Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Can someone tell me....
Todd Hughes
>what exactly the patented feature was that was copied on what sounds like to me was a home made tool that started all this....Just curious.....
While maybe not true in every case but In the past I sort of got the feeling that LV loudly proclaims that one of thier new tools has many patented features ,[which I am sure it does] more as a way to promote it rather then giving it any real improvement .....Todd
Re: Can someone tell me....
kees
>Todd, you have your doubts the patents are necessary? I think nobody can copy these LV tools and make a profit. It's price vs quality.
Wouldn't do you any good
Michael Recchione
>Patents only protect institutions with the money to defend them. If, as a private citizen, I patent a cute idea and some large company with deep pockets decides to sell something that I believe infringes my patent, it's up to me to get them to stop. I can ask them, and they can tell me to go scratch. I can threaten to sue them and they can say "Make my day...". I can sue them, pay a lawyer to go against their team of lawyers and lose in court. Or maybe I can win. Then, if they don't hold to the settlement, I can start the process all over again. Usually, if they do pay you, it's because the case is so clear cut that they realize it's cheaper to pay to get you off their backs than to fight it. But most often the little guy loses. So what else is new?
Re: How many of us in violation of patents, somewh
Paul Kierstead
>Tormek, that's a stone with water and an electric motor? Sounds like a totaly new idea to me.
I did a quick patent search for the patents assigned to Tormek (i.e. they own it outright). There are 5 in total, none covering the actual grinder bit; they all cover aspects of the grinding jig. I glanced at the descriptions and certainly couldn't tell if the jigs were especially innovative, but I have never seen a Tormek so that makes things worse.
Companies often say "New! Product X! Patented!" But in fact only some very small part of X is patented, sometimes a very peripheral part. For example, LV says their planes are patented, but clearly it isn't the whole concept of a plane; the patent isn't bedding an iron in a body with a mouth, etc. It is some aspect of the plane such as the way the frog progresses, which is different then in the past.
Sadly, true
Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.
>I have come to believe that the situation you describe has become a major impediment to technological progress. In order for someone to bring an invention to market and profit from it, the following must happen:
- the invention must be useful and beneficial to the customer, at a price point that will make it desirable (that goes without saying, but many, probably a majority of inventions, fail that test)
- the inventor must protect his invention through a patent. This is a very expensive process, the inventor must be prepared to invest his life savings if any available, and hope he will not be fleeced by the lawyers or other intermediaries (which has happened many times in the past)
- the inventor must arrange for production of his product, either personally (if feasible), or through a subcontractor. More costs.
- the inventor must cross his fingers and hope that some "donkey's exhaust port" corporation will not copy his invention and drive him out of business, either through price undercutting or protracted litigation
- the inventor must find a retailer who's willing to carry his product. Although the internet makes it possible to sell direct, there's nothing like brick and mortar to give exposure to a product.
If all these conditions are met, only then the inventor will profit from his invention. One snag in any of the above points can send the whole edifice crumbling down and ruin the poor lad.
The other solution is to find an established corporation, which has the will and the resources to take care of all the "administrative" stuff. In exchange the inventor receives a royalty on the sale of his product, which can look minuscule in relation to the retail price... But then again, the corporation takes on many of the risks in that arrangment, and these risks need to be rewarded. But in the process the inventor loses control of his product, and that alone makes the whole approach unpalatable to many.
For the inventor, it's either huge risks or small rewards...
I have a few products that I believe could make it on the market. But then I'm not willing to mortgage my family's future over them...
Maybe, and I don't want to start a political discussion here, the government(s) could intervene in some manner to help inventors develop their products, provided the process can be made self-financing. The inventors and society at large would both gain from such an arrangment. Here's hoping...
DC
Re: Sadly, true
Paul Kierstead
>- the inventor must find a retailer who's willing to carry his product. Although the internet makes it possible to sell direct, there's nothing like brick and mortar to give exposure to a product.
This is pretty debatable. I notice in your analysis you focused on main-stream, high-volume style products where a large corporation just might step in and clobber you.
There are other models of success. For example, L-N was build and succeeds without patents, and with minimal retail presence. There are many, many many vertical market (niche market, all part of the long tail, a very interesting concept) where you sell direct and use the worldwide exposure of the internet to gain a market big enough to make a living from; situations where retail would be insane becuase there are only 100 people in each city interested in your product. You keep *out of way* of the large corporations. There is a whole lotta of people making a living (sometimes a good living) doing this, often called 'botique' although I find the term a little offensive.
Now if you want to be stinkin' rich, you have to go the route you described. Naturally it comes at great risk, and so it should.
A side note (not aimed at you): I hear a lot of complaining along the lines of "I have a great idea but the patent process is difficult". The patent process is designed to protect investment in ideas (and hence benefit to society), not something you thought of getting out of bed and want to make a quick buck on. The idea is that if you make considerable effort researching and developing something, society will give you a monopoly for a time in return for your efforts. It is a little difficult by design, to weed out those not making the investment. Now I will freely admit that the patent system is broken in a lot of ways, but I think many don't seem to grasp that it is a societal contract that is bi-directional.
Maybe in your industry
Derek
>Rob,
I have had 54 patents issued. The company that owns the rights has licensed them to one specific other company for 10's of millions of $$$$ (I do not know exactly how much). I sure wish I got a cut >:(. Many companies wish to get a return on their investments - this company invested more money developing the intellectual property. I am sure they have licensed it to a number of companies for either money or to cross license their patents.
I firmly believe that companies and people have a right and responsibilty (in the case of companies which are managed for the benefit of the owners) to protect their intellectual property. I do not see your actions, as far as I understand them, as being wrong.
You have invested in inventing and manufacturing your tools. Please keep doing so. I have bought many things from Lee Valley and plan to buy more (you should see my Christmas list...).
I recently saw a new product which was a variation of something I "invented" a few years ago for myself. I made prototypes for my own use. I thought about finding someone to patent, manufacture and market it (giving me some kind of fair compensation) but did not pursue it. The investment to pursue it myself was too much for me.
You are a gentleman and have added significantly to this and other forums for quite a while. Thanks for contributing.
Re: How many of us in violation of patents, somewh
ThomD
>Nice example. Sometimes the patent is less a mater of stopping others from using the technology than simply establishing one's own commercial space. I know of one guitar patent that seems to be a serious overreach, and ticked some people off, because it appeared to overlap existing instruments pretty heavily. However the patent was granted, and the luthier in question was certainly building a novel, useful, and original instrument. The reason he sought protection wasn't to stop others from making the instrument as much as to ensure that nobody came along and slammed the doors on his instruments, through the courts.
Re: Can someone tell me....
ThomD
>I don't think there is one feature that leads to this, there are a number of claims in the patent. One that does not appear to be violated is the clever way in which the single guide doubles for all four cuts, there are two separate guides in the Rust effort. The Rust jig does use magnets for saw attachement, is clamped to a board edge, and is a joinery/dovetail jig (?). One takes all these features together and it is aledgedly something new.
Re: Sadly, true
Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon
>Thanks, Paul!
This is the most clear and important fact about patents and copyrights.
From the US Constitution.
Congress Shall Have Power To [...] promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
So, the patent and copyright system was proposed as as to benefit society, not the inventor. The benefit to the inventor is only an inducement to get the inventor to produce it and enright society.
When copyrights and patents degrade to the point they are not longer promoting the "progress of Science and useful Arts" the whole system is in violation of the US Constitution. (I think copyrights are there already, and patents are not far behind...)
Cheers,
Greg