Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mlathemods] Martin Cleeve's Retracting Screwcutting Toolholder

Expand Messages
  • John Tanner
    Correct
    Message 1 of 34 , Oct 10, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Correct
      Richard Garnish wrote:
      > Cleeve's unit has a height adjustment screw also, as a function of the
      > swing feature. His logic was that this allows fine adjustment of
      > cutting height during operation without disturbing the horizontal
      > location of the toolbit, if the results of initial passes indicate that
      > the tool height needs adjustment.
      >
      > It would also appear to me to be somewhat simpler to build than the GHT
      > tool holder, since it is based on a simple eccentric pivot rather than a
      > dovetail slide.
      >
      > Richard
      >
      > On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 16:29, j.w.early@... wrote:
      >
      >> Looking at the pictures on the Hemingway site, it seems to me just a variation on the George Thomas design. There was another similar tool holder design back in the 40s for threading that I will have to look at again as well. The only real functional difference I can see between the Thomas and Cleeve units is the swing away feature.
      >> --
      >> JWE
      >> Long Beach, CA
      >>
      >>
      >> -------------- Original message ----------------------
      >> From: "Gene Horr" <genehorr@...>
      >>
      >>>> As for the amateur, making the item - as long as he doesn't sell them,
      >>>>
      >>> he's clear.
      >>>
      >>> This is a common misconception. If the patent is still valid you cannot
      >>> build one and use it. You can study the design for educational
      >>> purposes, and there are arguments that you can build one as part of the
      >>> study, but you legally can't just build one to use yourself.
      >>>
      >>> Now in practical terms people generally don't get sued for personal
      >>> non-commercial use because it isn't worth the hassle.
      >>>
      >>> Gene Horr
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • PeterH5322
      ... Likely, most such articles were done as a work for hire , meaning the publisher is the sole owner of the intellectual property (IP) upon publication, and
      Message 34 of 34 , Oct 11, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        >Now some of the alterations to copyright in recent years
        >have not been to assure income for the authors but for the publishers
        >to whom the authors sold there works years before.

        Likely, most such articles were done as a "work for hire", meaning the
        publisher is the sole owner of the intellectual property (IP) upon
        publication, and possibly payment of a stipend, although usually only
        publication is required.

        Indeed, although the author is free to make identical or derivative
        copies of his inventive device, he cannot even reproduce "his" magazine
        article, as it was done as a "work for hire". Most publishers, however,
        will grant to the author permission to make a specific (and thereby
        limited) number of reproductions.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.