|
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers. I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent 6626134. I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS! He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent. Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics. What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow American out of business. This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply. I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here. Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood. eferg |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
Ed wrote:
I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers. How many years, do you have a picture of one before 2000. I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent 6626134. For how long has he been doing this? 4 years? I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS! He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent. Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics. What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow American out of business. This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply. I have no affiliation ? I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here. Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood. eferg |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
I was thinking of patenting the sidewalk. If someone pushed *that* patent
through, maybe it'd be enough to stop this kinda crap. "Ed" wrote in message om... I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers. I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent 6626134. I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS! He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent. Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics. What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow American out of business. This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply. I have no affiliation - I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here. Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood. eferg |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
mark wrote:
I was thinking of patenting the sidewalk. If someone pushed *that* patent through, maybe it'd be enough to stop this kinda crap. On the US patents site, I note they are looking for patent examiners. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
Ed wrote:
I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers. I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent 6626134. I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS! He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent. Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics. What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow American out of business. This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply. I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here. Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood. Sounds like the temperature drop issue was raised to evade the requirement that the patent not be obvious to one skilled in the arts. Good luck. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
"Jim Stewart" wrote: (clip) Sounds like the temperature drop issue was raised to evade the requirement that the patent not be obvious to one skilled in the arts. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't think that would be a valid way of obtaining a patent on an idea that is already in the public domain. But, unfortunately, part of the game is intimidation. Very often people who are in the right cave in because of fear. Or they don't have the resources to go through a lengthy litigation, even one they could win. I have an acquaintance who successfully resisted the threat of an infringement suit, and wound up with a written admission from the other party that they were in the wrong. He also wound up with about $50,000 in attorney's fees. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
I forget the exact numbers, but they were something like 75% of new
examiners don't last 12 months. Very high turn over rate. I know 2 engineers who tried it, and neither stayed with it long term. Who would have ever thought that there was a government job that was not "easy". Vince Ian Stirling wrote: mark wrote: I was thinking of patenting the sidewalk. If someone pushed *that* patent through, maybe it'd be enough to stop this kinda crap. On the US patents site, I note they are looking for patent examiners. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
it is not too difficult to refute a patent if you have prior art, according
to patent attourneys I've talked to. If this was "common", then there will be lots of chopper mags going back years showing it - that's prior art and the patent will be found invalid. "Don Foreman" wrote in message ... The essence of a patent is in the claims, usually claim 1 because subesequent claims are usually subordinate to claim 1. This patent specifies "Intagliated" concavities. Intagliated means "engraved" according to www.dictionary.com. If your guy or his attorney can find a way to argue that his process is "milling" or "machining" rather than "intagliation" or "engraving", he'd have a defense. The USPTO in recent years has granted patent on damn near anything, including conflicting patents, let 'em sort it out in court. That may explain the high turnover of examiners: pressure to do what they know damned well is wrong or at least slipshod. On 31 Jul 2004 15:34:24 -0700, (Ed) wrote: I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers. I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent 6626134. I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS! He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent. Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics. What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow American out of business. This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply. I have no affiliation - I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here. Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood. eferg |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
I'm not overly surprised. US patent and trade mark attorneys troll the world
looking for common usage words, then enable a company to patent or register the trademark in the USA. Then issue writs against businesses using those words in advertising or in their business names. Two come to my mind just recently - "Uggboots " which is a common name for a sheepskin boot made by several hundred businesses in Australia. All have recently received "cease, desist and payup" demands from the US company which has trade marked in the US the common Australian name for that type of boot. The other was a beach wear company based in Sydney "Absolut Beach Wear" they received an injunction issued by a court in New York requiring them to stop using the name "Absolut", hand over the website they had, and release the business name which had been registered in Australia to the US based attorneys acting on behalf of "Absolut Vodka". They had been tried and found guilty in absentia and did not have the financial backing to fight the matter. -- http://cgi6.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI...sort=3&rows=50 |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
In article ,
"william_b_noble" wrote: it is not too difficult to refute a patent if you have prior art, according to patent attourneys I've talked to. If this was "common", then there will be lots of chopper mags going back years showing it - that's prior art and the patent will be found invalid. Might not be "too difficult" _IF_ you can pay the fricking lawyer bill. Which is the whole point of this game. Perhaps the law should be changed to "the patent will be found invalid and the company holding it will have to foot the bill for whoever proves that". Perhaps the examiner who granted it should get his/her pay docked, too. And at the end of the process, you can continue doing a common process that never should have been patented in the first place; so can everyone else on the planet, and they are not contributing to your lawyer bills. Likewise, if you actually have a valid patentable idea, it's only as good as your ability to pay lawyers to harass people who make it without paying you, so once again the process is skewed to the size of your lawyer fund, not the validity of your idea. Good luck stopping the factories in China, where IP is a laughingstock, regardless of the size of your lawyer fund. I've sat on several apparently patentable ideas becasue there was no way for me to actually make any money with them without having a lot of money to patent them and then defend them. It's a lovely concept, but the execution, at present, stinks. -- Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
On 31 Jul 2004 15:34:24 -0700, (Ed) wrote:
I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers. I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent 6626134. I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS! He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent. Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics. What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow American out of business. This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply. I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here. Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood. eferg What exactly is "diamond cut". According to the claim it has to have two longitudinal cuts and cross hatching . Is that what diamond cut is? Seems weak , I'd check it out real good and send him an LOL letter. Like go for it , I have a good 20 people that can testify this is prior art. Oh, it just says that it is on the cooling fin , nothing about the design has to be for cooling. The first claim is its envelope. For some reason I can't get the drawings. I'd also get a copy of all the prior art he sited and read their first claims, ect. Got to go. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
Maybe it's not easy standing in the way of money
"Vince Iorio" wrote in message ... I forget the exact numbers, but they were something like 75% of new examiners don't last 12 months. Very high turn over rate. I know 2 engineers who tried it, and neither stayed with it long term. Who would have ever thought that there was a government job that was not "easy". Vince Ian Stirling wrote: mark wrote: I was thinking of patenting the sidewalk. If someone pushed *that* patent through, maybe it'd be enough to stop this kinda crap. On the US patents site, I note they are looking for patent examiners. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:07:50 GMT, Ecnerwal
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email I have always thought that it was not a lovely concept, although a nice one, and apparently well-meant. I also have a few ideas, that have come up, but even from years ago, it is so hard and expensive to patent something, and apprently so easy to lose the value of that patent, tat it's just not worth it. But what is the alternative? The State foots the lawyer bill? Rather than civil suits, the challenge is investigated by statutory authority, as the patent was? I've sat on several apparently patentable ideas becasue there was no way for me to actually make any money with them without having a lot of money to patent them and then defend them. It's a lovely concept, but the execution, at present, stinks. ************************************************** *** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
I went through the fast track patent - had to educate the examiner.
The examiners for the most part are college 'kids' part time. (heard this on the History channel on a show ...) I managed to get mine completed ( it was a long 70 pages of items) and it is approved in Japan and the European (Hague). Sometimes one gets a good one and then later another type. Mine was ok in the end. Martin Don Foreman wrote: The essence of a patent is in the claims, usually claim 1 because subesequent claims are usually subordinate to claim 1. This patent specifies "Intagliated" concavities. Intagliated means "engraved" according to www.dictionary.com. If your guy or his attorney can find a way to argue that his process is "milling" or "machining" rather than "intagliation" or "engraving", he'd have a defense. The USPTO in recent years has granted patent on damn near anything, including conflicting patents, let 'em sort it out in court. That may explain the high turnover of examiners: pressure to do what they know damned well is wrong or at least slipshod. On 31 Jul 2004 15:34:24 -0700, (Ed) wrote: I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers. I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent 6626134. I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS! He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent. Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics. What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow American out of business. This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply. I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here. Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood. eferg -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
SNIP
I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at SNIP Seems to me you could get the patent number, get the images and descriptions from the PTO website, and do it for yourself for free! I really dislike the patent conept anyway--how can you own an idea? I say let all who wish to manufacture an item compete in the market. The current system just damages consumers by encouraging patent holders to gouge. Of course the pro patent people say no new products will be developed without patent protection, but that's utter B.S. If there's a market, somebody, somewhere will be willing to supply it. If you need examples, just look at all of recorded history before the patent concept--things somehow still managed to get invented.... |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
A HREF="http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html"http://www.vabiker.net/h tml/article86.html/A "Since the early 1970s I have done, what is now known as €˜diamond cutting, as one of the services I offered to custom bikes builders ..." Diamond cutting has been used far before the "early 1970s", more particularly in the production of precision rotating magnetic media, used in what are now called hard disk drives, but were originally called direct access storage devices (DASD). It is "prior art" ... by several decades. Ex-Cello Corp made the diamond cutting machines which IBM used since the 1950s for this purpose. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
|
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
"Peter H." wrote:
Diamond cutting has been used far before the "early 1970s", more particularly in the production of precision rotating magnetic media, used in what are now called hard disk drives, but were originally called direct access storage devices (DASD). It is "prior art" ... by several decades. Ex-Cello Corp made the diamond cutting machines which IBM used since the 1950s for this purpose. Peter, It may be worth noting here that the diamond cutting referred to, is more like the flashy cuts applied to jewellery, rather than cutting "with" diamond or diamonds. Cheers Trevor Jones |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
The idea behind patents is to enable one who invests the effort and
money to develop an idea to have exclusive use of it and fairly profit from his labor and investment for a limited time. This is granted in exchange for "teaching" the idea in the patent so it's available to all after the period of exclusivity has expired. Inventors are thus encouraged to innovate and disclose for the long-term public benefit by having a chance to exclusively profit from their work for a fixed period. The problem isn't with the concept but with the implementation. If the USPTO did a rigorous and concientious job of examining, likelihood of successful challenge or infrigement would be low. If the likelihood of winning such attempts were low, people would be more reluctant to invest in legal services to abuse the system. I believe this is still the case in Europe. On 02 Aug 2004 05:31:52 GMT, (MKloepster) wrote: SNIP I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at SNIP Seems to me you could get the patent number, get the images and descriptions from the PTO website, and do it for yourself for free! I really dislike the patent conept anyway--how can you own an idea? I say let all who wish to manufacture an item compete in the market. The current system just damages consumers by encouraging patent holders to gouge. Of course the pro patent people say no new products will be developed without patent protection, but that's utter B.S. If there's a market, somebody, somewhere will be willing to supply it. If you need examples, just look at all of recorded history before the patent concept--things somehow still managed to get invented.... |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
The idea behind patents is to enable one who invests the effort and
money to develop an idea to have exclusive use of it and fairly profit from his labor and investment for a limited time. This is granted in exchange for "teaching" the idea in the patent so it's available to all after the period of exclusivity has expired. Inventors are thus encouraged to innovate and disclose for the long-term public benefit by having a chance to exclusively profit from their work for a fixed period. Sure, in theory, but the distinction between allowing someone to "fairly profit" and granting a license to gouge is more than a little subjective. Again, people were innovating long before the advent of intellectual property as a concept--they entered the market and took their chances while others were free to improve upon the design. If you absolutely insist on injecting government into the process, why not simply legislate a "reasonable" (i.e., low) maximum licensing duty and allow all willing to pay the license to the inventor to produce the product? This would still be artificial and anticompetetive, but it would also still grant some exclusive profit to inventors and, I think, decrease overal cost and time to market for most products and services. |
OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
What _is_ there to protect a person from struggling to spend a long
time developing something up to saleable level, or at least manufacture level, and then somebody else with more noise and money simply taking it over? There isn't any. So what? Isn't the greater good better served by having innovations quickly brought to market by those who can do so at a competetive rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign equivalents came into existence. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:30:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote: The idea behind patents is to enable one who invests the effort and money to develop an idea to have exclusive use of it and fairly profit from his labor and investment for a limited time. This is granted in exchange for "teaching" the idea in the patent so it's available to all after the period of exclusivity has expired. Inventors are thus encouraged to innovate and disclose for the long-term public benefit by having a chance to exclusively profit from their work for a fixed period. The problem isn't with the concept but with the implementation. If the USPTO did a rigorous and concientious job of examining, likelihood of successful challenge or infrigement would be low. If the likelihood of winning such attempts were low, people would be more reluctant to invest in legal services to abuse the system. Well said and should be foremost in mind when criticizing patents. Found out the Tiff program only works with the browser you got it from. Now I can see the drawings and went through half of them. Still seems weak from what is implied of prior art and more like a design patent. If its seems serious I would get hard copies of the patent and all he cited and read them. The claim is not very clear to me without knowing the art and reading all else necessary. IIRC he goes back to the late 40's with examples of prior art. The guy worried about it probably does the same type of thing , but not exactly the same way and shouldn't be worried about it , but ya got to check it out if your getting letters. His patent is bogus or don't do it that way. Send the prior art to the holder and the PTO. Hell, you almost have to be an attorney to cross the street now days. They just might cancel that puppy. I see that applications are available now which means they did change a lot of laws for the new world order so showing prior art wouldn't be good for the patent holder. *maybe* I believe this is still the case in Europe. On 02 Aug 2004 05:31:52 GMT, (MKloepster) wrote: SNIP I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by a patent lawsuit from this guy at SNIP Seems to me you could get the patent number, get the images and descriptions from the PTO website, and do it for yourself for free! I really dislike the patent conept anyway--how can you own an idea? I say let all who wish to manufacture an item compete in the market. The current system just damages consumers by encouraging patent holders to gouge. Of course the pro patent people say no new products will be developed without patent protection, but that's utter B.S. If there's a market, somebody, somewhere will be willing to supply it. If you need examples, just look at all of recorded history before the patent concept--things somehow still managed to get invented.... |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
|
OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign
equivalents came into existence. And so... now we know how the USPTO came about |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
The first year after the issue date of any USA patent anyone who can prove that
the patent was issued improperly can file an objection to that patent. If you have proof that this process was used before the "application date" of the issued patent you can have that patent invalidated. Sending a copy of this proof to the attorney of the patent holder and the USPTO office will probably put a stop to any legal issues the small shop owner doing that work has. Make sure to file the objections before the 1 year filing date has passed. DL |
OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:29:48 GMT, "mark" vaguely
proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign equivalents came into existence. And so... now we know how the USPTO came about I think I agree with what that last comment intended G. ************************************************** *** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats. |
OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
|
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
|
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
Old Nick wrote:
On 02 Aug 2004 16:48:43 GMT, (MKloepster) vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email Sure, in theory, but the distinction between allowing someone to "fairly profit" and granting a license to gouge is more than a little subjective. Any protection system will allow somebody to profit unfairly, if people are willing to pay. But free-for-all markets will hurt somebody who has spent time developing. Again, people were innovating long before the advent of intellectual property as a concept--they entered the market and took their chances while others were free to improve upon the design. But a lot of that went on before there was such availability of mass-production, and before we had such rapid transmission of information. The Patent idea came into being because it became needed. I would imagine there are court cases and battles that brought it to life. If you absolutely insist on injecting government into the process, why not simply legislate a "reasonable" (i.e., low) maximum licensing duty and allow all willing to pay the license to the inventor to produce the product? This would still be artificial and anticompetetive, but it would also still grant some exclusive profit to inventors and, I think, decrease overal cost and time to market for most products and services. I agree with you that there are markets out there that are gouging under protection, and maybe there _is_ a need for price regulation. Don, you say that the matket should decide and people simply do not buy. What about medicines? They are probably the most fearful, the most innovative and the most gouged area. People do not feel that they have a choice. How can an agreed license fee be anticompetitive? It is, as you say, a good working idea for a system, guaranteeing income for the developer, and encouraging them to move on to other things while tyhe market sorts out who makes the previous products. There is one small niggle. Don't you need some system to prove that you _deserve_ that license fee? Nick, One thing that I'd like to point out is that in the USA, patents are a constitutional right. I don't know what the situation is down under. As constitutionally established, there's probably far less wiggle room for the courts to muck with patents. |
OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
|
OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
MKloepster wrote:
What _is_ there to protect a person from struggling to spend a long time developing something up to saleable level, or at least manufacture level, and then somebody else with more noise and money simply taking it over? There isn't any. So what? Isn't the greater good better served by having innovations quickly brought to market by those who can do so at a competetive rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign equivalents came into existence. That sort of smaks of the worst kind of socialism. The "greatest good for the greatest number" and to hell with the individual. :-( ...lew... |
OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:02:38 GMT, Lewis Hartswick
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email There isn't any. So what? Isn't the greater good better served by having innovations quickly brought to market by those who can do so at a competetive rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign equivalents came into existence. That sort of smaks of the worst kind of socialism. The "greatest good for the greatest number" and to hell with the individual. :-( ...lew... But could esaily result in the worst kind of capitalism, and in fact outright war..... ************************************************** *** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:17:11 -0700, Jim Stewart
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email But who pays? Are you saying that somebody with no money can still get a patent? Serious question. Also. Do they have the right to free / state representation should they need to litigate regarding that patent? I'm not aware of the constitutional situation regarding patents in Oz. But I see Americans just as afraid of being ripped off as many other places. Nick, One thing that I'd like to point out is that in the USA, patents are a constitutional right. I don't know what the situation is down under. As constitutionally established, there's probably far less wiggle room for the courts to muck with patents. ************************************************** *** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
Old Nick wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:17:11 -0700, Jim Stewart vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email But who pays? Are you saying that somebody with no money can still get a patent? No, just that patents are provided for in the constitution. The constitution also provides for post offices but that doesn't mean that the mail is free. Serious question. Also. Do they have the right to free / state representation should they need to litigate regarding that patent? I'm not a lawyer, not even an internet lawyer. I don't know. I'm not aware of the constitutional situation regarding patents in Oz. But I see Americans just as afraid of being ripped off as many other places. No argument there. Nick, One thing that I'd like to point out is that in the USA, patents are a constitutional right. I don't know what the situation is down under. As constitutionally established, there's probably far less wiggle room for the courts to muck with patents. ************************************************** *** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:08:03 -0700, Jim Stewart
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email Old Nick wrote: On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:17:11 -0700, Jim Stewart vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email But who pays? Are you saying that somebody with no money can still get a patent? No, just that patents are provided for in the constitution. The constitution also provides for post offices but that doesn't mean that the mail is free. No. But as far as I know the cost of mail is affordable to the average Joe, and is regulated. It's also possible to send a package without a lawyer to show you how! G ************************************************** *** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
I've got an idea. What if a patent attorney were willing to enter into an
agreement with the inventor on a contingency basis. They could agree to process the patent, and defend it against future litigation in exchange for a percentage of the profits. |
Machinist hit with patent lawsuit
Leo Lichtman wrote:
I've got an idea. What if a patent attorney were willing to enter into an agreement with the inventor on a contingency basis. They could agree to process the patent, and defend it against future litigation in exchange for a percentage of the profits. I was involved with a hi-tech startup years ago where our patent attorney took some stock (and cash) in exchange for patent processing services. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter