Replies

1. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 22, 2003 09:50am | #1

   Thom

      I am certainly not a lawyer, but I have seen many things that someone got a patent on that would be hard to en-force. Larry Williams from C&W Hand-Planes metioned to me the other day that the Veritas patent on the two set-screws on the side that holds the iron lateral had been used years ago. So is the way they do the frog and bed which is also patented.

      I have a Veritas twin screw vise that uses chains and gears to synchronize it. I first saw that about 25 years ago and was probably around well before that. Some of these things getting patented are not by any means original ideas. Just nobody bothered to patent them.

      I hope some lawyers respond to this, but I feel that the patent rights could get real tricky before a court.

   Regards...

   sarge..jt

   Proud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

1. 
   MarkRoderick | Dec 22, 2003 03:11pm | #2

   You are correct, Sarge. The enforcement of patent rights gets very tricky. The grant of a patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, while certainly a crucial and necessary step for the inventor, does not at all guaranty that the patent will be enforced by the courts.

1. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 22, 2003 07:24pm | #4

   Mark

      Thanks... Larry had lead me to believe that as I'm sure he had to do some research with his plane business. I have seen similar situations with old antique auto parts.

   Merry Xmas...

   sarge..jtProud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

2. 
   roblee | Dec 22, 2003 03:48pm | #3

   Sarge -

   The Veritas patent isn't for the use of set-screws...though they are mentioned in the patent claims. When describing the your claim, you have to mention as many configurations as possible... a utility patent can be based on a combination of independent features - used together in a novel and non-obvious way.

   Cheers -

   Rob

1. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 22, 2003 07:39pm | #5

   Rob

      If I'm not mistaken, you are the RLee of Lee-Valley. Thanks for coming to the aid as Mark did. I would rather stand corrected than move myths about. This is an interesting subject even though I have closed my personal company and work part-time for someone at this point of life.

     I will say if you are Lee I think you are, you are putting out excellent product at a fair price. I really like the two set-screws on the side as it locks the iron and prevents lateral movement even with heavy thrust into extremely hard wood. The idea with the entire frog moving to give you mouth adjustment also is a seller point for me.

     Have the twin screw vise and am impressed with it also. After purchasing the #4 1/2 am eyeing the #6. Here's a question for you. I would like a #7 jointer. Are there any current plans at LV for that addition to the Veritas line?

     If so, I will wait. If not, I will pursue at other sources. I like the "bang for the buck" theory. ha.. ha... 

   Thanks for your time and hospitality... Merry Xmas..

   sarge..jtProud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

1. 
   roblee | Dec 22, 2003 08:58pm | #6

   Hi -

   Yes - you have me pegged correctly! Not to worry - patents are a difficult thing to sort out, and are easily misread.

   At the moment - we don't have plans for a #7 - the configuration of our #6 (with it's different mouth position) makes it function "larger" than it's numerical designation ...closer to other #7's....

   Beyond a #6, I can only cryptically say we have a different solution in the works. If you're heart's set on a #7 - both LN and Clifton make a good one.

   Next up in the plane line are further shoulder-type planes, another LA bench plane, and a passle of spokeshaves - first two of which you'll see in less than two weeks, with the next two following by spring. With any luck, we'll be able to tempt you on an ongoing basis :)

   Cheers -

   Rob Lee

   Lee Valley/Veritas

1. 
   RANGERP75R | Dec 23, 2003 06:16am | #7

   Rob

      Thanks for the quick response. I am aware that #6 has the mouth set back farther which changes the characteristics closer to the #7. That's why I had my eye on it.

      I have the medium shoulder and it is excellent. Best feel of any shoulder I've had in my hands. I await the larger one as I am in the market for a 1" plus shoulder to accompany it.

      Was not aware of the spoke-shave addition. Will keep alert for that as I do use them. Have your low-angle one and also have the scraping plane. The scrape plane has improvements over the old Stanley #112 IMO.

       "Tempt me on an on-going basis". Just keep putting out quality at an affordable price and you got a lock on target.

      Thanks again. I am your South-eastern rep, you're just  not aware of it and I'm not on the pay-roll. ha.. ha..   ha..ha..ha..

   Regards from the S.E. United States...

   sarge..jtProud member of the :  "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>) 

2. 
   WayneL5 | Dec 23, 2003 06:30am | #8

   I am not a lawyer.  But, I'm an engineer and my brother is a patent lawyer so I've picked up a few bits of knowledge about them.

   For an invention to be patentable it must be new, useful, and "non-obvious".  When the application is submitted, the inventor is required to have searched the "prior art" to determine if the invention meets these tests.  The patent examiner, who specializes in a certain field, also does research and is familiar with the prior art.  If the specific invention claimed has ever been published, offered for sale, or been in the public domain, it cannot be patented (whether or not the inventor knew), because it is not new.

   Once a patent is issued, the law presumes it to be valid.  In other words, before it is issued the inventor has to prove it is patentable, but after the patent office agrees and issues a patent, anyone challenging the patent's validity has the burden of proof of proving that it should not have been issued.  If it can not be proven in court that the patent is invalid, then it is enforceable.

   Enforcement is the burden of the patent owner.  He can chose to or not to take legal action against anyone he believes is infringing.  In some cases a settlement or a licensing agreement is worked out.

1. 
   MarkRoderick | Dec 23, 2003 03:41pm | #9

   This is what often happens. A small inventor obtains a patent. A large company, with full knowledge of the patent, simply ignores it, daring the small inventor to sue. If the small inventor sues, the large company litigates and litigates and litigates. Costs can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. How does the small inventor afford it? Often he will either give up or agree to license the patent to the large company in a settlement.

   Again, the message is that obtaining a patent is often only the first step.

1. 
   mitch | Dec 23, 2003 09:02pm | #10

   a patent if often little more than a license to sue.  also, a very high percentage of patents are diluted or completely disallowed when challenged in court.  there is a "presumption of validity" when they are issued, but as someone mentioned, this only means neither the patent office nor the inventor was aware of prior art (or, i suppose, the inventor did not disclose it if he was).  if you can find an example in the public domain of a sliding dovetail application that is or does the same as that specified in the patent you cite, then you or anyone else can "infringe" to your heart's content.  just know going in that proving your right to do so could get expensive if the patent holder thinks they can really defend the novelty of their invention.

   a fascinating field. i have three patents, with half a dozen or more in the works.  the key to getting a good patent is describing it broadly enough to protect a reasonable amount of turf, but narrowly enough to successfully defend it should the need arise. 

   i'm not sure this story is true, but supposedly twenty or thirty years ago some smarta$$ actually managed to get a patent on the wheel because nobody had bothered to patent it before.  this is utterly ridiculous, because the technology has been in the public domain for centuries, regardless of whether or not anyone ever held a patent on it.

   m

1. 
   Thom1 | Dec 23, 2003 11:38pm | #11

   I'm all for the twin screw bench screw LV makes, as well as most other things.  I love being able to use one side of the vise for western, and the other for eastern.

   In the case of the Green design table, It's the kind of thing where I'd more likely swear it's been done a million times before.  However the patent is very specificaly described, and I have no reason to believe it's questionable, it is just like flipping open a mag and seeing someone have patented a standard dovetail joint, even thought he context may well be far broader.  They do identify the patent so ayone can have a look, right on their webpage, so they aren't shy about it.

   One other factor about these kinds of things is that sometimes people patent a thing just to ensure someone doesn't try to claim their turf through a patent after they have spend a lot of money advertising the original product.  The patent is more to defend their turf against agressive patents, that to assert a claim too broadly themselves.

2. 
   JeffKurtz | Dec 24, 2003 03:18pm | #12

   For an invention to be patentable it must be new, useful, and "non-obvious".

   I remember Paul Harvey ranting a few years ago about this very point.  Apparently, some years ago the fellow who invented the weed wacker sued the manufacturers who "copied" his design.  He was told by the judge in the case that his design was "obvious", that is, anybody could have easily come up with it.  What a shame.

   With apologies to your brother, I've always thought that laws are written by lawyers, and for lawyers.