Silly Idea?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
I was under the impression that patent pending means just that. They haven't been awarded a patent yet. It may or may not happen. Just that it has been applied for and it would be covered should the patent be issued. Sort of a CYA while the process needed to issue a patent elapses.
Could very well be wrong about it though.
I personally do not see what is so patentable about them. I have used others items to preform some of the same duties as the cookies. I call it dunnage. I use it to elevate certain items off the work bench for cutting with a circular or jig saw. I do this every day as a matter of fact. Is my scrap twobafour dunnage idea being infringed upon by baked goods?
I have been doing this since I was a kid. Nothing new there.
I think the idea has merit, but should be in the front of a Wood magazine rather than in the Patent office. However, I guess Rockler has to justify having the designers and attorney's on Payroll.LeeComment
-
I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.Comment
-
What's Wrong with the patent illustration?
Yeah, assuming the wood removed for the mounting holes is a small percentage of the door mass, the center of gravity of the door frame should be in the center of the door. ANd the pivot being hinged, the center of mass of the door should hang in straight line beneath the suspension point.
In the illustration, the COG appears to be quite far to the right of the suspension point.
Loring in Katy, TX USA
If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questionsComment
-
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.
That would go against what I said earlier about making them for research use;
I read the patent statutes on www.uspto.gov and it appears to be fairly clear on the point that you are restricted on even making any.
I recall the research exemption from a few years back our patent attorney discussed this. Your citing the 2002 article is more recent. I'll look into it. I always thought that the ability to incorporate a competitors patented items for test and research purposes would permit evaluating the technology and thereby allowing you to improve upon it and test alternatives, something that would be in the interests of society as a whole.
However as this appears to be a design patent (applied for), if issued, the patent only probably would cover specific color and shape (e.g. ornamental design features). so almost any home made would not be in violation unless you clearly tried to copy the rockler appearance.Last edited by LCHIEN; 10-19-2010, 09:32 AM.
Loring in Katy, TX USA
If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questionsComment
-
Woodturner is correct about pursuing all infringement claims, at least with respect to intellectual property. I think the landmark case is Hitachi vs. Intel, and it goes back to the 1980s.
In any case, you're all now banned from my shop.
That way no one can squeal on me.

Comment
-
Family Handyman Magazine, Oct. 2010 Page 80.
They suggest a simple way to make the bench cookies with the hockey pucks, spray adhesive and shelf liners. Simple enough. They say that hockey pucks run about $1.25 each. I'll have to check out some sporting good stores locally to see if they stock them.Comment
-
if you are making illegal blue round supports and you post a picture here on BT3central or elsewhere on the internet then you'll maybe get a cease and desist letter from Rocklers Intellectual property lawyers Westman, Champlin, and Kelly P.A. of Medina MN.Woodturner is correct about pursuing all infringement claims, at least with respect to intellectual property. I think the landmark case is Hitachi vs. Intel, and it goes back to the 1980s.
In any case, you're all now banned from my shop.
That way no one can squeal on me.

Last edited by LCHIEN; 10-19-2010, 09:41 PM.
Loring in Katy, TX USA
If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questionsComment
-
It sounds like a rumor more than the truth. A case like that would be of interest to both hobbyists and professionals. Without any substantiation, just to make a point, seems that somebody in whatever club that was made it up.As a practical matter, you are likely to get away with it, unless you share with others that you have infringed the patent. That's what happened with the wood clamps a few years back. The woodworker who was charged with patent infringement had told his buddies in the woodworking club that he had made them, and somehow that information got back to the patent owner.
A search didn't turn up anything as described, so if you can't cite the case, it's likely it's just gossip.
.Comment
Footer Ad
Collapse


LCHIEN
Comment