Patent Pending

[charlie holden]

Susan herself started an earlier thread on her experience. That thread quickly went off the deep end and she didn't reply much.

She was in a class with me at Pilchuck last summer. She told me at the time that she had come up with a process, after much trial and error and expense, that allows her to put the holes in the glass so that they are very evenly spaced. She can also do this on both straight and curved glass edges.

She would not tell me anything about how she does it. She did say though, that her concern was that some huge industrial company might some day be interested in her process, and she didn't want to give it away, if that happened to be the case. She also said that she had researched the patent process and written and filed her application herself.

Later in the summer, when I was back again at Pilchuck, Mary White was teaching kilnworking. While she was there she got a letter from Susan telling her to cease and desist from sewing glass together because of the the patent pending. Robin Cass was also there at the time. Both Robin and Mary have sewn glass for years and both were rather upset about the letter.

The strange thing to me was the tone of the letter. It was much harsher and more legally bent than Susan herself is. (She's really a very nice person and, BTW, has no problem at all selling her work or getting into very good galleries.) The letter also failed to make the distinction between the process for making the holes and the larger idea of sewing glass. My conclusion was that Susan must have hired a lawyer in the meantime and he wrote the letter and Susan signed it. Robin and Mary were ready to write back very strong letters of reply. I don't know if they ever did, or where Susan stands in the situation now.

ch

[rodney]

i have just received a patent on this thread,,,,


i therefore, forthwith, and without conclusion in order to represent the arbitary and decidedly negative and positive nature of the heretoence of this thread, order this thread to cease and desist,,,,any further addition to this thread will be a violation of my patent and will thus be a big friggin bummer

and ill sue i tell ya,,ill sue, i really will, dont make me do, cause i will, i really will

rodney

ps
i mean it, ill sue, i really will, dont make me come after you, ill sue, i really really will

[rodney]

ive been thinking, more on a serious note on this patent on the holes in glass thing,

i have an idea how to make holes in glass, and do the same thing that this person is doing,,,,,,now, if i did this, and she wished to sue me over it, i think she would have to prove i was doing it her way, and i dont see how this could happen, unless she dragged me into court, and i can tell you this, i have a friend that is patent lawyer and his rate is $350/hr,,,,,,unless this process is really unique, i dont see how this is gonna work, because im pretty sure anyone on this board can make a hole in a piece of glass, and the idea that laceing glass can be patented, well, what about the guy who has the patent on shoe laceing,,,,,im with this woman, id like to make sure that what i do is special and that nobody uses it, but this is gonna be next to impossible,,,,

there was this poet who said something to the effect that amateurs borrow and professionals steal,,,,i just know that if the idea of laceing glass catches on, there will be a million people doin it,,,,

rodney

[Paul Housberg]

...Later in the summer, when I was back again at Pilchuck, Mary White was teaching kilnworking. While she was there she got a letter from Susan [Glasgow] telling her to cease and desist from sewing glass together because of the the patent pending....Robin Cass was also there at the time....

The letter also failed to make the distinction between the process for making the holes and the larger idea of sewing glass.
ch

It's a significant distinction. See my previous posts this morning. You mention, too, Charlie, that Glasgow had researched and applied for the patent herself, i.e: without the help of an attorney. I'm a great believer in DYI, but when it comes to a patent application, I think it's pretty difficult to do it successfully on one's own. Not that she doesn't have anything that could legitimately be protected—I'm not taking a position—but if I were Mary or Robin, I wouldn't lose sleep.

[Carol Cohen]

Guys'n'gals-- want to get holes faster & closer together than drills produce? Here's a time-honored technique: heat up flatglass until it is quite soft, then use one of these tools:

pounce wheel:

<http://www.pcrailroad.org/Tools/PounceWheel.htm>

roweled spur:

<http://www.cowboycabin.com/item8266.ctlg>

pricking wheel and revolving punch:

<http://www.kingsmerecrafts.btinternet.co.uk/page31.html>

Or make your own high-temperature variation on the wheeled dibble (farming tool for making seed holes).

Mother Goose holds the patent....

C.C.
"Pat it and prick it and mark it with a B, and put it in the oven for Baby and me."

[Paul Housberg]

I suspect it might be a little more difficult. You may have to throw a torch on it. And then there's the possibility of sticking. Not to mention hot fingers.

[Cynthia]

It's my belief that if you took a good hard look at Susan Taylor Glasgow's work beyond the technical, and thought a bit about the content of her work you might gain a new perspective on what the Patent Pending might represent. I think "Patent Pending" speaks more about the content than the actual technique regardless of the fact that she states she has a patent filed that is pending...or so that is my read.

A patent covers any "process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter" [35 U.S.C. 101]. Content—as I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer—MAY be covered by a copyright if it's covered at all.

Copyright distinguishes between "idea" and "expression". An idea—glass that is sewn together—is not copyrightable, however, the particular manner in which Glasgow sews her glass, that is, the look of it, not the method, MAY be copyrightable. However, even this is not so simple. Imitation of a style, while it may violate moral and other laws, is not, in itself, an infringement of copyright.

Or, so I've read.

You mistook my post as literal rather than figurative. I was refering to the concept...of Patent Pending and New and Improved...among other industrial revolution spun paradigms of what is good, improved upon, marketed and how....much of the text and imagery of her work is screened upon a "sewn" piece...women's work...patterns and dresses and forms....all womens work from a time when everything was new and improved, created from patterns (repeatable) and everyone wanted to patent their new industrial devices and designs, blah, blah, blah... I am reading that Patent Pending may be partly about making a statement more than obtaining the patent. Could be wrong too. IT wouldn't be the first time. This is just my take on her work.

I am suprised about the cease and desist letter, which would make it seem that indeed the process is what Patent Pending here is all about, and sad that so many feathers are ruffled by this. Maybe I have taken too many art history classes...is that possible?

[Carol Cohen]

Cynthia,

You created a beautiful metaphor. I wish it were so. But here's a quote by STGlasgow from an earlier thread:

"I have filed for a patent on the technique I use to get the hundreds of little holes along the edges of the glass. There is actually another patent already issued that does a similar thing using a completely different method intended for industrial use. If anything, that's where my patent will fail. Other ways folks are using to get their holes in their artwork/products is already "fair use". What I'm patenting is my own technique. I do not plan to teach it until I am ready to let it be used/sold by other artists.

"I filed for my own patent. So far I've paid $375+time. What it's gotten me so far is a nice 5 page article in Glass Craftsman mag, lots of publicity and interest, and a lively dialog. My "tag" line at shows is a big sign that reads "Award Winning, Patent Pending, Sewn Glass". You can imagine the interest it receives. I mentioned to Jackie and Kitty earlier that maybe my pending patent has already served it's purpose."

So I read her intention as 1) protecting her method from copyers and 2) garnering publicity.

But I like how you thought of her work and its layers of meaning. You took her work and its meaning far beyond what I saw in her work on the website. Do you do any professional art writing or reviewing?

Carol