Silly Idea?

[jackellis]

Loring and CWS, thanks for the refresher on patents. I'm not worried about rolling my own.

The drawer lining idea was also helpful. My wife has scraps I can experiment with. Even at $6/roll for the premium version she likes, it has to be cheaper than the router mat I was considering.

Of course, there's the opportunity cost of my time, but that's more than offset by the satisfaction of building something, however trivial?

[Ed62]

I saw the hockey puck thing too. I think it was one of the user tips in one of the magazines.

Ed

[scmhogg]

I bought a couple of sets of Wolf Paws.

http://woodworker.com/wolf-bench-paw...s&searchmode=2

They really seem to work as advertised. They hold a lot better than the router mats I have.

You can plane on them and they don't slip.

Steve

[woodturner]

You are permitted to make devices incorpoarting the features being patented for the purposes of investigation, reearch and development.

With respect, that is a misunderstanding. Patent law restricts anyone from making the product for any reason:
"This exclusivity allows the patent holder to prevent others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the patented item. " (emphasis added)
http://www.tannedfeet.com/patent_law.htm

Generally, patents are issued with broad claims. If one feels that the patent contains prior art, is obvious, or otherwise invalid, the process is to litigate to have the patent invalidated.

[woodturner]

You cannot take someone's patent and produce it commercially for sale to others. But certainly you can produce the "idea" for your own use.

I think you may be confusing copyrights and patents. There is no "fair use" provision in patent law, only in copyright law. A patent legally prohibits anyone from making or using the idea without the written agreement of the patent owner. It is a violation of patent law to make anything that is patented.

[woodturner]

Certainly you will not be the target of prosecution for patent infringment for making one set for use in your basement. In any case, it would not be worth the prosecution effort to recover damges, what would they get, a Dollar or less for royalties on a $12 item if they licensed it?

I'm sure that's what the woodworker who made the clamp thought.

The patent holder must defend all infringement, or he loses his rights. If he is aware of even a single infrigement and does not license or litigate, other opponents can cite that example to have his patent rights nullified. So, while it may seem senseless to prosecute a woodworker over a $12 item, the motivation is that they are protecting their licensing agreements.

In those cases, though, they usually can resolve those matters informally. The patent holder sends a letter ordering the infringer to stop infringing, destroy all copies, and provide proof that has been done.

[cabinetman]

I'm sure that's what the woodworker who made the clamp thought.

What case was that?
.

[Bruce Cohen]

To answer this question in an nutshell.

I was given a 4 pack of Bench Cookies by a friend, probably right when they first went on sale. Put the cylinder containing the cookies on a shelf in the shop.

Until this thread, I realized that I own them.

Guess they're not terribly important, as I still have never used/needed them.

Just another way to spend your money, and usually. I'll buy anything if it looks neat.

Bruce

[All Thumbs]

It is a violation of patent law to make anything that is patented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption

In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry." The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done "in furtherance of the alleged infringer’s legitimate business." In the case of a research university like Duke University, the court held that the alleged use was in furtherance of its legitimate business, and thus the defense was inapplicable.

Reads like it is okay as long as you are doing it for your own amusement/idle curiosity.

That is, if you are in the business of making a competing bench cookie, you can't make one of Rockler's.

But if you just seem them and think, "that is kind of nice, I wonder if I could make one," it is probably okay. As long as you don't sell them?

I don't know. I really doubt it is an issue.

[leehljp]

To answer this question in an nutshell.

I was given a 4 pack of Bench Cookies by a friend, probably right when they first went on sale. Put the cylinder containing the cookies on a shelf in the shop.

Until this thread, I realized that I own them.

Guess they're not terribly important, as I still have never used/needed them.

Just another way to spend your money, and usually. I'll buy anything if it looks neat.

Bruce

Bruce,

For different people, those things are either useless or useful.

I don't have any, but I use spacers to keep fine work off of the table or workbench. I do try to keep the table/workbench clean, but small scratchy items do make unannounced entrances and leave their mark. Not always, but they are unpredictable. So for me, spacers keep the work off of the main table and also allow me to rotate or move the work to some degree without a little gritty scratch or two showing up.

They are just insurance for me. Also as mentioned earlier if they are high enough, they allow clamps to be used.

[radhak]

Rockler's bench cookies look like a cool idea but I can't bring myself to pay $12 for a set when they seem simple enough to make, I typically need more than 4, and I might want some that are more than 1" thick.

Apparently the rubber surface is similar to the material used for router mats. I'm planning to use scrap tigerwood decking for the pucks. Any thoughts on what adhesive to use?

No, not silly at all, at least to me. I've been thinking about exactly on those lines, and I do have a router mat. The only reason I have not actually done it is that I felt any such would be a better success if the inner material (wood or anything else) was a bit heavy, instead of light-weight pine or such. Is tigerwood heavier?

But seeing that I have thunk about it for so many months and not done anything about it, its obvious I have over-analyzed it as always.

I would just use Gorilla glue to begin with, and look for other if it does not work out.

As for the patent thing, I am not going to be bothered with it unless I see a formal letter from somebody; so if I see something I could replicate in my workshop to save money or even for the thrill of it, I will. My assumption is that if somebody finds me a real threat to their business they will take the trouble of contacting me with a cease-and-desist, at which point I will think about it .

So Jack, please post pictures if you manage to get somewhere with your effort soon.

[pelligrini]

The only reason I have not actually done it is that I felt any such would be a better success if the inner material (wood or anything else) was a bit heavy, instead of light-weight pine or such. Is tigerwood heavier?

I don't think the mass of them would make much of a difference, be it a heavy or light material. The big factors are the coefficients of friction from the surface material.

[LCHIEN]

i sent quite a bit of time last night searching the US Patent site for Rockler patents, or those assigned to the Rockler Co. of Medina MN.

I now know the names of their primary inventors (I guess these are the design guys working on them) and their patent attorneys. They have about 5 patents recently applied for and a few more already issed over the last say 7-8 years, includling that door hanging thing for finishing that uses the Eurohinge recess.

So anyway most of their patents appear to be what they call design patents, which are not so much on the apparatus but appearance features, like, blue, cylindircal, with convex sides and black dimpled rubber anti-slip on top and bottom.

So While i did not find one specifically for bench cookies i'm betting that their patent is to prevent someone from making a look alike knock off, not a functional equivalent.

Not finding a patent application on file means that either they have filed too recently to be part of the on-line database, or its in someone elses name (besides assigning ownership to rockler and or by their most prolific employees) or they really haven't applied for one yet (and probably won't since sale of product without prior appying for a patent loses patent rights).

P.s. what's wrong with this patent illustration picture?

[pelligrini]

My cookies say Pat Pend as well as some of the artwork on their website:

[woodturner]

i sent quite a bit of time last night searching the US Patent site for Rockler patents, or those assigned to the Rockler Co. of Medina MN.

Thanks for doing the research. As I said earlier, I have not read their patents, so my comments were based on general patent law and my experience as a patent holder, patent assigner, and patent defender.

I was just trying to give a "heads up" to a possible risk. Just sharing information, it's up to the individual to decide how to use that information.

My cookies say Pat Pend as well as some of the artwork on their website:

Based on Loring's research, I wonder if they are just trying to discourage copies. If their only patents are design patents, they have little or no ability to claim infringement for functional equivalents of a different "design". Putting "patent pending" on a product will scare off many potential infringers and is a common tactic for that reason. If patents are pending, that fact must be stated on products produced and sold to protect the patent rights.