Originally Posted by
GrizzlyAdams
my $0.02, prefaced by the assertion that I have no dog in this fight. I suspect I'll manage to get both Tim and TeeDee Ticked (T-cubed!) at me.
Tim, when TeeDee first posted his long explanation of why he rotates the terms applied to the hammock by 90 degrees, I puzzled it out. I understand what he means, but don't like and don't use the terminology. Having said that, his motive for doing it is as he says---to try to create a basis for an argument that the cord that controls the flatness of the lay is not the same thing as the patented ridgeline. It was not an attack on anyone, and it is really a shame if you've been angry about that post for a long time thinking that it was an attack. It's going to be harder for you as moderator to tell others to be civil when threads spin out of control, at least hard to do so and be respected.
Decisions of what is and is not patent infringement rest with juries of ordinary people. And ordinary people are going to look at the bridge hammock, and figure the short edges are the ends and the long edges are the sides. Arguing that the long edge is really an "end" because the hammock suspends from it wil be a very hard sell, particularly since the bridge hammock hangs from the trees with the same orientation as does a traditional hammock. His distinction is as much a technicality as would be an argument that the suspension cut falls under the TH asymmetry patent---it is not anywhere near plainly obvious. TeeDee is entitled to use and argue for his terminology, just as the rest of us are free to accept, reject, or ignore it. He has made his case, it has internal consistency to it, and he has done so dispassionately and without rancor towards anyone.
But TeeDee raises an interesting question about what the Jacks are trying to patent. I have a hypothesis, supported by no data, just inference.
One obvious possibility is that when they filed the patent they were unaware of the Oz site, and filed a claim on the suspension cable concept applied to hammocks. If that patent were awarded, it would be easy to challenge.
There is another possibility. Imagine the Jacks showing up at TD with the Bear Mountain Bridge and setting it up. TH comes over and says what? You know as well as I : "I have the patent on that ridgeline". The Jacks know this is going to happen, and they know that if they are going to be able to sell this hammock they will either have to license the ridgeline concept from TH, or have a defense against the ridgeline patent claim. We can tell from the photo that they are trying to make that thing be different. It's not inside the hammock. It's made of webbing, even though that's heavier (the ridgeline patent refers to the ridgeline as "cord"), there is a ring buckle for adjustment, not a funky wrap do-thingy that is described in the patent, which supposes a round cord. Different all-in-all, perhaps enough to convince a jury that there is no infringment. But, those of us that have been toying around with the bridge know that having that line be too long allows for a phenomena you don't have in a traditional hammock---the inverted bannana. Their webbing is setting flatness, not only minimal sag. The argument (and it is also a technicality) would that their device controls something more encompassing than what the ridgeline patent addresses. They could have filed a patent for a device that keeps the bridge hammock from the inverted bananna, using language that makes as large a distinction from the ridgeline patent language as possible. Since the Oz hammock doesn't have a ridgeline, there is no obvious prior art there.
So that's my $0.02 and my WAG.
Grizz
Reply With Quote
His post was helpful in digging out the particulars of ellipse parameters because I'd not done the research on that yet. I only remembered the ellipses had major leagues and minor leagues...or something....
Bookmarks