FWW and Lee Valley Patent

Page 2 of 3  

wrote:

I am sure that some of us would appreciate a little groveling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No worries - here.... :)
I can't pretentend to understand why they printed what they did, more than a year after the fact, and without even showing us...let alone how wildly inaccurate it is.
Something's badly wrong there....
Cheers -
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Rob,
    Did the offending tip occur in their last Tools and Shops edition? Maybe they were trying to print the retraction in the same special edition as the original article?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
<snip>

Hi Mark -
Nope - the issue was a regular one... #171.
Of course - any retraction loses it's relevance if it's left long enough... and this one was a dead issue, as far as FWW readers would be concerned...
As I said - I don't understand what they're trying to do, or why. I suppose when they're done their turkey, I'll find out.
Cheers -
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robin Lee wrote:

I'm guessing it finally trickled into the cognizance of some corporate lawyer wanna' be type after wending its way for lo! these many months and finally resurfaced replete w/ cya...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robin Lee wrote:

I had seen this before but it didn't even register as a recollection of what was actually printed. I happened by chance to pick up the issue last night to thumb thru again (while watching Peyton and his buddies demolish the latest fodder :) ) and thought to look at the FWW response.
Must say it seemed like very standard and benign lawyer-speak for a CYA statement. It seemed intended to be a very generic response to a specific instance outlining a defense against future possible litigation should that possibility arise that they are now documented as being against appropriation of anybody's patent rights. That it took a year to get into print for a slick-paper magazine doesn't surprise me a bit. As it has essentially no specific response to the particular incident other than as the preface for why the disclaimer at all, I can also see why it was never brought to LV's attention before publication. In a non-litigious society it would probably have been handled as a simple personal letter but I suspect FWW Corporate treated it properly in today's climate (even though all here and at FWW know enough of LV to "know" it wouldn't be an issue in this particular case, there's no room any more for such an approach in general, unfortunately.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: I think I never read the letter because I did not expect it to be there. : But I have since seen it and it was absolutely reasonable and in keeping : with what I would expect from the class act I think is Lee Valley. I : went off just on FWW's letter which seemed to be written because the : editors's feet were put to the fire. I'm glad to be wrong and happy to : apologize. (and I hope I'm not overdoing it. :-))
Here's what's weird: the letter from Lee Valley was written in early July, 2004. Why is FWW publishing its comment now?
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Barss wrote:

3-6 months in the queue waiting for somebody to decide what to do about it, another 6 months for it to be reviewed by some legal beagle and the response written, then 3 months minimum to meet next production schedule... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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/



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You obviously have never seen what legal jumping on with both feet is if you think this was overkill from a laywer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rickluce wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B a r r y wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rickluce wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:49:47 -0600, Chris Friesen

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guess who wrote:

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

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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/product.asp?s=JapanWoodworker&pf_idX.001&dept_id 005 http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&pI133&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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.