Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

[Brock]

As long as you're not bitter about it! Phil, I know nothing about patent law and this case, but it seems if the system can be abused that much, maybe it should be changed? We all use every system to our advantage as much as we can, (can you say IRS). Brock

[Tony Smith]

It's clear that his foundation paints him as a saint. There's no doubt that Lemelson was one of the most prolific inventors of all time, but many of his patents have been successfully challenged for prior art and obviousness. In the age before computer searches, all patent searches had to be done by hand, in person, at the patent office in Washington, DC. Typically, these searches were done by classification codes which made it difficult to search across-the-board for prior art.

It is incumbent on an inventor or his legal team to thoroughly search for prior art and novelty before submitting an application to the patent office. Once granted, the patent is assumed to be valid by the courts unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the Patent Office blew its own search and missed prior art or novelty. This takes time and costs money. Phil is right that unless you have deep pockets, it's cheaper to pay the licensing fee.

Some people believe that Lemelson patented everything that he thought was unique. Given the state of technology at the time, I'm sure he was very thorough, but I can imagine few things more frustrating than to complete a design of a piece of equipment or a process and bring it to market only to become a target of a lawsuit because some aspect of the design is patented... especially when you are confident that there is nothing new or unique in the design. Because of this, Lemelson and his surviving estate have become a thorn in the side of many companies trying to develop new technology which in turn has spawned at least one company that I know of whose purpose is to invalidate as many of Lemelson's patents as they can.

Tony

[Brock]

Well see, he's not so bad. He's creating jobs for researchers! Brock

[Phil Hoppes]

The system needs to be changed, like tossed out and start all over again. It pisses me off in that huge sums of money are spent by companies either paying off guys like this or going to court. Meanwhile, companies go out of business, lay off engineers, etc. while this organization rakes in millions of dollars on unfounded and bogus technology. The point here as it relates to art is interesting. Recently, the patent office in the US allowed software to be patented. Personnally I think this was a bad thing. Software is one of those diciplines, not unlike art, where you learn basic techniques, like sorting a list, and everyone uses the same technique. Now the end application is different but it is built from a collection of smaller sub-blocks that essentially have code that lots of people do the same function in the same way. Now you have the Patent office coming in and saying OK Microsoft, you can patent code and they start patenting all kinds of things, some of which probably are original ideas, but a whole lot may not be. Godfather Bill now has a stack 3 miles high of software patents and goes around the country to every big and little company that does codes and says you can litigate every one of these on the stack or pay me my current extortion fee. See my point? If a rich and or clever enough person were to do this in art it could be bad. Quite frankly I think the only reason it is not being done is my point earlier. You don't sue people/companies that don't have money. Art, unfortunatly for us all, does not command the kind of revenue stream as does high tech and for that reason ONLY I believe we probably don't have to worry about this sort of thing.

Phil

[Brock]

Life isn't fair. How would you like to be a small general store in a town that Wal-Mart moves into? Or a burger joint when McDoanalds arrives?Good bye! I'm a firm believer in rules. But, enforce them or change them. I'm not defending this guy, I hadn't heard of him until yesterday. Brock

[Phil Hoppes]

I don't disagree with your point but it doesn't mean I have to like it. The system does need to be changed but it (patent) probably won't happen in my lifetime, nor actually, do I care. High tech can go pound sand for all I care but for those still busy at work in it (Tony, Paul, et. al.) it affects them and their energies can be better spent on more fruitful activities than litigating BS in some courtroom simply making money for more lawyers...........

[Tony Smith]

The patent office is broken and has been for a long time. There are so many frivolous patents being issued that they've become a joke. It's clear that they are no longer doing their own research required to ensure that the patents are really valid. It's a lawyers game and the bottom line is $$$

Tony

[charlie]

The patent office is broken and has been for a long time. There are so many frivolous patents being issued that they've become a joke. It's clear that they are no longer doing their own research required to ensure that the patents are really valid. It's a lawyers game and the bottom line is $$$

Tony

that's because the internet hasn't been invented yet.

[Tony Smith]

that's because the internet hasn't been invented yet.

Doesn't Al whatshisname have the patent on the internet???

Tony

[Paul Tarlow]

that's because the internet hasn't been invented yet.

Doesn't Al whatshisname have the patent on the internet???

Tony

For the record, Vint Cerf -- who is widely known as the father of the Internet -- and Robert Kahn wrote an article in which they had this to say about Al Gore and what he said -- and didn't say -- about his role in the Internet:

"No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time....We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening....No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large...The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world. "

So let's cut Al some slack...after all, he did get the most votes during the last election

-Paul

[Mira]

At a recent workshop where I was attending as a student, I got "poop" from not only the other students, but from the instructor as well for not wanting to "share" my technique! They argued that it was un-artist-like and you can't keep other artists from figuring it out using it anyway.

Sharon - I'm just wondering if your instructor charged her students, including you, for the workshop. If so, does that mean she/he is also un-artist-like for not sharing? Seems to me you should teach your own workshops on your own time-table, patented or not. When/if you decide to teach, maybe you should send an anouncement to the instructor!


My two cents about patenting a method: What's yours is yours. You're not obligated to teach anyone anything. However, if I figure out a neat-o method to put holes in my glass, I'll use it, and I'll probably share it, that's just my style. It's my understanding you're not patenting the idea of holes in glass, per se, just how you're doing it. Short of serving a search warrant and watching how someone is accomplishing the goal, it would be difficult to prove infringement.

Therefore, kudos to you -- you've obviously got a very clever style and are becoming very well known. If fact, my own mother clipped an article about you and your glass and mailed it to me just because she knew I would like it. She was certainly right!!!

[watershed]

I'm sorry but I'm way to busy to read all the replies.

A Paraphrase from a series of letters in Ceramics Monthly, in say 1983-6.

Someone had a series of columns on how to "catch" the customers. $3 boxes of schtuufff. FREE boxes. Anything to keep the customers in the booth.

There was a GREAT HUGE DEBATE over whether these were "Fair" tactics. AND whether an "Artist" could use these tactics.

The final word, that I remember, was from a Potter in some South American country. I will paraphrase.

I really appreciate the tips from this series. My Pots support myself, my family, and all of our in laws. Anything that brings more $$ into my home, is just fine by me.

End Paraphrase.

Before you get on your High Horse, remember what that Horse eats... And what come out the other end..

Greg

[Morganica]

Well, I would suppose it depends on whether or not you're patenting your own style or a glassworking technique. (Your note says, "lay off my signature style" which makes me think it's not actually the technique you're worried about, or did I misunderstand?) I would think your style much easier to protect.

If you're patenting the actual technique for sewing glass together, how do you prove it's unique? I've seen several other artists sew glass, mica, and ceramics together with fiber or leather--I did it myself with a bowl in 2000 although it looks nothing like your work--is your filing simply for connecting glass with fiber? What about other artists who do the same, but don't use your specific technique? What if they use your technique but the finished work looks nothing like your art?

I've been involved in patent filings at work, and one of the things the lawyers won't let us do is announce or demonstrate the intellectual property in public before PTO acknowledges the patent filing--if others begin to use the technique before then, it could prevent the patent from being granted. I have no idea how that would apply to a patent covering art, but it's something you might want to ask your attorney (who I hope specializes in intellectual property) about.

Have you filed in the US alone, or will you also file in other countries? If you file in the US and your work is exibited/owned/demonstrated in other countries that don't recognize your US patent, you'll still have no protection. This can happen if your work is exhibited only on a website and you never set foot in the other country.

I'm certainly not saying don't file; I applaud your proactive stance. My cousin--an IP lawyer--has an architect client who has patented a series of residential designs; anyone who builds a house using those floor plans (if they can prove the transgressor visited the models or saw the architect's plans) must either pay a royalty or defend himself in court.

I figure if he can protect a room layout, artists can protect their work. But...you'll want to make sure you have realistic expectations about the benefits/requirements of patent holding.

--cynthia

You also need to be careful about how you defend your patent. If you go after one violator but know of others infringing on your patent that you choose not to pursue, it could make your patent much harder to defend.[/quote]