VisorCentral.com - Better screen protectors

Pages (33): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

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)

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

Posted by Guido on 05-31-2000 04:16 PM:

I use the garden variety transparency film, sliding it slightly under the case. Mucho cheaper than CK or Mr. Warmans product. Furthermore, I also cover my monitor with the cheap vinyl from Wal-mart, cuz I HATE fingerprints on my screen!!! and my big screen TV.... the 4 mil lexan, cuz I would freak if my kids decided they wanted to scratch the fresnel lens on it. Folks, the bottom line is MAKE YOUR OWN!!! and share your trials and tribulations about your progress so that others may be enlightened by your inginuity.

Posted by mchlwise on 05-31-2000 05:29 PM:

James,

With all due respect, the horse keeps kicking.

I think it's pretty clear how we feel about Mr. Warman and his product, and I'm glad to see I'm not alone in my "boycott".

As far as the dead horse goes - I would like to just forget Warman and move on (which I tried to do on page 1 of this topic) but since he keeps raising his "ugly head"(getting uglier by "stealing" comments from this board for his own gain) we continue to beat the horse.

Michael

p.s. - "ugly head" is meant as a common expression, not a personal attack against Mr. Warman
p.p.s. - Isn't Mr. Warman's theft of an idea and/or comment for his own personal gain just exactly what he runs around so vehemently "defending" against? WHAT'S WITH THIS GUY!?

------------------
Hmmmmmmmm......

Posted by Aaron425 on 05-31-2000 06:46 PM:

What's is this about art? Mr. Warman is describing his patent as an art form? What's he going to do next...cut off his ear?

On a serious note, I support the boycott on Mr. Warman's product. I am spreading the word regarding Mr. Warman tactics to all the new Visor/Palm users in my medical program (and there are a lot of new PDA users in the medical field). I would strongly recommend that they not use his product.

Never thought a discussion regarding a screen protector could be this...interesting.

------------------
KAY

[This message has been edited by Aaron425 (edited 05-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Aaron425 (edited 05-31-2000).]

Posted by Rolando on 05-31-2000 08:15 PM:

James,

I think you should review the product.

I don't know whether or not his lawsuits will pan out for him or not. I am interested to see what happens.

In one breath I hear about the free market playing out and then the next words are saying not to even review the product because some people think he's a jerk.

As to the invalidity of a patent because the product is obvious... What about Post-It Notes (Glue on paper!) and paper clips (bent wire!)?

I agree that some of the patents I've heard about lately have gone too far patenting minor details. Maybe the patent system needs to be refined/overhauled.

I'm also a little surprised that no one even stood up for guy (even a little). Mr. Warman, I'm afraid that it is because you came across as angry and bitter. Unfortunately for you, you were basically judged before you even posted a message on the product.

I'm also surprised that Mr. Warman's patent attorney hasn't advised him not to post messages like this, seeing that some of the "typos" and statemtents might be used against his case(s).

Posted by SherylKing on 05-31-2000 08:24 PM:

It is my understanding that the Patent Office grants a patent when there is no previous record IN THE PATENT OFFICE of that product being previously patented. That is merely the beginning.

After the patent has been granted, anyone has a right to challenge that patent -- on a number of different grounds. Usually a case is filed in the appropriate court, and the judicial system makes a determination as to whether the patent is valid. All this takes time.

Mr. Warman has merely completed the first step. He is apparently now in the stages of the next step -- the judicial determination step. With many patents no further step is necessary after the initial patent is granted because everyone accepts the validity of the patent. In Mr. Warman's case, a number of people have challenged his patent. We will now let a neutral decision-maker figure it all out. It will be interesting to watch. I wish it were going to be on Court TV!

Posted by Hawkeye on 05-31-2000 08:37 PM:

Bill Warman,

I just want to go on record as saying that I too support a boycott of your product. IMHO, you are acting in an unethical nature by attempting to enforce your patent. I don't disagree that you have the patent. However, I would be interested to exactly the verbiage used in your patent of your "art".

What's next? Are you going to patent the wheel and try to sue Ford or patent fire and go after appliance companies for using it for their stoves? That's ridiculous. I support all the previous posts that point out that these sorts of plastic sheets have been around for decades, and you are mistaken if you believe that you should rightly have the production rights to this product.

quote:
I like this chat - news page and I have no beef with anyone

Actually, you have a beef with anyone who feels that they should be able to purchase Write Rights or similar products without paying someone who claims to have invented the wheel a $0.15 royalty.

quote:
Ok
Lets do this thing. We can publicize the court trial on the net. I will show my hand at
that time. You have the money and the time. Lets get it on. Till then talk is cheap.
Bill

P.S. You have been warned

Wow! That's some good PR right there! I think everyone who is trying to garner support for his "intellectual property" should always taunt people publicly. Personally, I stand behind Mr. Clayton 100%. How was he supposed to know that you were bullying Concept Kitchen at the time he wanted to sell his Write Rights? What are you suggesting, that he pay you the royalties before he can sell products he didn't even manufactur? Besides, it's not like he's a distributor or anything, he's just selling extras. I think this particular instance proves your paranoia and insecurity.

quote:
For the gentleman that was selling on ebay. I only went after concept kitchens product called the
writeright. This is an infringing product. Do not support this product.

I hate to say it War-man, but I think the support's always going to lie with a reputable and personable company like Concept Kitchen rather than a mean, insulting, person like yourself. Also, CK's web site actually looks professional, so that's another point in their favor.

Finally, I would also like to say that if CK ever has to pay you royalties I would stop purchasing their product to keep someone like you from getting my money even if it is only a few dollars per package.

You truly are generating the worst advertising ever for your product. Can't you see that by your tone and your comments you have effectively shown nearly 4,000 members here at VisorCentral that you don't deserve our business?

Finally, if you can nit-pick so can I. It should be Bill Warman, Inventor, unless, of course, your last name is inventor. And I too would like to point out that you put periods in the middle of your sentances. It's kind of hard to follow your already confusing train of thought with all those fragmented sentances.

Hawkeye

PS I'm almost tempted to stick some scotch tape on my screen and call it a screen protector just so that I can be on your list.

Posted by Hoser_back_home on 05-31-2000 08:57 PM:

I do have scotch tape on my visor screen (graffitti area) so i guess it's time to attack 3M (just helping you out in your preparation of companies to attack).

(i started reading this thread today...i saw it growing in size over the past week and always thought 'wow, don't people have better topics to talk about????thinking it was a screen protector thread. Interesting little soap opera, thanks for today's entertainment!)

Posted by homer on 05-31-2000 09:57 PM:

quote:
As to the invalidity of a patent because the product is obvious... What about Post-It Notes (Glue on paper!) and paper clips (bent wire!)?

The vailidity of a patent can only be determined in a court of law. If the patent office grants a patent, then, in accordance of the law, that said person has every right to protect this. Mr. Warman is doing just that and I don't think anyone can question him protecting the patent from a legal standpoint.

The question is really one of ethics. The patent in question is less of a invention of a new, unique idea and more of a unique application of an existing idea.

Were the paper clip and post-it notes obvious ideas? Not really. The alternatives in use were clearly different.

Is the idea of using a clear plastic on top of a plastic/glass screen to protect an obvious idea? I, personally, would say yes. Like I said before, one of my first alarm clocks purchased in the 80's had a clear plastic overlay on the LCD panel that protected it. As a child, I used to take clear, adhesive plastic sheets, otherwise known as "contact paper" and used to apply it to all sorts of things to protect them.

Lamination, contact paper, clear labels, window tinting, static stickers, WriteRights, etc all are basically the same broad concept APPLIED to different situations.

quote:

I agree that some of the patents I've heard about lately have gone too far patenting minor details. Maybe the patent system needs to be refined/overhauled.

It ABSOLUTELY needs to be overhauled. The original patent system was developed to encourage US innovation. People were encouraged to develop new products, because they were entitled to all profits of said new product for a period thereafter, afterwhich, the product could be manufacured by any number of corporations, which, in turn further developed innovation through competition.

The problem today is that too many people abuse it. Often people come in and file patents on things already invented (such as Microsoft's Style Sheet Patent), on things that are somewhat evolutionary (such as Priceline's Attempt to patent their business model), or just the plain stupid common-sense things (like Amazon.com's one-click ordering patent).

This article points out some of the current weaknesses, including the fact that one does not need to invent a product to patent it...they merely need to be the first to file it.

http://www.yourpropertyrights.org/l...tion/patent.htm

Here's another:

http://www.kl.com/PracticeAreas/Tec...pubs/page12.stm

And here is a more contemporary article that goes into the current problems of people patenting business models and interface widgets:

http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stori...-2000Mar17.html

Is Mr. Warman to blame for all of this? Clearly not. He is just trying to protect a patent that he has. SHOULD he be doing that, from an ethical standpoint? Well, we all have our opinions. Clearly, he needs to work a bit on customer relations, but that really isn't an issue of patent law or, really the product itself.

Indeed, this has turned into an interesting (and somewhat lengthy) debate.

As for my vote on a review of the product, I would say yes...ONLY if it were a side-by-side review of the avaiable options (Warman's product, Writerights, clear vinyl, static stickers, etc.)

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

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 PM.

Pages (33): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page