Patent Pending

Kim Bellis · Post by **Kim Bellis** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:04 am

Good Morning everyone! Exactly what does patent pending mean? There is a glass artist who's name escapes me that does the most gorgeous "sewn glass" - however, her work says patent pending. Does that mean I can not try the "sewn look" onto one of my own vases, plates etc? I don't want it to sound like I want to copy anyone - nor could I.

Thanks
Kim

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:09 am

Susan Taylor Glasgow.

This has been extensively discussed here- check the archives.

Brock has the patent on fused glass, I've got the one on gravity.

Tony Smith · Post by **Tony Smith** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:20 am

Susan Taylor Glasgow currently has an unpublished, methods-patent application filed and under review for her method of creating the holes for sewing glass. When (and if) her patent is issued, she will have protection (in the form of legal remedies) against someone using her method retroactive to the date of filing her application. Since she chose to not have her patent application and the accompanying description of her method published, it's anyone's guess what her method is... but if you were to independently discover her method and commercialize it (make money from it) after her filing date, AND her patent is granted, she would have grounds for damages from you.

Tony (not a lawyer)

Carol Cohen · Post by **Carol Cohen** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:13 pm

Glassaddict, there are lots and lots of glass artists who sew pieces of glass together to create their artworks. What the "patent pending" artist is trying to do, is to control a very specific way of making the little holes in the glass (for the wire or cord or whatever, to pass through). Chances are, you are going to make those holes the way most of us do: drill them one by one. I suspect her method is different because the holes are small and close together.

Another way that has been used by some glass artists is to poke holes in the very hot softened glass while it's in the kiln, using a comblike tool which is made of many pointed metal tips at the desired spacing.

I don't know exactly what method Ms. Patent Pending has applied for a patent on. But I suspect that if any artist gets sued for using the same method (once and if Ms. PP gets that patent), if s/he can come up with proof of earlier use of the method (dated slides & photos, for example), the suit would be dropped.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'll repeat earlier posting information here: suing is very expensive. Ms. PP would probably have her lawyer write a letter (which will cost her money) to the artist telling her/him to cease & desist under threat of lawsuit, and hope that would end the infringing use. If it comes to a lawsuit, it will cost her $thousands and take quite a while, given the waiting line for patent-related court dates.

I do worry about Ms. PP who seems to be taking an aggressive commercial approach to glass art items which appear to be one-of-a-kind (on her website). The higher-end galleries do not like this commercial approach, so this may be keeping her work from being considered by such galleries or by the collectors of unique glass objects. However if her goal is only to make many production-line items almost the same and sell them through her website and some interior decor shops, this might make sense.

When I first starting showing my glass art in NYC, the gallery director told me that the best protection is simply to get my work exhibited and seen, with my name associated with it, at once and as much as possible. Now when other artists use (either by imitation or by independent invention) my "technique", sometimes it's called by my name. I don't mind if other artists try the technique, which is a kind of stacking. I never thought of patenting it because I believe that the best protection is simply to make the best artwork I can.

So my advice to you, dear glassaddict, is to just make the best sewn glass artwork you can, and not to worry about the very slight probability of getting a mean letter from Ms. PP's lawyer. And please email me a photo of your sewn glass work -- a glass artist I know is now collecting pix (with dates of creation) of sewn glass for an eventual slide show.

Carol

Kim Bellis · Post by **Kim Bellis** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:20 pm

Marty and Tony:
Thanks for the replies. As I said before, I don't want it to seem like I want to copy anyone however, if you see something that creative it makes you stop and think of how you might be able to incorporate or even go beyond. I will check the archives also.
Kim

Kim Bellis · Post by **Kim Bellis** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:31 pm

Carol:
Thank you for explaining so well. I had planned on drilling holes. When I give it a shot I will definitly post a picture for you.
Thanks
Kim

Paul Housberg · Post by **Paul Housberg** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 4:49 pm

To extend this thread a bit, there's an artist who has a patent on the following technique (as far as I can tell) to make architectural glass panels:

Colored acrylic is laser cut to make a jig-saw like assembly of elements. These are then sandwiched between two lights of clear glass. Now, I ask you, what is original and non-obvious about that?

Maybe twenty-five years ago, I saw a project in which cut elements of glass were sandwiched between layers of clear glass. Heck, I did a similar project myself. And how many variations are there involving decorative layers sandwiched between clear glass?

Where's the intellectual property lawyer on this board to explain this to me?!

Tony Smith · Post by **Tony Smith** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm

Paul, there was a very long thread about this topic last year.

http://www.warmglass.com/phpBB/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

Tony

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:59 pm

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.

I expect she got into the NGR because of the content of her work above and beyond the holes she makes. They are deliciously puckered and look pulled so slightly...and the work being technically strong. Nice marriage of craftsmanship and artistic accomplishment which is one or two reasons why her work is so successful.

I would think hard about whether what you are doing is original and strongly supported by your concept and not just a reproduction of someone elses successful work. IF that is the case, I doubt that sewing is what is at issue, but the technique employed.

It sounds as if you have already taken these concerns to heart Kim...so my thoughts are that if the reason for sewing is strongly founded in your own concepts of what your work is about...sew away.

jim simmons · Post by **jim simmons** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:49 pm

Marty wrote:Susan Taylor Glasgow.

This has been extensively discussed here- check the archives.

Brock has the patent on fused glass, I've got the one on gravity.

Well, Shoot. I guess that leaves me with magnetism.
Jim

rodney · Post by **rodney** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:52 am

in an earlier post, some pretender, claims to have a patent on gravity, i have the patent on gravity,,,,

rodney

rodney · Post by **rodney** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:54 am

in an earlier post, some pretender, claims to have a patent on gravity, i have the patent on gravity,,,,

rodney

Tony Smith · Post by **Tony Smith** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:26 am

and apparently repetition...

Tony

Paul Housberg · Post by **Paul Housberg** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:30 am

Cynthia wrote: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]. Contentâ€”as I understand it, and I'm not a lawyerâ€”MAY be covered by a copyright if it's covered at all.

Copyright distinguishes between "idea" and "expression". An ideaâ€”glass that is sewn togetherâ€”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.

rodney · Post by **rodney** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:55 am

i have the patent on gravity, the patent for repetion belongs to someone else, but im thinking of buying that one, if the price is right,,,,i tried to put a little smiley face here, but when i went to drag it here, it wouldnt let me, i would appreciate it if the person who has the "prevent smiley face thingy" patent, to ease off, so i can use the smiley face without paying a fee or getting sued

rodney

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:59 am

Rodney- I checked with the lawyers- I've got the patent on gravity, you've got the one on levity. Marty

Paul Housberg · Post by **Paul Housberg** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:04 am

Tony Smith wrote:Paul, there was a very long thread about this topic last year.

http://www.warmglass.com/phpBB/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

Tony

I followed this thread last year and the one thing I can say with certainty is that there is a lot of confusion about what is and is not covered by patents, copyrights and trademarks. I'm just as confused, but based on a (very) little research, here's my take on it:

It's difficult to comment on Glasgow's claim without knowing what it is, however, a patentâ€”as I understand itâ€”would cover not her style or even the idea of sewing glass together, but the method, machine, or process she has developed to make the holes.

I don't think such a patent would preclude others from making holes in glass (obviously) or sewing glass together. If her objective is to prevent others from making work that resembles hers, a copyright MAY offer some protection, but even that is questionable (see below). In fact, unless there is some utility to her process, in manufacturing, say, that could translate into financial gain, it's hard to imagine the value of a patent. But, she knows something I don't.

Regarding the imitation of style and copyright, this from "The Copyright Book" by Strong, William S., 1999 MIT, p181:

"Where works of visual art are concerned, certain special problems exist. So many piracies that offend our moral sense are, not, strictly speaking, infringements. For example, imitation of style, though frequently egregious and irritating, and possibly a violation of other laws, is not infringement unless concrete elements of previous works are plagiarized. The many famous fakes that have been painted in this century, to the extent that they imitate styleâ€”brushwork, use of light, type of subject, and so onâ€”and do not replicate elements of pictures by the real artist, are not copyright infringements. The fakers may be sued on other groundsâ€”for example, for palming off their works as those of someone else. This is an ordinary action at common law and has nothing to do with copyright."

Paul Housberg · Post by **Paul Housberg** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:07 am

Marty wrote:Rodney- I checked with the lawyers- I've got the patent on gravity, you've got the one on levity. Marty

Yeah, well, I've got the patent on lawyers.

Tony Smith · Post by **Tony Smith** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:09 am

Don't forget design patents which cover look and feel.

Tony

rodney · Post by **rodney** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:16 am

Rodney- I checked with the lawyers- I've got the patent on gravity, you've got the one on levity. Marty

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

sorry marty, i have the patent on LEVITATION, easy mistake to make, which is sub-set of my patent on gravity,,,now if your lawyers are so confident that you have the patent,,,,tell those little mouthpieces to hold a bowling ball over their head and drop it, if they get a good little knot on their head, its apparent that i have the patent, cause pally wally, i aint given up the patent on gravity

rodney