[TowerTalk] Tower Jack?

[Mark Robinson]

I want to see patent numbers and read exactly what the patents otherwise it 
is all hot air and hearsay.

Mark N1UK

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Lux" <jimlux at earthlink.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, 15 June, 2013 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Jack?


> On 6/14/13 8:08 PM, K8RI wrote:
>> On 6/14/2013 3:55 PM, Larry wrote:
>>> Patents are renewable if I recall. I don't know if they changed when
>>> they changed trademarks. Trademarks are good as long as the owner is
>>> still alive and other rules (used to be 28 years and renewable once). I
>>> have lost touch with the IP law stuff.
>>
>> Too bad they changed the patent laws as I've been using the tower clamo
>> for nearly 30 years and figured any one who wanted to builfd one could.
>>   Actually a patent doesn't prevent you from building one for your self
>> to use.
>
> sure enough, the law does prohibit building one for your own use (35 USC 
> 271).  there is an exception if you're doing research on the patented item 
> (e.g. to improve it), but not for just plain old use.
>
> The classic example is a hammer. If the claims are sufficiently broad 
> (e.g. a device held in one or two hands, moved in a swinging motion to 
> apply a force), you could make a hammer in order to compare it to your 
> pneumatic hammer, but not to build a house (or, more interestingly, to 
> form the metal for your new pneumatic hammer)  You can build it to 
> "compare" for research, but not to use.
>
> The key is "use" (as opposed to "sell" which is also prohibited) { the 
> actual wording is something like "made, used, sold, offered to sell or 
> imported"
>
> Keeping this all nice and ham radio related, a classic example is the 
> Vibroplex bug.  Lots of knockoffs, and Vibroplex went after the users 
> (e.g. commercial telegraphers), as well as manufacturers.
>
> ANd, sadly, there was a recent Supreme Court decision that casts the 
> "research exemption" into doubt, after some 150+ years.
>
> Madey vs Duke, 2002
> " In short, regardless of whether a particular institution or entity is 
> engaged in an endeavor for commercial gain, so long as the act is in 
> furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business and is not 
> solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly 
> philosophical inquiry, the act does not qualify for the very narrow and 
> strictly limited experimental use defense. Moreover, the profit or 
> non-profit status of the user is not determinative. "
>
>
> So you could probably built a towerjack (assuming the patent exists and is 
> still valid) for the purposes of testing it (in the context of a bonafide 
> experimental process) but not just for assembling/disassembling your 
> tower.  If you were to set up a "tower jacking" contest of some sort, 
> perhaps that would fly?
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk