently infringement to induce or enable others
to infringe a patent.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise59.html
"Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as
an infringer. {FN51: 35 U.S.C. §271(b)}," which may have been the
basis of the Steadi-cam incident.

--
Ned Simmons

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:12:58 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:



Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.


I didn't know that. Thanks, Ned!

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-24

"The [patent] grant confers 'the right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the
United States or importing the invention into the United States'".

Another childhood illusion STH!

Sorry about that, Winston, but I was also the little turd who pulled
out a loose tooth and put it under my pillow without telling anyone.
Then ran downstairs in the morning waving the tooth around demanding,
"Where's the Tooth Fairy now?"


--
Ned Simmons

Ned Simmons wrote:

(...)

Sorry about that, Winston, but I was also the little turd who pulled
out a loose tooth and put it under my pillow without telling anyone.
Then ran downstairs in the morning waving the tooth around demanding,
"Where's the Tooth Fairy now?"

Uh - Oh.

--Winston -- Thinkers. BAD!

Ned Simmons wrote:

(...)

In addition, it's apparently infringement to induce or enable others
to infringe a patent.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise59.html
"Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as
an infringer. {FN51: 35 U.S.C. §271(b)}," which may have been the
basis of the Steadi-cam incident.

Let's say a friend of mine (that's right, a *friend*)
happened to create a schematic clearly showing how a
commercially produced electronic assembly worked, could
I um HE be sued for 'inducing an infringement'?

What if HE received money for doing that reverse
engineering?

--Winston

Winston fired this volley in
:

What if HE received money for doing that reverse
engineering?


Indeed, he would be guilt of copyright infringement or patent violation.

Most "licenses to use" contain language to prevent reverse-engineering.
Lacking that, the fact that you (um, HE) divulged to someone else the
details to the degree necessary to reproduce the [object, process,
program, take your pick] is, in itself, an infringement. If 'he' had
kept it to 'himself' it would have only been an academic exercise. The
payment makes it "industrial espionage", which isn't taken lightly in any
circles.

LLoyd (who's presently prosecuting a copyright violation of his own work)



LLoyd

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

What if HE received money for doing that reverse
engineering?


Indeed, he would be guilt of copyright infringement or patent violation.

Most "licenses to use" contain language to prevent reverse-engineering.
Lacking that, the fact that you (um, HE) divulged to someone else the
details to the degree necessary to reproduce the [object, process,
program, take your pick] is, in itself, an infringement. If 'he' had
kept it to 'himself' it would have only been an academic exercise. The
payment makes it "industrial espionage", which isn't taken lightly in any
circles.

Luckily, HE was working for a well known company
that is immune to legal prosecution.

LLoyd (who's presently prosecuting a copyright violation of his own work)

Good luck!

--Winston

Winston fired this volley in
:

Luckily, HE was working for a well known company
that is immune to legal prosecution.

Ahhh! You work for the Gummint, no?

G

LLoyd

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:12:58 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:



Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.


I didn't know that. Thanks, Ned!

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-24

"The [patent] grant confers 'the right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the
United States or importing the invention into the United States'".

Another childhood illusion STH!

Sest lavvy, wot?

It's just that sending a speaking weasel after everyone who made one
of the client's gadgets wouldn't be cost effective.

--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

What if HE received money for doing that reverse
engineering?


Indeed, he would be guilt of copyright infringement or patent violation.

Most "licenses to use" contain language to prevent reverse-engineering.
Lacking that, the fact that you (um, HE) divulged to someone else the
details to the degree necessary to reproduce the [object, process,
program, take your pick] is, in itself, an infringement. If 'he' had
kept it to 'himself' it would have only been an academic exercise. The
payment makes it "industrial espionage", which isn't taken lightly in any
circles.

Luckily, HE was working for a well known company
that is immune to legal prosecution.

LLoyd (who's presently prosecuting a copyright violation of his own work)

Good luck!

--Winston

I think Lloyd is not quite correct. He would be correct if you are talking
about something like software that is licensed, and then the restriction
against reverse engineering is due to the contract you entered into with the
licensor. However, if you buy something with a circuit board there is
absolutely no reason you can not reverse engineer the circuit and publish
the results even if it is patented. In fact the patent is already supposed
to disclose the best embodiment of the invention known to the inventor at
the time of filing.

The only thing you can not do is to advocate that people break the law by
telling them they should make copies of the invention. An example of that
might be where you sell the schematic and all the components in a kit. The
only exception is that someone can make a copy for "purely philosophical
inquiry" (i.e. non-applied scientific research).

Note: I am not a patent lawyer, but I have spent waaay too much time talking
with them.

On Oct 18, 4:21*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:


Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

There was an exception for personal use in the U.S. But it was
eliminated quite a number of years ago.

Dan

In article ,
Ignoramus25480 wrote:

I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?

Yes. The innovation is that they came up with a better way to do it.
The details are in the patent, and not in the sales propaganda.

Joe Gwinn


On 2011-10-18, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On page R2 of the 17 October 2011 issue of The Wall Street Journal, in
the midst of WSJ's Innovators' Awards, a purely mechanical innovation
was recognized, the ZeroG arm from Equipois
http://equipoisinc.com/products/.

What it does is to mechanically cancel the weight of a tool, so the
worker can use a very heavy tool as if it were weightless.

The original invention was to stabilize the big video cameras used by TV
stations and the like.

For technical details, see US Patent 7,618,016, available from
www.pat2pdf.org.

There is a series of related inventions by the same person, Garrett W.
Brown, but 7,618,016 explains the problems with each of these prior
approaches.

This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

Luckily, HE was working for a well known company
that is immune to legal prosecution.

Ahhh! You work for the Gummint, no?

We would both be shocked to learn just how
true that was.

--Winston

anorton wrote:

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

What if HE received money for doing that reverse
engineering?


Indeed, he would be guilt of copyright infringement or patent violation.

Most "licenses to use" contain language to prevent reverse-engineering.
Lacking that, the fact that you (um, HE) divulged to someone else the
details to the degree necessary to reproduce the [object, process,
program, take your pick] is, in itself, an infringement. If 'he' had
kept it to 'himself' it would have only been an academic exercise. The
payment makes it "industrial espionage", which isn't taken lightly in
any
circles.

Luckily, HE was working for a well known company
that is immune to legal prosecution.

LLoyd (who's presently prosecuting a copyright violation of his own
work)

Good luck!

--Winston

I think Lloyd is not quite correct. He would be correct if you are
talking about something like software that is licensed, and then the
restriction against reverse engineering is due to the contract you
entered into with the licensor. However, if you buy something with a
circuit board there is absolutely no reason you can not reverse engineer
the circuit and publish the results even if it is patented. In fact the
patent is already supposed to disclose the best embodiment of the
invention known to the inventor at the time of filing.

I will tell him he scraped by *again*!

(...)

The only exception is that someone can make a copy for "purely
philosophical inquiry" (i.e. non-applied scientific research).


I ain't so sure.

The USPTO, very lightly paraphrased says:
Basically a U.S. patent is a patentee's 'license to sue'
"*to exclude others from making*, using, offering for sale,
or selling the invention throughout the United States or
importing the invention into the United States".

Emphasis is still mine.

I don't see an 'inquiry' exception.

Note: I am not a patent lawyer, but I have spent waaay too much time
talking with them.

'Sounds like they play in the 'gray area' legally speaking.
Not too surprising, that.

--Winston

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:12:58 -0700,
wrote:

(...)

Another childhood illusion STH!

Sest lavvy, wot?

It's just that sending a speaking weasel after everyone who made one
of the client's gadgets wouldn't be cost effective.

Yup.
Apparently copying even a portion of the patented
intellectual property is infringement but people
get away with it for various reasons anyway.

--Winston

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:58:05 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:12:58 -0700,
wrote:

(...)

Another childhood illusion STH!

Sest lavvy, wot?

It's just that sending a speaking weasel after everyone who made one
of the client's gadgets wouldn't be cost effective.

Yup.
Apparently copying even a portion of the patented
intellectual property is infringement but people
get away with it for various reasons anyway.

The primary reasons are 1) stealth. The infringee doesn't know what's
going on behind closed shop doors. and 2) sheer cost of any pursuit of
each infringement. Spending $3k to go after a guy who knocks off a
single instance of a $30 gewgaw (or even a $400 blurfl) is silly.

If someone's knocking out 1,000 items a week, one can't afford NOT to
go after him.

--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:58:05 -0700,
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:12:58 -0700,
wrote:

(...)

Another childhood illusion STH!

Sest lavvy, wot?

It's just that sending a speaking weasel after everyone who made one
of the client's gadgets wouldn't be cost effective.

Yup.
Apparently copying even a portion of the patented
intellectual property is infringement but people
get away with it for various reasons anyway.

The primary reasons are 1) stealth. The infringee doesn't know what's
going on behind closed shop doors. and 2) sheer cost of any pursuit of
each infringement. Spending $3k to go after a guy who knocks off a
single instance of a $30 gewgaw (or even a $400 blurfl) is silly.

In my old outfit they would do that kind of
thing just because they hadn't broken a law
in several minutes.


--Winston

"Winston" wrote in message
...
anorton wrote:

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

What if HE received money for doing that reverse
engineering?


Indeed, he would be guilt of copyright infringement or patent
violation.

Most "licenses to use" contain language to prevent reverse-engineering.
Lacking that, the fact that you (um, HE) divulged to someone else the
details to the degree necessary to reproduce the [object, process,
program, take your pick] is, in itself, an infringement. If 'he' had
kept it to 'himself' it would have only been an academic exercise. The
payment makes it "industrial espionage", which isn't taken lightly in
any
circles.

Luckily, HE was working for a well known company
that is immune to legal prosecution.

LLoyd (who's presently prosecuting a copyright violation of his own
work)

Good luck!

--Winston

I think Lloyd is not quite correct. He would be correct if you are
talking about something like software that is licensed, and then the
restriction against reverse engineering is due to the contract you
entered into with the licensor. However, if you buy something with a
circuit board there is absolutely no reason you can not reverse engineer
the circuit and publish the results even if it is patented. In fact the
patent is already supposed to disclose the best embodiment of the
invention known to the inventor at the time of filing.

I will tell him he scraped by *again*!

(...)

The only exception is that someone can make a copy for "purely
philosophical inquiry" (i.e. non-applied scientific research).


I ain't so sure.

The USPTO, very lightly paraphrased says:
Basically a U.S. patent is a patentee's 'license to sue'
"*to exclude others from making*, using, offering for sale,
or selling the invention throughout the United States or
importing the invention into the United States".

Emphasis is still mine.

I don't see an 'inquiry' exception.

It is based on a long history of case law. Here is a not so brief summary of
the issue. I see here the exception is a little broader than I had thought.
It is "solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly
philosophical inquiry"
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/...cott_Lowry.pdf


Note: I am not a patent lawyer, but I have spent waaay too much time
talking with them.

'Sounds like they play in the 'gray area' legally speaking.
Not too surprising, that.

It probably not what you were thinking. It is just that I am the inventor on
many patents assigned to various former employers and current clients. But
the whole process of patenting something is very tedious, times consuming,
and not much fun.

anorton wrote:

"Winston" wrote in message
...
anorton wrote:

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
:

What if HE received money for doing that reverse
engineering?


Indeed, he would be guilt of copyright infringement or patent
violation.

Most "licenses to use" contain language to prevent
reverse-engineering.
Lacking that, the fact that you (um, HE) divulged to someone else the
details to the degree necessary to reproduce the [object, process,
program, take your pick] is, in itself, an infringement. If 'he' had
kept it to 'himself' it would have only been an academic exercise. The
payment makes it "industrial espionage", which isn't taken lightly in
any
circles.

Luckily, HE was working for a well known company
that is immune to legal prosecution.

LLoyd (who's presently prosecuting a copyright violation of his own
work)

Good luck!

--Winston

I think Lloyd is not quite correct. He would be correct if you are
talking about something like software that is licensed, and then the
restriction against reverse engineering is due to the contract you
entered into with the licensor. However, if you buy something with a
circuit board there is absolutely no reason you can not reverse engineer
the circuit and publish the results even if it is patented. In fact the
patent is already supposed to disclose the best embodiment of the
invention known to the inventor at the time of filing.

I will tell him he scraped by *again*!

(...)

The only exception is that someone can make a copy for "purely
philosophical inquiry" (i.e. non-applied scientific research).


I ain't so sure.

The USPTO, very lightly paraphrased says:
Basically a U.S. patent is a patentee's 'license to sue'
"*to exclude others from making*, using, offering for sale,
or selling the invention throughout the United States or
importing the invention into the United States".

Emphasis is still mine.

I don't see an 'inquiry' exception.

It is based on a long history of case law. Here is a not so brief
summary of the issue. I see here the exception is a little broader than
I had thought. It is "solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity,
or for strictly
philosophical inquiry"
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/...cott_Lowry.pdf

There has got to be an interesting story that explains
why this exemption didn't feature prominently in the
USPTO website. For example, I saw no mention in:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-24'
Perhaps I just glazed over it.

(...)

It probably not what you were thinking. It is just that I am the
inventor on many patents assigned to various former employers and
current clients. But the whole process of patenting something is very
tedious, times consuming, and not much fun.

And for individuals, a complete waste of time and money.

--Winston

On Oct 18, 6:24*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67









wrote:
On Oct 18, 4:21*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67

wrote:

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Doing some reading, the enforcement mechanism still won't work if
there are no damages.

Anyway, if you made a copy of a patented item they may be able to keep
you from using it, issue an injunction to keep you from making more,
but no enforcement mechanism exists to make you destroy it or not
display it.

From the page Winston pointed to:

"If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the
appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an
injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may
also ask the court for an award of damages because of the
infringement."

Recoverable monetary damages may be nil, but a motivated patent holder
could still prevent an infringer continuing the patent violation. In
other words, force him to destroy the offending device.

In addition, it's apparently infringement to induce or enable others
to infringe a patent.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise59.html
"Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as
an infringer. {FN51: 35 U.S.C. §271(b)}," which may have been the
basis of the Steadi-cam incident.

--
Ned Simmons

Oh boy, I wouldn't want to have to fight with a bag of lawyers about
what was, or was not, actively inducing others to infringe.

Of course the fact the patent has drawings could be considered that...

anorton wrote:
... But the whole process of patenting something is very
tedious, times consuming, and not much fun.


Indeed. I was once the sole inventor of a widget that the company
wanted to patent. Rather than go through the process myself, I brought
in a colleague to do it. He would be a co-inventor, even though he had
nothing to do with it's design, and translate it into patent-ese. He
was an ambitious jerk who did it gladly, just to get another patent with
his name on it.

Bob

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
anorton wrote:
... But the whole process of patenting something is very
tedious, times consuming, and not much fun.


Indeed. I was once the sole inventor of a widget that the company wanted
to patent. Rather than go through the process myself, I brought in a
colleague to do it. He would be a co-inventor, even though he had
nothing to do with it's design, and translate it into patent-ese. He was
an ambitious jerk who did it gladly, just to get another patent with his
name on it.

I had the opposite experience, sort of.

An engineer and I were chatting about his latest
invention. I mentioned a subtle improvement
which would serve to attach his doohickey in a
more secure manner. A couple weeks later, he
gives me a copy of the patent paperwork showing
me as a co-inventor! A month after that I got a
check for $1K from the company!

Not Too Shabby for a casual comment.

--Winston

--
You da man, Terry!

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:59:43 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:

On Oct 18, 6:24*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67


In addition, it's apparently infringement to induce or enable others
to infringe a patent.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise59.html
"Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as
an infringer. {FN51: 35 U.S.C. §271(b)}," which may have been the
basis of the Steadi-cam incident.

--
Ned Simmons

Oh boy, I wouldn't want to have to fight with a bag of lawyers about
what was, or was not, actively inducing others to infringe.

You and me both. Like much of patent law, that provision sure seems to
favor the party with deep pockets.

--
Ned Simmons

--Yah; it was a big company and a little magazine; 'twas ever thus..

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---