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

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

Expand Messages
  • John Tanner
    The Patent was registered in August 1970 in the London Patent office. Patent number 1 335 978 John
    Message 1 of 34 , Oct 10, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      The Patent was registered in August 1970 in the London Patent office.
      Patent number 1 335 978

      John
      halfasixpack wrote:
      > --- In mlathemods@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Hasieber" <fhasieber@...> wrote:
      >
      >> John, I see that Hemingway in the UK supplies a kit for this accessory,
      >> depending on what rights they may hold on this design posting it
      >>
      > could be an
      >
      >> infringement.
      >> http://www.hemingwaykits.com/acatalog/Swing_Tool_Post.html
      >> Frank.
      >>
      > Lapsed patents make nice wallpaper, but are otherwise not of very much
      > use beyond the bulk properties of the paper.
      >
      > Patents are a deal between the government(s) and the inventor:
      > "Document how you do your fancy new gizmo, and for a period of time,
      > we'll let you sue anyone if they make one without your permission.
      > What we get out of it is that after that time anyone can do as they
      > like with it."
      >
      > They don't mention to the inventor that getting a patent and being
      > able to sue is much like getting to carry the flag in a parade; it's
      > heavy, clumsy to handle, and hard to make money at. And that the
      > inventor pays his own legal costs to protect himself.
      >
      > The free-usage, public domain after the patent lapses is the payoff
      > for society in general. If the patent is lapsed, there are no rights
      > to be infringed. So if the status is "lapsed", anyone my build this
      > widget without infringing any patent rights.
      >
      > Patent right vary from country to country, so this may or may not be
      > true in the UK.
      >
      > What's the USA patent number?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 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.