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?
Personally, I prefer nits and inconsequential details.
Barry
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.
I think a big line is drawn when if the item or idea, or a written description of same, is sold.
(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.
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?
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
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.
No we can't.
THAT was good!
As opposed to just obtaining the fully descriptive patent for free from
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 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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.
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.
into the ground.
Mike
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 :-)
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.
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.
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
Yet they have no worries about fragrantly violating copyright protected material from non US jurisdictions for their own gains.
Disney are two faced utter scum.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.