In the letters section of the latest issue, FWW add's an apology for
describing a device that Lee Valley retains the patent (a magnetic
dovetail jig), and FWW suggests that you should not make this device
yourself, and instead buy it from Lee Valley.

IANAL, but I have talked to patent experts.

There is nothing illegal about disclosing a patent, as it is public
information.

It has been explained to me that there is nothing illegal about making
a patented device for your own use. In fact, this is encouraged, as it
helps future inventions. Perhaps we can improve on an old invention.
However, selling it is illegal.

There are moral issues - and some may decide to buy the jig from LV
instead of making one themselves. Doing so shows respect, and I do
respect LV.

But I also respect creativity and inventivity.

Sorry Robin, but if I can find a way to make something for myself that
is better than something you sell, I will do so. I hope you
understand.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

I also saw the fine woodworking article and I thought that was a
strange commentary. So by that logic(Fine woodworking), if ,when they
invented the frisbee, you were seen throwing around a pie tin, you
would be commiting a crime? The problem, I would think, is that Fine
woodworking is a company that makes a profit. They used a device that
has already been patented to contribute to the revenue of Fine
woodworking. I think that is were the patent infringement occured. To
be honest with you , maybe it was the way it was written, it fried me a
little that Lee valley made a big deal about this article. But that
doesn't change my opinion of Lee valleys exceptional job of genuine,
helpful customer service. My wife said it the other day..."I love
getting things from Lee valley...they are really nice people"

On 22 Nov 2005 05:26:57 -0800, "rickluce" wrote:

I also saw the fine woodworking article and I thought that was a
strange commentary. So by that logic(Fine woodworking), if ,when they
invented the frisbee, you were seen throwing around a pie tin, you
would be commiting a crime? The problem, I would think, is that Fine
woodworking is a company that makes a profit. They used a device that
has already been patented to contribute to the revenue of Fine
woodworking. I think that is were the patent infringement occured. To
be honest with you , maybe it was the way it was written, it fried me a
little that Lee valley made a big deal about this article. But that
doesn't change my opinion of Lee valleys exceptional job of genuine,
helpful customer service. My wife said it the other day..."I love
getting things from Lee valley...they are really nice people"

I also read that "correction". One of the things about patents is that
they must be defended, so I have no problem with Lee Valley's actions --
I'm sure the letter came from a lawyer, so all the harsh legal threats were
contained therein. I think the correction you saw from FWW was one of
those corporate CYA actions that went beyond what was required in order to
protect themselves from future action.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Chris Friesen wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

I also read that "correction". One of the things about patents is that
they must be defended

*Trademarks* must be defended. Patents do not fall under the same rules.

Not precisely, but there is still reason to defend their unauthorized
use...

Mark & Juanita wrote:

I also read that "correction". One of the things about patents is that
they must be defended

*Trademarks* must be defended. Patents do not fall under the same rules.

Chris

rickluce wrote:
I also saw the fine woodworking article and I thought that was a
strange commentary.

I read it as sarcastic. Paraphrasing - "..we ask our readers to buy one
and to not make their own?" G

We _all_ make shop made copies of commercial devices at one time or
another. Commercial devices become attractive if the item becomes a use
it every day piece, or is so inexpensive to buy that the shop made
version doesn't make sense.

All FWW really had to do was mention that the item was patented.
Remember, none of us saw the letter sent by LV, so we'll never know what
really happened.

Barry

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...

In the letters section of the latest issue, FWW add's an apology for
describing a device that Lee Valley retains the patent (a magnetic
dovetail jig), and FWW suggests that you should not make this device
yourself, and instead buy it from Lee Valley.

IANAL, but I have talked to patent experts.

There is nothing illegal about disclosing a patent, as it is public
information.

It has been explained to me that there is nothing illegal about making
a patented device for your own use. In fact, this is encouraged, as it
helps future inventions. Perhaps we can improve on an old invention.
However, selling it is illegal.

There are moral issues - and some may decide to buy the jig from LV
instead of making one themselves. Doing so shows respect, and I do
respect LV.

But I also respect creativity and inventivity.

Sorry Robin, but if I can find a way to make something for myself that
is better than something you sell, I will do so. I hope you
understand.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.


Hi Bruce -

No worries here - the only possible offence we're concerned with is FWW
commiting "inducement to infringe". You're correct - you can make whatever
you want... but FWW cannot teach or promote copying of patented products.

Their "retraction" was a surprise to us - and factually incorrect.

Mistakes happen - and all they had to do was own up to it...

Cheers -

Rob

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2005 05:26:57 -0800, "rickluce" wrote:


snip

I also read that "correction". One of the things about patents is that
they must be defended, so I have no problem with Lee Valley's actions --
I'm sure the letter came from a lawyer, so all the harsh legal threats
were
contained therein. I think the correction you saw from FWW was one of
those corporate CYA actions that went beyond what was required in order to
protect themselves from future action.

Hi -

Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen he

http://www.leevalley.com/home/temprl...dworking-1.doc

Cheers -

Rob

rickluce wrote:
I also saw the fine woodworking article and I thought that was a
strange commentary. So by that logic(Fine woodworking), if ,when they
invented the frisbee, you were seen throwing around a pie tin, you
would be commiting a crime?

Technically, yes.

There's good information at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement

Anyone who makes, uses, or sells the patented invention is a direct
infringer. Good faith or ignorance is no defense for direct infringement.

Under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b), "whoever actively induces infringement
of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." Thus, in this case FWW
suggesting that people make this jig would make them an infringer, and
subject to legal action.

Chris

B a r r y wrote:

We _all_ make shop made copies of commercial devices at one time or
another.

Technically they're all patent infringement (assuming the commercial
device is patented) and possibly subject to legal action.

Of course, the likelihood of being sued is minimal...

Chris

In that case, I just want to state that I have never thrown a pie tin
in a fasion that is frisbee like or looked at a pie tin in a frisbee
context.

Technically, yes.

There's good information at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement

Anyone who makes, uses, or sells the patented invention is a direct
infringer. Good faith or ignorance is no defense for direct infringement.

Under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b), "whoever actively induces infringement
of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." Thus, in this case FWW
suggesting that people make this jig would make them an infringer, and
subject to legal action.

Chris

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:24:51 -0500, "Robin Lee" wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Nov 2005 05:26:57 -0800, "rickluce" wrote:


snip

I also read that "correction". One of the things about patents is that
they must be defended, so I have no problem with Lee Valley's actions --
I'm sure the letter came from a lawyer, so all the harsh legal threats
were
contained therein. I think the correction you saw from FWW was one of
those corporate CYA actions that went beyond what was required in order to
protect themselves from future action.

Hi -

Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen he

http://www.leevalley.com/home/temprl...dworking-1.doc

Cheers -

Rob


Much nicer than most such notifications I've seen. Ya'll really are a
class outfit. :-)






+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Guess who wrote:

Not quite. If I photocopy sheet music, distribute it and play it, all
without payment, that's an infringement.

That's a copyright infringement, not a patent infringement.

So ...I can make any damned thing I want for my own use.

The law in question (35 U.S.C. 271) begins as follows:

271. Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the
United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the
patent.

In a quick read-through, I didn't see any exception for personal use.

Normally the patent-holders just don't bother to sue people infringing
for personal use--it wouldn't be worth their while.

Chris

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:50:31 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Chris Friesen quickly quoth:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

I also read that "correction". One of the things about patents is that
they must be defended

*Trademarks* must be defended. Patents do not fall under the same rules.

You obviously don't own one, Chris. Google shows 11,200,000 hits for
that phrase. I looked into it and decided against spending the money
to patent my inventions. It would be too costly to start and even
worse to defend. I make a few grand a year on them as is.

http://www.google.com/search?q=patent+defense

IIRC, patents must be defended here (USA) as a condition of grant.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
I sent in my $5, so * http://www.diversify.com/stees.html
why haven't I been 'saved'? * Graphic Design - Humorous T-shirts

Larry Jaques wrote:
Chris Friesen quickly quoth:

*Trademarks* must be defended. Patents do not fall under the same rules.

You obviously don't own one, Chris.

No, I don't.

I do work in software, however, and there are a number of companies
which control substantial numbers of patents, and have stated formally
that they will not prosecute their patents against open-source
implementations.

If you do not defend a trademark, it becomes diluted. Patents don't
work the same way--the patent holder can decide whether to enforce it.

There's all sorts of information on patent defense--but that's because
it's the only way to get any money out of the infringer, and usually the
patent holders want money.

IIRC, patents must be defended here (USA) as a condition of grant.

I don't think this is correct. Since I can't prove a negative grin, I
guess it's up to you to prove the positive.

Chris

Maybe not but they come under the same practice. If anyone is going to
defend a patent, it is the patent holder.

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:

I also read that "correction". One of the things about patents is
that
they must be defended

*Trademarks* must be defended. Patents do not fall under the same rules.

Chris

"Robin Lee" writes:

Hi Bruce -

No worries here - the only possible offence we're concerned with is FWW
commiting "inducement to infringe". You're correct - you can make whatever
you want... but FWW cannot teach or promote copying of patented products.

Their "retraction" was a surprise to us - and factually incorrect.

Mistakes happen - and all they had to do was own up to it...

Cheers -

Rob

Thanks, Robin, for clearing the air. I suspected this was going
on. Lawyers make people say strange things in unnatural ways. :-)

Cheers!


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Robin Lee" writes:

Hi Bruce -

No worries here - the only possible offence we're concerned with is FWW
commiting "inducement to infringe". You're correct - you can make whatever
you want... but FWW cannot teach or promote copying of patented products.

Their "retraction" was a surprise to us - and factually incorrect.

Mistakes happen - and all they had to do was own up to it...

Cheers -

Rob

Thanks, Robin, for clearing the air. I suspected this was going
on. Lawyers make people say strange things in unnatural ways. :-)

Cheers!


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:49:47 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

rickluce wrote:
I also saw the fine woodworking article and I thought that was a
strange commentary. So by that logic(Fine woodworking), if ,when they
invented the frisbee, you were seen throwing around a pie tin, you
would be commiting a crime?

Technically, yes.

Not quite. If I photocopy sheet music, distribute it and play it, all
without payment, that's an infringement. If I listen to the song on
the radio, and, having heard it once, with my eidetic memory I can
repeat it any time, that's a damned good talent. [which I don't really
have.] I can't be banned from singing in the shower, or on the
street corner, putting the pie tin to a different purpose.

So ...I can make any damned thing I want for my own use. This is why
people go into Aikia with a tape measure, and why I figured out the
math on where to put the carousel to support a table top of their
design. I don't sell what I make through anyone else's design not
payed for. That would be illegal.

Robin Lee wrote:

Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen he

You guys are tough...

The letter reminds me of the TV show "Due South", where law breakers
were politely arrested by a Mountie. G

You gotta love this forum...we can argue about _anything_!!!!

So let me throw _this_ one out: If I were to have to defend a patent
of my own, would it be better if it were a left-tilt patent or a
right-tilt patent?

wrote:
You gotta love this forum...we can argue about _anything_!!!!


Personally, I prefer nits and inconsequential details. G

Barry

This is why
people go into Aikia with a tape measure, and why I figured out the
math on where to put the carousel to support a table top of their
design.
Interesting point. When are you infringing on a patent and when are you
just using an idea? I suppose in the end it depends on the courts, but
I remember my brother saying, he is a sign painter, that if you change
a drawing by 20% it isn't consider an infringment. An example I can
think of in woodworking is the Lee valley marking gauge with the micro
adjust. This device looks considerably like the one made by glen-drake.

http://www.japanwoodworker.com/produ...ept_id =13005
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...33&cat=1,42936 Is
this a patent infringment? Is this any different than Fine woodworking
making a device that looks like something Lee valley produces.

rickluce wrote:

Interesting point. When are you infringing on a patent and when are you
just using an idea?

I think a big line is drawn when if the item or idea, or a written
description of same, is sold.

In article ,
says...
Robin Lee wrote:

Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen he

You guys are tough...

The letter reminds me of the TV show "Due South", where law breakers
were politely arrested by a Mountie. G


(Piggyback)

A different take on this thread: What I found interesting is that
despite Lee Valley and FWW representing, I think, the ethical high end
of woodworking retail and journalism, Lee Valley really jumped on FWW
with both feet. Like others have said, I too have no doubt the letter
was lawyer-generated and edited, but why the humiliating overkill when
the error was evidently not deliberate. Shame on Lee Valley; they could
have been more gracious and handled the issue in a letter to the editor
and the editors's reply.

In article .com,
"rickluce" wrote:

I remember my brother saying, he is a sign painter, that if you change
a drawing by 20% it isn't consider an infringment.

An inaccurate widely spread notion. One of the determining factors the
courts use is how recognizable the elements of the first design are in
the second. If you think this is vague and totally up to the judge,
you'd be right.

Besides, how does one go about quantifying changes? In other words, how
do you recognize that up to a point you've only changed the original by
19% and need to do an extra 1%? And how much more and what needs to be
done to satisfy that amount?
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

LDR wrote:

A different take on this thread: What I found interesting is that
despite Lee Valley and FWW representing, I think, the ethical high end
of woodworking retail and journalism, Lee Valley really jumped on FWW
with both feet.

Not sure I agree. I'm of the opinion that in the current US legal
climate, "jumping with both feet" would be a legal injuction against
publication and a lawsuit for compensatory damages for lost sales.

Chris

In article t,
LDR wrote:

Lee Valley really jumped on FWW
with both feet. Like others have said, I too have no doubt the letter
was lawyer-generated and edited, but why the humiliating overkill when
the error was evidently not deliberate. Shame on Lee Valley; they could
have been more gracious and handled the issue in a letter to the editor
and the editors's reply.

I certainly didn't read it as an overboard response. LV rightfully could
have demanded an action of some sort, such as a printed notice in the
next issue or compensation or sought litigation - which LV didn't do.
It's merely a notice of pointing out their property rights.

One of the issues with infringement instances is that you've got to be
consistent and vigilant with protecting your rights. I see this as an
instance in which LV is serving notice for a potential infringement with
the knowledge that should another party read the tip and take it further
down the road of infringement, LV can then point to this instance in
which it has served notice protecting it's ownership. In other words,
you are in a weaker legal position if you decide to protect it on
Wednesday and Friday but didn't on Monday or Thursday.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

writes:

You gotta love this forum...we can argue about _anything_!!!!

No we can't.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Bruce Barnett wrote:
writes:

You gotta love this forum...we can argue about _anything_!!!!

No we can't.

THAT was good!

Late to this party but here goes.

The magnetic hand plane fence LV came up with, and
patented,is clearly shown AND described in their
catalogue. If you're a woodworker and don't get
their catalogue - wait - they'll get to you - soon.
They WILL find you. Once you see it you could
make a shop version - for your personal use.

Like many of the Veritas products, this thing is
apperently simple and straight foreward. The
clever use of earth magnets (I love those things)
was another of their strokes of genius. It's hard
to be so inovative with "tried and true" hand tools
but they somehow manage to make improvements
to tools that have been around for a long, long
time - the micro adjustable router plane being
the most recent one I'm aware of.

FWW's been around a long time and provides
some good info to woodworkers. Like LV, they
have (had?) a good reputation. So when they
publish a "tips and tricks" How To Make A ...
piece that clearly rips off LV/ Veritas patented
idea - and apparently rewards the person who
submitted the "idea", they stepped over the line
twice.
- They knew of LV / Veritas's product
and its patent for about three years
and
- they make money by selling "content", this
How To being "content"
(remember when it was called "information"?)

In the New Global Economy, labor's cheap, tools
and tooling getting "less expensive" and Knock
Offs proliferate (got your "replica" Rolex yet?)
But it's the innovators that move humanity
foreward. It's the innovators that are hard to
come by and therefore should be valued - and
protected.

LV/Veritas are innovators - as well as good
marketers who provide great products at
fair prices AND have excellent customer
service I must add. The American Auto Industry
could try following LV/Vertias's lead.

Kudos for LV/Veritas.
Bronx "cheer" for FWW.

charlie b

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:10:09 GMT, B a r r y
wrote:

I think a big line is drawn when if the item or idea, or a written
description of same, is sold.

As opposed to just obtaining the fully descriptive patent for free
from www.uspto.gov and spending some time in the workshop?


--

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:26:11 GMT, LDR wrote:

In article ,
says...
Robin Lee wrote:

Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen he

You guys are tough...

The letter reminds me of the TV show "Due South", where law breakers
were politely arrested by a Mountie. G


(Piggyback)

A different take on this thread: What I found interesting is that
despite Lee Valley and FWW representing, I think, the ethical high end
of woodworking retail and journalism, Lee Valley really jumped on FWW
with both feet. Like others have said, I too have no doubt the letter
was lawyer-generated and edited, but why the humiliating overkill when
the error was evidently not deliberate. Shame on Lee Valley; they could
have been more gracious and handled the issue in a letter to the editor
and the editors's reply.

Having read what Robin Lee posted as the letter sent to FWW, I saw
nothing that could even be remotely construed as jumping on FWW with both
feet. The letter was polite, gave FWW the benefit of the doubt, and merely
pointed out the fact that the device in the tips section had been patented.
FWW's response was a bit more over the top.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
LV/Veritas are innovators - as well as good
marketers who provide great products at
fair prices AND have excellent customer
service I must add. The American Auto Industry
could try following LV/Vertias's lead.

Kudos for LV/Veritas.
Bronx "cheer" for FWW.

charlie b

It may be too late for segments of the auto industry: GM still hasn't
figured out it lost sales because it produced vehicles no one wanted...and
it has even less of a clue why no one would want a 3 ton vehicle that gets
10 MPG carrying one person and six bags of groceries as gas prices smacked
through 3 bucks a gallon.

Their CEO on TV the other day appeared fully capable of running a lemonade
stand.

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
Late to this party but here goes.
LV/Veritas are innovators - as well as good
marketers who provide great products at
fair prices AND have excellent customer
service I must add. The American Auto Industry
could try following LV/Vertias's lead.

Kudos for LV/Veritas.
Bronx "cheer" for FWW.

charlie b

It may be too late for segments of the auto industry: GM still hasn't
figured out it lost sales because it produced vehicles no one wanted...and
it has even less of a clue why no one would want a 3 ton vehicle that gets
10 MPG carrying one person and six bags of groceries as gas prices smacked
through 3 bucks a gallon.

Their CEO on TV the other day appeared fully capable of running a lemonade
stand.

On 23-Nov-2005, "Charles Self" wrote:

Their CEO on TV the other day appeared fully capable of running a lemonade
stand.

into the ground.

Mike

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:26:11 GMT, LDR wrote:

In article ,
says...
Robin Lee wrote:

Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen he

You guys are tough...

The letter reminds me of the TV show "Due South", where law breakers
were politely arrested by a Mountie. G


(Piggyback)

A different take on this thread: What I found interesting is that
despite Lee Valley and FWW representing, I think, the ethical high end
of woodworking retail and journalism, Lee Valley really jumped on FWW
with both feet. Like others have said, I too have no doubt the letter
was lawyer-generated and edited, but why the humiliating overkill when
the error was evidently not deliberate. Shame on Lee Valley; they could
have been more gracious and handled the issue in a letter to the editor
and the editors's reply.

Having read what Robin Lee posted as the letter sent to FWW, I saw
nothing that could even be remotely construed as jumping on FWW with both
feet. The letter was polite, gave FWW the benefit of the doubt, and merely
pointed out the fact that the device in the tips section had been patented.
FWW's response was a bit more over the top.

I didn't see the letter sent to FWW, so if it is as you describe, then I
was wrong: FWW jumped on itself with two feet. Or the publisher jumped.
In my salad days as a young reporter in California, I once drew a
lawyer's letter and it was embarrassing, although I certainly deserved
the correction. When someone admits being wrong to me I don't require
the person to roll on the ground apologizing for it. Of course there is
no accounting for editors into self-flagellation, if that was the case.
Kinda like Roshomon, this is :-)

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
Normally the patent-holders just don't bother to sue people infringing for
personal use--it wouldn't be worth their while.

Chris

Disney will jump on anyone that uses one of their characters. ANYONE, even
granny that embroiders a Donald Duck on baby's bib. They are one of the
toughest in defending their copyrights.

"LDR" wrote in message

but why the humiliating overkill when
the error was evidently not deliberate. Shame on Lee Valley; they could
have been more gracious and handled the issue in a letter to the editor
and the editors's reply.

You can have your opinion, but I thought the letter was rather polite and
shows all the class of the Lee family. They have the right and the need to
bring this to the attention of anyone mis-using the patent, deliberate or
not. I did not see one humiliating word in the letter.

The retraction by FWW what also done properly, IMO.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Chris Friesen" wrote in message

Normally the patent-holders just don't bother to sue people infringing for
personal use--it wouldn't be worth their while.

Disney will jump on anyone that uses one of their characters. ANYONE, even
granny that embroiders a Donald Duck on baby's bib. They are one of the
toughest in defending their copyrights.

My statement was with regards to patents, while your example is about a
trademark.

The laws covering them are different. For instance, you *must* defend a
trademark, or you can lose it. The same is not true for a patent.

Chris