Patents

[TiredFeet]

I found another one from 1904. http://www.google.com/patents?id=UEVBAAAAEBAJ&dq=788815

With the grommet in Fig. 4 setting the length of C, it looks like it has a structural 'roof' that sets the sag of that hammock. That is with cross braces, or what we call a spreader bars these days. In Fig. 2, H is longer than C by the circumference of B if both H and B are truly taut as shown in the sketch. It is little weird looking, but it is what it is.

why weren't these patents listed as references in the hh ridgeline patent? they are very closely related with respect to the ridgeline part. the lawyer is supposed to do a "thorough" patent search and list any similar or relavent patents as prior art. then the patent examiner is supposed to do the same. these are multiple examples of a ridgeline. i could see one maybe slipping by unnoticed, but several? these should have been cited, just shows how careful the examiners are when it comes to making sure something really is a new idea. maybe i should try to patent the wheel .

warbonnetguy - did you read this patent - it isn't a ridge line at all even though a quick look at the drawings makes it look that way. What looks like a ridge line is really a continuation of the bottom fabric that provides a "cover" for the occupant. It also "acts" like a ridge line, but isn't. I suppose a "structural ridge cover" would be a better description of it. It incorporates the structural ridge line and tarp into one. The idea is there but not exactly the same which is what really counts.

[TiredFeet]

Fascinating - I hope you keep mining Youngblood, I don't have the patience for looking through all of those.

[Cedar Tree]

Fascinating - I hope you keep mining Youngblood, I don't have the patience for looking through all of those.

I agree. Thanks Youngblood. I love this stuff.
CT

[warbonnetguy]

yeah, i haven't been reading too close, i'm more of a visual learner anyway so i usually go straight for the pics.

there is something called the "doctrine of equivalents" which basically states that if a component provides the same function as component that is patented, it can be considered patented as well. say for instance the patent only mentions a ridgeline made of rope and then somebody uses webbing or steel cable or even a wooden pole, they are considered equivalent in function to the patented rope and thus covered by the patent. i don't know if it would work in the other direction like in this case, but it might, the ridgeline seam of an integrated tarp would be covered by the patent if it sets the sag, so why wouldn't such an item in prior art show that the idea is not new and thus not patentable?

[Brian]

Warbonnet: I think a quick (possibly free) call to a Patent Lawyer with that exact question may be in order. I mean, if you're right, you may have a case against the Hennessy ridgeline patent. Worth a shot to see if someone will talk to you for free (and possibly off the record) for a minute or two.

Brian
OES

[Smee]

Get over it guys. The research and history truly is interesting. But the whining is tiresome. Unless someone is independently wealth, who’s going to pay the lawyers to challenge the patents?

Prior art or not, a person can submit a patent application on virtually anything these days and the USPO does little to no background research. They simply don’t have the resources in either time or manpower. It’s easier for them to approve everything and let the issues be settled in the court system. It’s not right and it’s not fair but it’s the fact.

Besides, none of the patents prevent the individual do-it-yourself stuff anyway. So you/we can play with all these ideas all we want. We just can’t take them to market. But realistically, how many of us are going to do that anyway?

And why should we be able to capitalize on somebody else’s labors? Mr. Hennessy developed a pretty good product AND a market for that product. Early on he made what has turned out to be a very smart business decision to patent his product. I suspect he has the financial resources and the commitment to defend those patents in court as well. Whether or not it’s right or fair is moot. That doesn’t make him a bad guy, it makes him a smart businessman.

Furthermore, a person is not prevented from making and marketing a hammock. You just can’t make one like Hennessy or Clark or any other patented hammock. So, if your lifelong ambition is to sell hammocks, copy the ENO or Traveller or Speer style or come up with something entirely different. Otherwise, look for a different alternative to win your fortune.

Enjoy the history but let's whine about something else.

Regards,

[peanuts]

well said smee...

[TiredFeet]

Get over it guys. The research and history truly is interesting. But the whining is tiresome. Unless someone is independently wealth, who’s going to pay the lawyers to challenge the patents?

Prior art or not, a person can submit a patent application on virtually anything these days and the USPO does little to no background research. They simply don’t have the resources in either time or manpower. It’s easier for them to approve everything and let the issues be settled in the court system. It’s not right and it’s not fair but it’s the fact.

Yes you're right Smee. The patent examiners today (and probably in the past) have relied on the honesty of the applicants and their attorneys to do a competent patent search and report on prior art.

If the applicants are not honest and their attorneys are not honest or just not competent, then they can patent practically anything.

If you find the discussion tiresome, then just don't bother to read the thread. It obviously wasn't tiresome enough for you to get this far into it.

I find it rather interesting that you should characterize the discussion as "whining". I think I hear more than a little self-interest there?

[warbonnetguy]

actually if there was a good enough example of prior art, i doubt it would ever get to court, a good lawyer knows the law, and nobody is going to take someone to court if they know they are going to lose the case. a solid example of ridgelines in prior art might show that it is in fact something that has been in the public domain and that the patent office missed, i think this is a worthy discussion unless you have no problem with patents being issued to people other than the origional inventor.

nobody is slamming hh here. i'm sure he came up with his idea himself and never saw these old patents and nobody can blame him for that, and if anyone is to blame it would be his lawyer and the patent examiner, but i think the hammocking community deserves to have people on guard against having ideas taken from us that legaly should be free for everyone to use, would be entreprenuers included. afterall not everyone makes their own hammocks, many people here buy them, who wants one company to have the rights to a design that that should by law be free for any manufactuer to use and improve upon, and weather what is in the public domain is hidden in our past or someone knowingly trys to patent a public domain idea, bringing it out in the open is the first step to getting someone to do something about it, i'm not saying that these examples are going to give someone the confidence to defy a patent knowing they wouldn't lose if it did go to court, maybe they are strong enough, maybe not, it's too bad we don't have a patent lawyer in our midst (maybe someday, sure looks like we need one lately), but it sounds like you are trying to stop the discussion here, why do you care (i have an idea), but you don't have to read if you don't want to hear any "whining". maybe i am whining a bit, maybe i just like a good argument, but i think keeping public ideas public is a worthy goal.

[Youngblood]

I don't follow every thread on this forum. So thinking that I must have missed something, I did a search and turned up an interesting page about patent issues. I understand where someone who had their product idea challenged by an existing patent would have great interest in the patent process while others might tire of the talk. This page on a previous thread seems very informative on patents, there is some good information there http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/s...allenge+patent

Beyond the issue with enforceable patents, interpretation, and legal issues, I was amazed at all the patents/interest in hammocks in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There is a lot of history there that would likely be of interest to the folks on this forum. The old patents may be all that is left of that history that we can easily find and that is only because of the online data bases of today. I have enjoyed going through them and have saved a few to look at when the mood hits me. If I see something that I think is of interest I will pass it along. I passed one on to my good friend Ed Speer that was like his hammock pipe stand from 1907 and he got a kick out of that http://www.google.com/patents?id=nDF..._pages&cad=0_1