[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Hi-Z Antenna Stuff

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Hi-Z Antenna Stuff
From: K8RI <>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:23:05 -0500
List-post: <">>
On 2/8/2012 12:53 PM, Rick Karlquist wrote:
> K8RI wrote:
>> BTW US law has changed from first to invent to first to patent. I worked
>> for a large chemical corporation who kept all of their work
>> proprietary.   That worked for over 50 years. Then another large (well
>> known) company finally reverse engineered the process (which was
>> surprisingly simple), patented it and then sued for infringement.  This
>> was before first to patent.  They lost and we won.
>> Now days we would lose even though we invented the materials over 50
>> years prior to them making the patent application.
> This story doesn't make sense.
Sure it does.
You, in this case never abandoned the patent because there never was 
one.  You never used the invention so there was no prior claim. I never 
tried to patent either the radial connector plate, or the vertical mount 
hinge. I considered them too simple and logical (prior art) so that any 
one with the equipment would build them, themselves.  Normally shape 
would not play into it, such as a square or round plate for grounding, 
*unless* it was so stated in the patent.  IOW The patent should be as 
broad as possible while still maintaining the functionality.

OTOH most of these are of such a nature it's simpler to purchase them 
from the manufacture than to make your own unless you have the 
equipment.  I make my own because I have the equipment and I've been 
using them for many decades and I have no desire to build them for some 
one else. I retired so I didn't have to work.

In the case of the cast, round grounding plate (radial attachment plate) 
it states the alloy and that it's cast. IOW you should be able to turn 
out one on a lathe from 6061 or 6063 Aluminum because it's not cast.  
That they allowed a square plate with connectors around the edge to be 
patented as a number of them have been used over the years. IE, prior 
art does not make sense

Had you used the procedure/device you still would have been able to 
patent it. The same goes for the company I worked for.  They used the 
process throughout their manufacturing process.  There fore, they were 
the first to invent and use the process, but never patented it.  They 
did not abandon it.  However that no longer holds true.  It doesn't 
matter who invented it, it matters only who first applied for the patent 
and that makes keeping the invention proprietary very risky.


Roger (K8RI)

>    There is a standard of due diligence
> leading to a patent application.  I invented something once and we never
> filed on it and 5 years later someone else invented the same thing and
> got a patent on it.  My patent attorneys told me it was considered an
> "abandoned" invention and I was out of luck.  We had to license it back.
> It didn't matter if I invented it first.
> Rick N6RK
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list


TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>