Is public posting of PM's legal?

[cgallery]

A not so hypothetical question:

I like doweling jigs. I've made some, and I've modified others.

One manufacturer of doweling jigs has been sending me threatening PM's (not at this site) insisting that my postings and web pages about my doweling jigs infringe on their patents.

Their claims are the height of frivolity. But I'm getting tired of them nonetheless.

Would it be legal for me to post their PM's to me on a public web page (not here, of course) for others to read?

Why? A desire to expose a company that is attempting to convert a patent into some sort of monopoly.

[Ed62]

I'm certainly not a lawyer. Saying that, I don't think it would violate any laws, unless it could possibly be a copyright law. Even if it did, it would not be illegal to expose them for what they are. You could have done that by telling us, in your original post, the name of the company. Of course if you did that, it might be a good idea to keep the e-mails you received from them. Just my two cents, which ain't worth much today.

Ed

[radhak]

Legality is never in question. You get a message, it's up to you to publish it. There is no need to even mask the company's name. It would be needed only if you and them come to a formal agreement of sorts which demands such 'secrecy', and there is a legal, signed document specifying it.

You can go to town proclaiming anything you want - it might rile them up, but it make them pause, too.

[LCHIEN]

Concerning Correspondence /PM/e-mail
i don't think that any private correspondence can be considered unpublishable. Once sent to the recipient the recipient can do what they wish with it.

Concerning patents:
you state "Why? A desire to expose a company that is attempting to convert a patent into some sort of monopoly. "
Well, a patent IS a legal time-limited monopoly. Every company holding a patent has a government-given right to use that monopoly and further, legally must protect that monopoly by warning possible infringers, OR, failing that, they will lose the monopoly, That is, if they knowingly allow company A to infringe, no matter how small or limited their market, then when company B infringes on a national scale, they will have a claim that the patent was allowed to lapse when company A made and sold them.

So you can't fault their legal actions and communications and they are probably legally worded to protect their rights which might seem awkward or comical or frivolous to you.

At this point they are probably perfectly in their rights and responsibilities. I don't know exactly what they said to you but they are 1) preserving their rights and avoiding any argument of abandonment and 2) may be warning you not to go any further and 3) perhaps trying to intimidate you into just getting off their turf.

Your rights regarding this invention:
The patent if issued was published in the US Patent office and you can freely get copies on the internet www.uspto.gov and other services. This will explain exactly what was patented in the claims. That puts the knowledge in the public - so anyone can know about it. That's part of the Patent philosophy, to protect those with ideas yet place the knowledge in the public's hands to further technological advances.

You as a person or company can build an item using the patent, for experimental or educational purposes, provided you do not sell this item or use this item for production of salable items.
You can write about it (as the knowledge is already public, its not a trade secret), and probably even sell your articles.

What I think you should do is to get a copy of the patent, read and understand it. Then in your future articles and in a follow-up to articles you already published (e.g. a letter to the editor) you should state that parts of the doweling process or jig are patented by Company X and if you wish to build these for sale or production use then you should contact company X for license and royalty information. State that the article is for educational purposes and can legally only be built for personal experimentation. Or, you can simply avoid the patented parts.

OTOH, if the company sues you, you might find yourself on the hook for some hefty legal expenses, Intellectual property attorneys (fancy speak for patent lawyers) don't work nearly as cheaply as personal injury lawyers. So you may be advised to tread carefully.

It's arguable that the volume and technical complexity of patents today is so high that the patent office is not fully researching them before issuing the patent. THis leads to patents being decided in courts rather than the offices of the PTO. The other side is that companies are hoarding masses of patents in a portfolio they then use to restrict competition by threatening patent infringement. usually the other company countersue and then they engage in legal proceedings for 3-4 years (requiring deep pockets), finally settling out of court and trading rights to patent portfolios. The company with the bigger portfolio usually gets some money to boot.


I do have 7 or 8 patents in my name but I'm not a lawyer so take my advice for what you paid for it.

[RayintheUK]

You get a message, it's up to you to publish it. There is no need to even mask the company's name. It would be needed only if you and them come to a formal agreement of sorts which demands such 'secrecy', and there is a legal, signed document specifying it.

If that were the case, then what is the purpose of PMs? Surely you use the facility to communicate something that you want to keep between the two parties, don't you? In that case, there must be that expectation on both sides.

While there may be no enforceable legal side or precedent, I'd say that you should declare your intent to make public if the other party doesn't stop the offending behaviour.

On another forum, a member wound me up and I used a PM to speak my mind. He then publicly accused me of "hiding behind a PM" and "if I had something to say I should have the courage to say it." Courage wasn't the issue, I was trying to be polite by keeping my response private, but I then published it, as you might imagine. I thought that was fair enough, but I wouldn't publish a PM without prior notice (or permission).

Ray

[cgallery]

The PM's are from O.M.S., manufacturers of the Dowelmax. With my previous jig, they succeeded in initially convincing the operators of woodnet.net that my jig infringed on the Dowelmax patent. Without even giving me a chance to respond, woodnet.net removed my post.

Once I pointed out (to woodnet.net) that my jig was almost a 1:1 copy of a jig that appeared in FWW magazine almost two years before the Dowelmax patent, they seemed sympathetic (saying something like, "wouldn't be the first time a company stepped on a little guy."). But the thread never returned.

O.M.S. sent PM's to me at SMC about the original jig, too. They complained numerous times to me that I was infringing. I explained (nicely) that they were wrong, that there was previous art and no actual infringement even if there wasn't. The original jig's thread there was ultimately removed because it became a debate over the legality (with I believe almost every single member, save for one, agreeing that O.M.S. was in the wrong).

Now that I've posted about my Rockler jig adaptation, they're now sending PM's at SMC again, and they've had a letter sent by their attorney.

I have done lots of patent research (even have two pending myself), and I'm pretty certain I have nothing to worry about. In my opinion their claims are the height of frivolity, and if they tried something legal they would (in my opinion) be paying my legal expenses.

But I'm growing tired of their incessant nagging. I'm thinking about making everything they send me public, hoping that they'll think twice about writing me any more.

In my opinion, they are attempting to extend a patent on the Dowelmax into a doweling jig monopoly. They don't want any talk in woodworking forums about any doweling jigs that aren't Dowelmax made.

[cgallery]

What I think you should do is to get a copy of the patent, read and understand it.

Done, and done.

Maybe my response (one of numerous) to them will give you some insight on the technical details.

1. PRIOR ART: My doweling jig is almost an identical copy of the doweling jig that appeared in Fine Woodworking magazine in 1999. The article predated your client's patent filing by almost two years, and demonstrated a jig comprised of a drilling guide and a fence fastened with screws. I have only deviated in my use of t-slot hardware in place of the author's screws.
2. LACK OF ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR A CLAIM OF INFRINGEMENT: I have read that, “even if the patent is valid, the plaintiff must still prove that every element of at least one claim was infringed and that such infringement caused some sort of damage.” I am not infringing on either of the patent's claims. Not even close!

This is truly, in my opinion, a case where they are trying to extend a patent into a monopoly on _ALL_ doweling jigs.

My jigs look NOTHING like, nor READ anything like the Dowelmax design.

Jig 1: www.cgallery.com/jpthien/dj.htm
Jig 2: http://www.bt3central.com/showthread...ckler+doweling
Dowelmax patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=nOs...g+doweling+jig

[LCHIEN]

The meat of a patent is the patent claims - always in the body of the patent, enumerated and following the "We claim:" statement.

You keep throwing around their "claims", but the patented ones are the only ones that count. When you say claims are frivolous are you talking about the ones in the patent or the ones in the correspondence?

If they have a patent then their patent claims are legal despite prior art until such time as the specific claims or the whole patent are overturned! This is even if the PTO or the filer was negligent in researching prior art.

Unfortunately it will cost you a bundle to get their patent overturned. Unless you plan to go into the doweling fixture business, You have no
reasonable hope to pay for the suit unless you are wealthy beyond belief.

without seeing the articles or the correspondence or the patent I can't make any judgement about whether they are justified or just making a nuisance.
So its all your call.

[LCHIEN]

OK, I'll look at them later. Reading patents hurts my brain some days, especially on Holiday weekends.

[cgallery]

When you say claims are frivolous are you talking about the ones in the patent or the ones in the correspondence?

Sorry, the ones in the correspondence.

I take no position on the validity of their patent. I only argue that it doesn't apply to my doweling jigs.

At least one CLAIM of their patent has to have ALL THE ELEMENTS infringed for one of my jigs to be infringing. And their patent only has two claims. It is pretty easy to see that we're not even close!

[ragswl4]

Sorry, the ones in the correspondence.

I take no position on the validity of their patent. I only argue that it doesn't apply to my doweling jigs.

At least one CLAIM of their patent has to have ALL THE ELEMENTS infringed for one of my jigs to be infringing. And their patent only has two claims. It is pretty easy to see that we're not even close!

I have a doweling jig called a "Dowel-It" and it looks pretty similiar to the DowelMax, at least more so than your jigs. The Dowel-It also has a patent so from this Sea Lawyer's (means no degree and no experience) perspective it would seem that DowelMax is just rattling their sabre. However, tread lightly as should this end up in court who knows what could happen??

[cgallery]

However, tread lightly as should this end up in court who knows what could happen??

Yeah, it is all about balance. I obviously don't want to go to court over this (although I do think there is a very good chance they'd be picking up my legal expenses if it did go that way).

But I also don't want to spend the rest of my life allowing manufacturers to push me around online. I'm a somewhat creative guy and imagine this isn't the last time something like this will happen.

[jackellis]

I don't know a whole lot about patents but this situation seems to be pretty absurd. First, you've adapted something that's commercially available. Second, the patented jig has a number of built-in devices for clamping and centering that your adaptation doesn't.

Seems clear enough to me that the patent holder is trying to make sure information about simple, competitive alternatives is simply not available.

[cgallery]

I don't know a whole lot about patents but this situation seems to be pretty absurd. First, you've adapted something that's commercially available. Second, the patented jig has a number of built-in devices for clamping and centering that your adaptation doesn't.

Seems clear enough to me that the patent holder is trying to make sure information about simple, competitive alternatives is simply not available.

When you consider that I haven't really made any changes to the Rockler unit other than to replace the clear plastic guide with wooden ones of various sizes, their claims of infringement seem that much more absurd.

I really just want them to go away.

[crokett]

It is legal for you to post PMs. If I send you a letter I have no legal expectation of privacy once you receive it. It is yours to do with as you see fit. However, before you post the PMs I would at least try to get them to cease and desist. The threat to publish the PMs is leverage only until they are actually published.