Replies

1. 
   domermatt | Sep 21, 2002 12:41am | #1

   wtf

   Ok, as best I can tell, he patented the process by which his furniture can be assembled...which is a century old process known as sliding dovetails.  Now I know (hope...pray to God) the US Patent Office is smart enough to not issue a patent on dovetails.  Even this seems like a real stretch of "innovation" but then again I've never a manufacturer use this process.

   Did you read the claims section??? I'm glad lawyers don't write the FWW article because after article 3 I was lost.  Seems like a load in my opinion. I don't think he deserved a patent for his "innovation", but then again I've never seen an article on making furniture with this process.

   Just, my cent and a half.

   Matt Mulka
1. 
   MarkRoderick | Sep 21, 2002 12:47am | #2

   Don't worry. No patent is going to prohibit you from using sliding dovetails.

   Without boring you with a dissertation on patents, it's easy to get a patent if you make the patent application narrow enough. If these folks have been granted a patent, it is only because they described it so narrowly. In practice anyone can avoid such a patent simply by varying one insignificant component of the process while still achieving the same end. This may be one of those common situations where a patent is obtained not for the "real" purpose of prohibiting others from copying it, but only as a marketing device, i.e., customers will be intrigued by the patent claim.

   Again, no worry of infringement for any woodworker.

2. 
   RW | Sep 21, 2002 05:16am | #3

   I wonder if he hears this often:

   HEY YOU! PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN!

1. 
   mitch | Sep 21, 2002 05:19pm | #4

   another increasingly common practice is what is called a "thesaurus patent"- deliberately describing an invention in uncommon terminology.   that makes it extremely difficult for the average, relatively inexperienced and massively overworked, patent examiner to do a proper search on the prior art.   this makes for a lot of illegitimate/indefensible patents being granted, which tends to scare off the smaller would-be competitors.  approximately half of all patents are either diluted or completely disallowed when challenged in court.  a patent is only a license to sue- its issuance only confers a general presumption of validity, not a guarantee thereof.

   I have several patents and am currently consulting/co-designing on another.  we are facing this exact problem.  a competitor holds a patent on a design of a building product that has, in various forms, been around for at least fifty years.  however, they very cleverly (crookedly?) named their invention in terms that are virtually unheard of in the industry so that any key word search would not reveal any of the several dozen examples existing in the prior art.  clearly, this case was assigned to an examiner who was unfamiliar with this area.  therefore, this particular patent had only five citations of prior art- all extremely tenuous at best- while the other more traditionally described patents in this area typically have twenty-five or more solid references.   as such, we are seriously considering forging ahead with our project, relatively secure in the knowledge that we will be able to tell them where they can put their infringement suit.

   in this day and age, it's just not possible for these examiners to be sufficiently experienced in all the areas of design and engineering that patents are filed on- even with a reasonable amount of specialization.   my suggestion would be to have retired engineers, etc. assist with searches in their particular area of expertise, all of which could done from their home computers.  i suppose i should make an attempt at formally submitting this idea to the uspto.  oh well, someday.

   in the meantime, without actually having read the particulars of the dovetail patent in question, i'd say don't sweat it.

   mitch

3. 
   nhlett | Sep 22, 2002 02:11pm | #5

   I agree with most of what has been said. A couple of additional points:

   1. The component parts of an assembly are not covered by a patent. If you use a gear in you invention, the gear is not protected by the patent.

   2. the patent was granted 10/3/1997. Patents are good for 7 years. His patent expires in two weeks. Dovetail away!

   This guy is using the system to set himself apart. Personally, I am ROFL.

   Peter

   
   

   ---

   Edited 9/22/2002 7:12:44 AM ET by nhlett

1. 
   bill_1010 | Sep 22, 2002 05:05pm | #6

   in this day and age, unless you have an astonishing invention. Much money is wasted in the patent process.  Most inventors get the patent lawyers rich and not themselves.

2. 
   UncleDunc | Sep 23, 2002 03:52am | #7

   17 years.

3. 
   LeeEschen | Sep 23, 2002 10:00am | #8

   That's 17 years, Peter, not 7 years, though I think this particular patent just might be bogus.

1. 
   nhlett | Sep 23, 2002 11:00am | #9

   OK I stand corrected.

   Bogus dosn't begin to describe it. 

   Peter