VisorCentral.com - Better screen protectors

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Accessories (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=3)
-- Better screen protectors (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=3772)

Posted by dequardo on 05-31-2000 04:55 AM:

Well someone finally got to you. A tepid thank you for the information. The mind reels why I had to ask more than once. Rest assured I will NEVER purchase your product however and will spend much time dissuading others as well. It's called the First Amendment. You can look it up.

'You stir up the hive, expect to get stung.'

Mike

Posted by homer on 05-31-2000 05:07 AM:

Inventorb:

I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not you have a patent. That is pretty much fact. They are questioning how logical it was for the patent office to grant you your patent. The idea of protecting glass with a clear plastic has been around for decades. It's not exclusive to palm pilots, or laptops, for that matter. As mentioned before, pretty much all electronic devices with a scratchable surface (usually the LCD screen) have shipped with some sort of protective, clear, sometimes adhesive plastic film.

My first alarm clock purchased some 15 years ago had one of these. It even had the fake time on it. It's one of those common sense inventions that no one bothered to patent because it was just obvious. Sort of like stickers.

You came along and patented it specifically for the application of computer devices. The patent office decided that it was a unique enough description to grant you the patent...which you are now using to bully other companies. You are attempting to attain an monopoly on screen protectors...a somewhat futile quest as anyone can purchase a comparable product as yours off the shelf of any drug store.

The bottom line is that for a product of this design, you don't need a patent to make a good product and build a good business. Instead of using your time to threaten every single person out there with your patent, invest some time into manufacturing a good product. Invest in R&D. Take some time to market the product. Take some time to communicate with your customers and answer their questions.

The patent office is a laughable system. What was originally designed to protect intellectual property and encourage innovation is now often use to simply hoard ideas that are already floating around. Microsoft DIDN'T invent Style Sheets. Amazon.com DIDN'T invent One-click ordering. They were simply the first ones to ask the patent office to grant them the exclusive rights to the obvious.

While we can accuse InventorB of some things, we really can't blame him for protecting his patent...that's really the fault of the US patent office for granting it to him in the first place.

Maybe you, Inventorb, DID come up with this idea in your garage one afternoon. Unfortunately, it's hard for you to claim that, in the past 20 years, you were the first and only one to come up with such an idea. By flaunting your patent in the face of others, you are doing just that. I do feel for you if you truly did take the time to invent this and patent it. I suppose my first reaction would be to do just what you are doing. Unfortunately, you appear to be using a LOT of energy chasing all of these people who are not specifically going out to destroy you. They obviously had the exact same idea you had, they just weren't able to patent it before you.

Just some thoughts...

Posted by rclayton on 05-31-2000 05:51 AM:

A few things Mr. One-Time Inventor.....

I have found a few sites that I assume are 'legally' selling screen protectors and paying your license fees.......they all contain this disclaimer:

quote:

"This Screen Protector is licensed under Warman U.S. Patent Re 35,318 for use only on a face plate of an electronic instrument which is also marked with a restrictive legend stating that the face plate is licensed under Warman U.S. Patent Re 35,318 for use only with similarly licensed Protective Shields."

If I am reading this correctly, I can use WriteRights or any other screen protector because my Visor face plate (screen) is not marked with a restrictive legend. And I am not sure about the wording either...face plate = screen? According to the dictionary 'face plate' = A covering plate for an object, to receive wear or shock. Doesn't mention a display at all....So I guess I can't use my WriteRights on the Visor's cover....because that is a face plate.

Also, I looked up your patent and found the Abstract listed as:

quote:

A viewing screen protective shield is set forth removably securable in association with a viewing screen, such as LCR screens, as found in fish finders and the like, which are typically exposed to adverse weather conditions. The protective shield is readily removable and replaceable and include convex peripheral edges to conform the shield to the convex screen with an outwardly extending tab formed outwardly of a single corner of the shield to enhance manual grasping thereof. To enhance securement of the shield to the associated screen, a plurality of transparent adhesive strips may be secured to an interior surface of the shield to enhance securement of the transparent shield to the associated screen.

From what I am reading your 'screen protector' is set apart for other designs simply by placing an 'outwardly extending tab' on them. Hey, my WriteRights and the other screen protector I have come to use does not have this feature. Therefore, I believe they don't violate your patent. Also the 'other' screen protector I have come to use does not use 'a plurality of transparent adhesive strips', just static cling.....so where does that leave them?

So, does anyone else follow me here? Am I reading these quotes wrong? As far as I can tell, Concept Kitchen, and any other company can make screen protectors as long as they don't have a tab to aid in removal and don't use adhesives...????

Finally, Mr. War-man.....I think you have aiding in making sure your 1-3 Pay back Period (per Walmart Innovative Network) is going to take longer. From reading the previous posts, you not only upset VisorCentral.com visitors, but many have taken to using the most powerful advertising tool available, and turning it against you......word of mouth!

Ryan

[This message has been edited by rclayton (edited 05-31-2000).]

Posted by Inventorb on 05-31-2000 06:03 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer:
Inventorb:

I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not you have a patent. That is pretty much fact. They are questioning how logical it was for the patent office to grant you your patent. The idea of protecting glass with a clear plastic has been around for decades. It's not exclusive to palm pilots, or laptops, for that matter. As mentioned before, pretty much all electronic devices with a scratchable surface (usually the LCD screen) have shipped with some sort of protective, clear, sometimes adhesive plastic film.

My first alarm clock purchased some 15 years ago had one of these. It even had the fake time on it. It's one of those common sense inventions that no one bothered to patent because it was just obvious. Sort of like stickers.

You came along and patented it specifically for the application of computer devices. The patent office decided that it was a unique enough description to grant you the patent...which you are now using to bully other companies. You are attempting to attain an monopoly on screen protectors...a somewhat futile quest as anyone can purchase a comparable product as yours off the shelf of any drug store.

The bottom line is that for a product of this design, you don't need a patent to make a good product and build a good business. Instead of using your time to threaten every single person out there with your patent, invest some time into manufacturing a good product. Invest in R&D. Take some time to market the product. Take some time to communicate with your customers and answer their questions.

The patent office is a laughable system. What was originally designed to protect intellectual property and encourage innovation is now often use to simply hoard ideas that are already floating around. Microsoft DIDN'T invent Style Sheets. Amazon.com DIDN'T invent One-click ordering. They were simply the first ones to ask the patent office to grant them the exclusive rights to the obvious.

While we can accuse InventorB of some things, we really can't blame him for protecting his patent...that's really the fault of the US patent office for granting it to him in the first place.

Maybe you, Inventorb, DID come up with this idea in your garage one afternoon. Unfortunately, it's hard for you to claim that, in the past 20 years, you were the first and only one to come up with such an idea. By flaunting your patent in the face of others, you are doing just that. I do feel for you if you truly did take the time to invent this and patent it. I suppose my first reaction would be to do just what you are doing. Unfortunately, you appear to be using a LOT of energy chasing all of these people who are not specifically going out to destroy you. They obviously had the exact same idea you had, they just weren't able to patent it before you.

Just some thoughts...

I have contacted 143 different Companies and Corporations. None and I repeat NONE of them has proven that my Patented Idea was in existence before I invented it. NONE of them has shown us any evidence to Invalidate my Art. Many of them have tried to invalidate my Art with so called Shipping Label patents.

I challenge any body who reads this to prove. I was not the first one to invent this. You are require by law to prove this Invalidity. The companies I have informed are required by law to PROVE to me that the patent is not valid. NONE of these company's have proven this.

All I hear is accusations. This will not prove anything.

What you are referring to is called a Shipping Labels. These words speak for them selves. The alarm clock you are referring to was not an LCD and the like. At that time the alarm clocks had numbers that flipped, or the numbers was cut in half and half of them flipped.

I have a product and I will continue to enforce my intellectual property rights as required by law.

If you do not like what the patent office does. Then go to congress they are the ones that make the Laws. Do not down grade me. I am just a little guy trying to make a living in a world of others deceptions.

Thank You
Bill

Posted by Inventorb on 05-31-2000 06:12 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by rclayton:
A few things Mr. One-Time Inventor.....

I have found a few sites that I assume are 'legally' selling screen protectors and paying your license fees.......they all contain this disclaimer:
From what I am reading your 'screen protector' is set apart for other designs simply by placing an 'outwardly extending tab' on them. Hey, my WriteRights and the other screen protector I have come to use does not have this feature. Therefore, I believe they don't violate your patent. Also the 'other' screen protector I have come to use does not use 'a plurality of transparent adhesive strips', just static cling.....so where does that leave them?

So, does anyone else follow me here? Am I reading these quotes wrong? As far as I can tell, Concept Kitchen, and any other company can make screen protectors as long as they don't have a tab to aid in removal and don't use adhesives...????

Finally, Mr. War-man.....I think you have aiding in making sure your 1-3 Pay back Period (per Walmart Innovative Network) is going to take longer. From reading the previous posts, you not only upset VisorCentral.com visitors, but many have taken to using the most powerful advertising tool available, and turning it against you......word of mouth!

Ryan

[This message has been edited by rclayton (edited 05-31-2000).]

What you are reading is called an abstract.
The very first abstract is located at http://www.vsps.com/abstract.htm
This abstract was filled in 1988 as a patent pending.

The abstract of a patent is a general term to one skilled in the art. The document has claims. These claims are the fact of the document. Not the abstract.

In the claims you will see that the TAB is optional.

Bill

[This message has been edited by Inventorb (edited 05-31-2000).]

Posted by Nhatman on 05-31-2000 06:23 AM:

James, I agree with the others and would like to request that you do NOT review Mr. Warman's product. Instead of using his resources to improve his products, create a better web page, and market his products, he spends most of his time "policing" his patent(s).

Furthermore, what REALLY got me peeved was that fact that he filed a complaint with eBay to try to stop others from selling WriteRights. If indeed he has the legal justification to enforce his patent, he should work it out with Concept Kitchen, NOT the individual consumers, because until he can legally stop CK from selling WriteRights, he cannot stop anyone else (including VisorCentral) from selling or reselling them.

If you are unsure of how the VisorCentral community feels about Mr. Warman, please conduct a poll before you decide to review his product, because I hereby, officially declare my boycott of his products.

And lastly, Mr. Warman, PLEASE do NOT place periods in the middle of your sentences where they don't belong! Your nonsense is difficult enough to understand without all those %$@^%# periods!!!

[This message has been edited by Nhatman (edited 05-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Nhatman (edited 05-31-2000).]

Posted by Inventorb on 05-31-2000 06:41 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Nhatman:
James, I agree with the others and would like to request that you do NOT review Mr. Warman's product. Instead of using his resources to improve his products, create a better web page, and market his products, he spends most of his time "policing" his patent(s).

Furthermore, what REALLY got me peeved was that fact that he filed a complaint with eBay to try to stop others from selling WriteRights. If indeed he has the legal justification to enforce his patent, he should work it out with Concept Kitchen, NOT the individual consumers, because until he can legally stop CK from selling WriteRights, he cannot stop anyone else (including VisorCentral) from selling or reselling them.

If you are unsure of how the VisorCentral community feels about Mr. Warman, please conduct a poll before you decide to review his product, because I hereby, officially declare my boycott of his products.

And lastly, Mr. Warman, PLEASE do NOT place periods in the middle of your sentences where they don't belong! Your nonsense is difficult enough to understand without all those %$@^%# periods!!!

[This message has been edited by Nhatman (edited 05-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Nhatman (edited 05-31-2000).]

Again accept my apologies for others false accusations.

I cannot understand why this community has jumped on me. I am doing the same as Ford, Chevy, and Motorola. I am defending my business from intruders. What I see in this news group is people being stirred up by false accusations. These accusations are not coming from me. Everything I have said is true and fact.
Bill

Posted by Gameboy70 on 05-31-2000 07:31 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Inventorb:

The supposed concept kitchen response is incorrect. If you indeed are from concept kitchen you know how to contact me. The royalties on every screen protector for a Visor or
Palm size screen is $0.15 each. This is not a ridiculous amount. This is a reasonable amount.
This royalty will not double the price regardless what these other people are trying to tell you.

"Supposed"? I have Concept Kitchen's email in my possession, and it has their domain name in the email address. That leaves four possibilities:

1. I forged the email, somehow gaining access to CK's domain name server. If this is the case then either (a) there is no Tim Nugent at CK or (b) Tim Nugent will deny having sent the email. So call my bluff like I called yours: go ahead and ask them.

2. I forged the email in my post, and it never came from CK's domain. Again, contacting CK directly will confirm or deny this.

3. Their email is legitimate, and so is their case. This would explain why they haven't submitted to your extortion.

4. Their email is legitimate, but their case is not. So call their bluff and contact them. Why wait for them to contact you, even if they aren't a private party selling them secondhand on eBay?

As for CK's claims that your royalties would double the price of their product, and your claims that you're royalty if $0.15 a sheet, I have no way of independently verifying either allegation. But you're right about one thing: I can't prove that screen protectors didn't exist before your patent. Then again, I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either.

Posted by Gameboy70 on 05-31-2000 07:56 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Inventorb:
Again accept my apologies for others false accusations.

I cannot understand why this community has jumped on me. I am doing the same as Ford, Chevy, and Motorola. I am defending my business from intruders. What I see in this news group is people being stirred up by false accusations. These accusations are not coming from me. Everything I have said is true and fact.
Bill

Actually, it would be more accurate to say you are doing the same as Microsoft, Amazon or Priceline: finding a weakness in the US patent system and shrewdly exploiting it. But who cares if it's unethical as long as it's lucrative?

Thank You
Gameboy70 Inventor

Posted by VoxDei on 05-31-2000 11:19 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Inventorb:
I cannot understand why this community has jumped on me.

Mr Warman,

Let me suggest that "this community" has "jumped on you" for several reasons:

1) The idea of protecting screens, while legally protectable, is common sense. Yes WriteRights are expensive but do you know what? I have read post after post from folks coming up with alternatives and even showing where step-by-step instructions for homemade alternatives exist on the 'net, but never have I seen anyone from Concept Kitchen on come here and try to intimidate people with threats of legal action for this reasonable expression of free thought and activity. OTOH - your website seems more concerned with threatening people than it does in providing information about your product. Look how long it took you to give a simple and direct answer about "clear" and "glare," yet you were jumping all over people about your "intellectual property." You have protrayed yourself, in this discussion, as someone whose main concern seems to be self-preservation, not the honesty proferring of a unique and helpful product.

2) Your claims of just being one of us and trying to save everyone a little money fall flat. If this was truly the case, you'd not worry about people cutting pieces of vinyl or selling WrightRights on eBay. If you're so concerned about "helping us" it seems that you'd let the free market do it's thing...if you've got a better product and can sell it at a cheaper price, fine. But the legal threats seem to indicate that this isn't about the product, it's about you. I, for one, won't ever send you my money because I have doubts as to whether your product is even acceptable, in the long run. If you spend more time protecting your right to sell your product than you do promoting it, it implies to me that there's not much there to promote.

3) The tone of your answers continues to imply a lack of understanding for the concerns that have been expressed here, a fact that is especially amazing given the tremendous frustration behind them. Let me offer this example that strikes me as...well...I discovered yesterday that you had lifted Mr. Mitchell's comments about your product from this discussion and posted them as an endorsement on your website. Mr. Mitchell then indicated that he did not intend to endorse your product and that he did not give his approval for the use of his words in that manner. As of Wed. morning you've spent lots of time posting messages on this list defending your legal right to own a common sense idea and threaten anyone who uses their common sense to protect their screens, but you've never once pubically apologized to Mr. Mitchell or even acknowledged on this discussion board that you've (now knowingly) inappropriately used his words. I have not stopped by your website again to check as of Wed a.m., but I'd leave that for you to tell us, whether you've removed his comments. Further, you have not acknowledged to the VisorCentral folks that you are "trolling" this list to lift comments which you feel can help your business (which doesn't even get to the point of why, if your product is so great, you have to appropriate people's words - why they don't write you directly). The first thing Mr. Mitchell did was raise the question as to whether our words here were in the "public domain," but in all your posts last night, you never even addressed the question.

In the end, you have a product that you, somehow, managed to protect before others. You now seem more concerned with protection than promotion and when challenged you simply do more of the same, in legally threatening ways. You then pander to us by trying to convince us that this is really all for our own good while your own attitudes seem to reveal that "our own good" is the last of your concerns.

I'm sure others can give you more specifics as to why this community has jumped on you, but I think these are some fairly substantial ones. Basically it all gets back to the fact that just because you "can" legally protect this idea, doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. But you just don't seem to get that point. Mr Warman, your clinging to your little legal protections is just silly and you've turned it into something offensive, that's why people have jumped on you.

I originally clicked into this discussion because I'm continue to look for the least expensive and most useable option for screen protection. I'm still continuing my search. I will never know whether you make an acceptable product or not, but I do know that when I've found whatever works best for me of the many legitimate homemade options out there, I'll be smiling everytime I write on my IVX, because I won't be paying Concept Kitchen, or you, or your lawyers, one dime.

[This message has been edited by VoxDei (edited 05-31-2000).]

Posted by SCM on 05-31-2000 12:51 PM:

I am shocked. I know I shouldn't be. In fact I should have expected it, but none the less, I'm surprised. Inventor Bobby has posted no less than FIVE posts over the 10 hours since I posted my request for an explaination of why he has used my name and my words to endorse his product without my knowledge. Yet, in the five rather lengthy posts, he has yet to even acknowlege that I exist. It appears that my words are important to him only when he can profit from them.

Mr. Warman, you appear to understand a person's right to protect a patent, but do you understand one's right to protect their NAME? There is nothing more personal. You may indeed have a legal right to dictate how your supposed invention is used. BUT I HAVE A RIGHT TO DICTATE HOW AND WHEN AND WHERE AND IF MY NAME IS USED. You did not give me that chance. I want to know why.

Stephen Mitchell

Posted by JHromadka on 05-31-2000 02:22 PM:

If anything deserves to be moved to Off-Topic, it is this thread on patents.

I think this has been beaten to death, but if you really want to beat this dead horse some more, it has been moved to the off-topic area. Stick to the facts and keep it clean, and I won't have to close it for good.

------------------
James Hromadka
VisorCentral.com
Personal Website: http://www.Hromadka.com

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29 PM.

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page