FWW and Lee Valley Patent

[Bruce Barnett]

In the letters section of the latest issue, FWW add's an apology for describing a device that Lee Valley retains the patent (a magnetic dovetail jig), and FWW suggests that you should not make this device yourself, and instead buy it from Lee Valley.

IANAL, but I have talked to patent experts.

There is nothing illegal about disclosing a patent, as it is public information.

It has been explained to me that there is nothing illegal about making a patented device for your own use. In fact, this is encouraged, as it helps future inventions. Perhaps we can improve on an old invention. However, selling it is illegal.

There are moral issues - and some may decide to buy the jig from LV instead of making one themselves. Doing so shows respect, and I do respect LV.

But I also respect creativity and inventivity.

Sorry Robin, but if I can find a way to make something for myself that is better than something you sell, I will do so. I hope you understand.

[rickluce]

I also saw the fine woodworking article and I thought that was a strange commentary. So by that logic(Fine woodworking), if ,when they invented the frisbee, you were seen throwing around a pie tin, you would be commiting a crime? The problem, I would think, is that Fine woodworking is a company that makes a profit. They used a device that has already been patented to contribute to the revenue of Fine woodworking. I think that is were the patent infringement occured. To be honest with you , maybe it was the way it was written, it fried me a little that Lee valley made a big deal about this article. But that doesn't change my opinion of Lee valleys exceptional job of genuine, helpful customer service. My wife said it the other day..."I love getting things from Lee valley...they are really nice people"

[Mark & Juanita]

I also read that "correction". One of the things about patents is that they must be defended, so I have no problem with Lee Valley's actions -- I'm sure the letter came from a lawyer, so all the harsh legal threats were contained therein. I think the correction you saw from FWW was one of those corporate CYA actions that went beyond what was required in order to protect themselves from future action.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Duane Bozarth]

Not precisely, but there is still reason to defend their unauthorized use...

[Chris Friesen]

*Trademarks* must be defended. Patents do not fall under the same rules.

Chris

[B a r r y]

I read it as sarcastic. Paraphrasing - "..we ask our readers to buy one and to not make their own?"

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

[Robin Lee]

No worries here - the only possible offence we're concerned with is FWW commiting "inducement to infringe". You're correct - you can make whatever you want... but FWW cannot teach or promote copying of patented products.

Their "retraction" was a surprise to us - and factually incorrect.

Mistakes happen - and all they had to do was own up to it...

Cheers -

Rob

[Robin Lee]

Hi -

Just for your information - our "harsh" letter can be seen here:

-

Rob

[Chris Friesen]

Technically, yes.

There's good information at:

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

[Chris Friesen]

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

[rickluce]

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.

[Mark & Juanita]

Much nicer than most such notifications I've seen. Ya'll really are a class outfit. :-)

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Chris Friesen]

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

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:50:31 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Chris Friesen quickly quoth:

You obviously don't own one, Chris. Google shows 11,200,000 hits for that phrase. I looked into it and decided against spending the money to patent my inventions. It would be too costly to start and even worse to defend. I make a few grand a year on them as is.

patents must be defended here (USA) as a condition of grant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------- I sent in my $5, so *

why haven't I been 'saved'? * Graphic Design - Humorous T-shirts

[Chris Friesen]

No, I don't.

I do work in software, however, and there are a number of companies which control substantial numbers of patents, and have stated formally that they will not prosecute their patents against open-source implementations.

If you do not defend a trademark, it becomes diluted. Patents don't work the same way--the patent holder can decide whether to enforce it.

There's all sorts of information on patent defense--but that's because it's the only way to get any money out of the infringer, and usually the patent holders want money.

I don't think this is correct. Since I can't prove a negative , I guess it's up to you to prove the positive.

Chris

[CW]

[Bruce Barnett]

Thanks, Robin, for clearing the air. I suspected this was going on. Lawyers make people say strange things in unnatural ways. :-)

Cheers!

[Bruce Barnett]

Thanks, Robin, for clearing the air. I suspected this was going on. Lawyers make people say strange things in unnatural ways. :-)

Cheers!

[Guess who]

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.

[B a r r y]

The letter reminds me of the TV show "Due South", where law breakers were politely arrested by a Mountie.