Kevin, I have many patents but I do not to brag about it. That you have not been sued might indicate that the big companies thinks your products areNov 24, 2012 1 of 41View Source
I have many patents but I do not to brag about it.
That you have not been sued might indicate that the big companies thinks your products are insignificant.
True, I am not a lawyer and I do not claim to be one.
And you are right, it does not do any good to argue about it. We each have our own opinion and it is up to other people to be careful.
From: Kevin Impson Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 21:41
If that was the case ever software company in the world that use's Microsoft's .NET platform for making their software could sue every other company that use's the .NET platform because you would be infringing on each others internal code in the software.
I have lived and make money with my patent attorney, if you don't want to listen don't. Go play attorney and get your butt handed to you.
I built machine's that according to you Bertho infringe on Zcorp and just about every other machine out there... I haven't seen one lawsuit, I have two patents with a third coming. So, I think the money talks and the rest walks.
I've tried to get this point across and hopefully people think about facts.
I won't post again about this subject, amateurs.
From: Boman33 <boman33@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...
I echo Mike’s comments below. Nothing about %. Read the claims extremely carefully and understand them. That is what counts.
I am not an attorney but I do understand a bit about U.S. patent law as an inventor and as one who has had to defend against infringement claims. The bottom line is that "Claim Language" is binary; you infringe or you don't infringe particular claims. You make direct comparison of the claim language with the alleged infringing elements and demonstrate that it does or does not infringe. The patent you download only tell part of the story however, and there is a file wrapper in the patent office for each patent, and that carries the back and forth with the patent examiner over the meaning of claims, clarifications, etc... and may in fact may narrow the interpretation of a claim significantly. This can be done by limiting field of use for instance or arguing why your claim does not mean the same thing as some previous patent claim. Percentages are irrelevant, and I would steer clear of any lawyer giving that advice.
--- On Sat, 11/24/12, Kevin Impson <internetgiest@...> wrote:
From: Kevin Impson <internetgiest@...>
Subject: Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Saturday, November 24, 2012, 6:02 AM
I have been reading and I will post this again.
I have a number of patents and patents pending...
The number one thing with patents is this, if your design or machine or whatever is 31% different from what you think you may be infringing on your safe.
That is from a patent attorney that operates in the federal corridors of the court system.
It can be any one thing or a combination of many things together, just over come the 31% threshold; and your safe.
... The specific patent they refer to by number deals with some kind of partial hardening of the resin to support overhangs. I m not sure if that partiallyNov 25, 2012 41 of 41View SourceKenneth Lerman wrote:
>The specific patent they refer to by number deals with some kind of
> One thing I noticed in the complaint was a section saying that there
> was no non-infringing use of the allegedly infringing device. Since
> the patent under discussion seems to relate to exposure for supports,
> it is clear that making objects that don't require support would be a
> non-infringing use.
of the resin to support overhangs. I'm not sure if that partially
hardened stuff is later
dissolved, scraped away, or hardens completely later. But, it seems to
a very specific concept that I doubt formlabs is using. So, at least to
it is not dealing with ordinary support structures, but something more
to support overhangs WITHOUT dedicated support structure from the bottom
up. This directing the court to a SPECIFIC patent, while only mentioning
that there are others, might be enough to scotch the whole suit. (I
but I'm NOT a lawyer.)