VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Better screen protectors (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=4712)

300th post!

couldn't resist.

InventorB -

That was a nice email your mom sent you. But I've got to ask (knowing full well there well be no intelligent response) what it had to do with the previous message you quoted???

BTW, how's the FBI investigation coming? Mulder and Scully find anything yet?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JVman:
Folks,
About repealing the patent, I really think someone in a position to pursue this should take the ball.

---

Sorry to take up valuble space... but last time i checked this thing was only at 200 posts... scary almost, and all of it started over asking about screen protectors. Also, mr. warman, why do you keep posting when so many people hate you and just want you to go away??? Do you have some other life than defending your stupid patent on a common sense product? or is this all you do everyday?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkeye:
It says in the above post that you spent hours researching a way to protect the screens. Duh! Put a freakin' piece of plastic of the screen.


I can't believe that you (incorrectly) put "Inventor" after your name. If that's all it takes, then I guess I'm one too since I figured out a clever way to attach one of my styli to a string so that I'd always have one handy. I'm going to patent that, and then ruthlessly badger and sue anyone who might also use such an obvious idea.


You are such a hypocrite. You come in here with your "virgin eyes" acting as if you're some kind of incredibly moral person, but then you proceed to brag about how you've gotten a perfectly legitimate company (EasyPeel) to concede to your wishes, even though you and I both know their product doesn't fall under your patent. You are not moral, you are a bully, a liar and a thief. You disgust every ounce of integrity in any of us.


Not only that, but you're an aweful business person. Look at your site. Compare it to any other site out there that is successful. See the differences? Then, look at the way owners of other companies deal with potential customers. Now look at the way you do. See the differences? You can't answer questions, you can't formulate a thought, you're conceited, condescending and a jerk.


Just like Steve Chrysostom, I've honored you with my attention long enough. I'm done here. I hope you remember though, what goes around comes around. You will reap what you sow, and when you do, we will all be standing here laughing.

[This message has been edited by JHromadka (edited 06-08-2000).]

---

Or:

The possibility also exists that IVB does not have the capital to invest in defense of the patent. As soon as IVB files a suit claiming damages, the defendant will no doubt file a countersuit on the grounds that the patent is invalid. The gamble for IVB is that the patent would be declared invalid. All of the costs would have to absorbed by IVB. CK would not enter into any legal action unless necessary. Why? It costs a lot of money and no good businessperson spends money unless they have to. It is my understanding that IVB has a time limit in which to file and defend the patent or the patent my be declared invalid due to the fact the holder has not defended it. Sheryl King is probably in a better position to address this but I do not want to drag her into offering an opinion. IVB could use some other tactics to attempt protect it�s patent. It is common practice to send letters of �information� to a potential defendant using the letterhead of the lawyer. It says to the potential defendant �I am watching you and I have a lawyer�. It is not a legal action. I have several friends and family members who are in the legal profession and I have used these services from time to time. It is a low or no cost way of making your threat more real to your potential defendant.

No evidence on this board has shown that this patent has ever been challenged or defended. No cases have been cited. No proof offered.

Knowing you have a patent and no way to defend it would possibly make you a little strange don�t you think?

footski

Mr. Warman: I do not think that the fact the EasyPeel's ISP took down the website after you contacted him is any proof for the validity of your claim or the strength of your evidence. The ISP merely tried to avoid expensive litigation and any liability with respect to hosting the site.
The ISP has no means to determine the validity of your allegations. It merely did what most people do when threatened with (frivolous or non-frivolous) litigation - unfortunately but understandably - they give in to avoid litigation.

P.S. I deleted my earlier post because some of the stuff I wrote made no sense - from the legal perspective... better leave IP law to the specialists

later,

mc9

[This message has been edited by mc9 (edited 06-10-2000).]

The inventor (or his imposter) said:

quote:

---

You have no idea what easy peel has done to infringe my patent. I have the evidence. It is substantial.

---

I am a lawyer (recently retired, or I wouldn't have time to read this stuff!). But I have never practiced in the area of patent law -- it is a very specialized area. So I will keep my comments general.

But here are some basic facts. Anyone can sue anyone -- it doesn't mean they have a valid case or can win. To defend a lawsuit -- even a small peanuts, frivolous one -- can cost as much as $50,000 -- and that's before you even get to trial. It also takes a LOONG time. Here in San Diego we have a fast track system which tries to see that cases go to trial within a year of filing. Obviously, in the Visor arena, this stuff hasn't even been in existence that long!

Moreover (there I go again), only five percent of the cases filed actually go to trial -- most of them settle. (Usually with insurance money.) Insurance companies have a duty to defend their insureds -- but it is in their economic interest to settle cases for less than it would cost to defend them -- even if the ultimate outcome would be successful. This is referred to as a "cost of defense" settlement.

Plaintiffs (well, most of them) are smart enough to figure out that filing a suit -- even a meritless one -- may make them a quick cost of defense settlement in the neighborhood of $15,000 or $20,000, which is well within the cost of defense. So many of them feel it's worth a shot. The fee to file a case is minimal (I don't know the exact amount, and it differs by jurisdiction, but it's usually under $200.

You can't buy any better publicity for that price! Remember, it doesn't matter what is said as long as the name is spelled right!

Would any of us have heard of IVB if he hadn't created the stink? Probably not. We've sure heard of him now. He probably feels he has accomplished his purpose!

There are, of course, some deterents to filing a totally frivolous lawsuit. You can be sued in turn for defamation (slander or libel). But that takes lawyers (i.e. legal fees, which aren't cheap).

The reality is that many plaintiffs lawyers take the cases on a contingency (they get a percentage -- usually one-third -- of any recovery), while defense lawyers get paid by the hour. That means there's not a lot of risk taken by the plaintiff himself, since he doesn't pay if he doesn't win. You just have to convince some lawyer that it's possible to get a recovery that would make it worth his or her time. And there are so many lawyers these days that finding a hungry one might not be so hard.

So most people (and companies) try not to get sued in the first place. Once they get a letter threatening a lawsuit, they tend to pull back from the behavior that caused the letter -- even if they are right.

The system seems to work, overall, but it clearly has some flaws!

Ah, so that's why Concept Kitchen doesn't pay Warman roylties. (There, Bob, I actually said it: Concept Kitchen does not pay you royalties! Care to dispute this?)

P.S. IMO

Thank you Sheryl. You have been a big help in explaining the basics of lawsuits. Moreover (I really like using that term) you have pointed out the area of contingency. In the patent law arena I have not had the advantage of being the plaintiff very often so I was not thinking in those terms. Since patent law does not involve the insurance companies very often, things are a little different. You are very correct, patent law is very specialized. It really requires the lawyer to become almost a specialist in the product area they are working with.

I am guessing that IVB keeps their lawyer pretty busy with �small stuff�, but since it appears the lawyer who originated the patent filing and subsequent reissue, I would say they are on good terms. (I have a problem with long sentences) The lawyer for IVB may be an avid fisherman who enjoys the company of IVB on fishing trips. Since said lawyer should be in the retirement age bracket, I would think someone with IVB�s fish catching capacity would make an excellent partner.

It looks like this squabble over a few square inches of translucent �plastic� film is coming to a close. Maybe I am not seeing the whole picture here but just how much money is being generated out of �screen saver over LCR� technology?

footski with fork inserted

quote:

---

Originally posted by footski:
I am guessing that IVB keeps their lawyer pretty busy with �small stuff�,

(VBG)

It looks like this squabble over a few square inches of translucent �plastic� film is coming to a close. Maybe I am not seeing the whole picture here but just how much money is being generated out of �screen saver over LCR� technology?

footski with fork inserted

---

Okay, it seems to me that Mr. Warman is basing his legal actions on the premise of his product being the first plastic sheet specifically designed to protect the screens of electronic devices during their use (rather than just during shipping.) He claims that his patent pre-dates all other similar products, and that his development goes back to the 1980s.

I would like to bring to everyones attention an earlier use of a similar product:

In 1954 a television show aired called "Winky Dink and You." Children would purchase a "Winky Dink Kit" which comprised of a plastic sheet and 5 crayons. When watching this program, children would place the sheet over their tv screen (an electronic device) so that they could draw on their television (while protecting the screen from wax and scratches) and interact with the cartoon characters. The shows 65 episodes were re-run from 1969 to 1973, and a revival was mounted in the '90s.

This use of a plastic sheet screen protector on an electronic device pre-dates Mr. Warman's "invention" by over 30 years, yet seems very similar in both material and usage.

Just thought I'd throw this bit of trivia into the mix.

ejkdreamer

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejkdreamer:
Okay, it seems to me that Mr. Warman is basing his legal actions on the premise of his product being the first plastic sheet specifically designed to protect the screens of electronic devices during their use (rather than just during shipping.) He claims that his patent pre-dates all other similar products, and that his development goes back to the 1980s.

I would like to bring to everyones attention an earlier use of a similar product:

In 1954 a television show aired called "Winky Dink and You." Children would purchase a "Winky Dink Kit" which comprised of a plastic sheet and 5 crayons. When watching this program, children would place the sheet over their tv screen (an electronic device) so that they could draw on their television (while protecting the screen from wax and scratches) and interact with the cartoon characters. The shows 65 episodes were re-run from 1969 to 1973, and a revival was mounted in the '90s.

This use of a plastic sheet screen protector on an electronic device pre-dates Mr. Warman's "invention" by over 30 years, yet seems very similar in both material and usage.

Just thought I'd throw this bit of trivia into the mix.

ejkdreamer

---

Just yesterday, I purchased a ELECTRONIC TIMEKEEPING DEVICE from TIMEX with a removeable static cling plastic protector over the lens and even more infuriating, I also purchased a ELECTRONIC TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE ie: a Motorola Talkabout 250 with a similar removeable static cling plastic protector over it's lens.

Gee, it seems like Mr. War-puke isn't defending his patent very well...

------------------
"It's NOT a tumor!"

I was watching Billy Madison the other day, and the character Eric reminded me a lot of Mr.Warman. Like at the end of the movie the played a trivia game, and his topic was business ethics and he couldnt figure it out.
You would have to have seen the movie to understand it, but they are very similar.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inventorb:
We are aware of the Winky Dink Kit. We have even purchased a completely unopened Winky Dink Kit. Thanks for bring it to our attention. We've been there and Done that.
Inventor

---

I posted this earlier, bur for those that missed it, it's a good read:
http://rc3.org/clips/patent_complaints.html

The page is basically a collection of complaints from ex-patent office reviewers. Their basic complaint is that the patent office has increasingly become less efficient and has been approving more and more 'bad' patents. The topic is geared more towards software patents, but I'm sure the problems are pretty much wide-spread.

The sad part about this whole thing is that it is really the patent office's fault for not taking a much more serious look at this patent before approving it.

As for the earlier product Winky Dinks (and Mr. Warman's ever-so-clear response ?!?) I would guess that either the Winky Dinks were never actually patented, or, if they were, that the patent had expired long before Mr. Warman got greedy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejkdreamer:
Thank you for clarifying this point. So you are aware that your product was actually invented over 30 years before you got the idea, and you do, in fact, even own one of these earlier screen protectors.

Excuse me for saying so, but this sounds like theft of intellectual property on the part of Mr. Warman. I am not a lawyer, so this is purely logical conjecture.

Any of you lawyers have an opinion? Does purchasing a "prior use" of your invention give you the right to patent it?

ejkdreamer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inventorb:
Nice Try but you do not have a clue what you are talking about.
Inventorb

---