WarmGlass.com

I'm not a lawyer, much less a patent lawyer.

THIS PATENT (US5820991) appears to encompass all glass types, all metal foils, and all ceramic-based paints. It covers not only the process, but the final product.

I'm not going to fault the person who holds the patent. If patent law allows this, then I say "GO FOR IT!" My concern is that this patent covers "glass includes one or more of the following principal raw materials, silica, boric oxide, soda, potash, lead oxide, lime, alumina, magnesia, barium oxide, and calcium phosphate". So, all glass, right? Other facets of the patent appear to cover all glass paints, metals, COEs, and so forth.

The ONE thing that seems to be very specific is this text:

INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY
The invention has applicability to the ceramic tile industry.

What has me shaking my head over this is the basic common sense of the art. Glass can be painted. Metal foils can be sandwiched between glass. Yet the patent office sees this as a unique process with one inventor.

Would this be like trying to patent any and all meat sandwiches?
A layer of glass = bread
A layer of paint = mustard
A layer of metal = ham
A layer of paint = mayo
A layer of glass = bread

AGAIN, I don't harbor any ill will towards the person who had the bright idea to patent this. I'm all for people taking advantage of what they can within the law. Perhaps they had enough of a demand they realized that knock-offs would be a natural result within the ceramic tile industry. They got a patent lawyer and locked out competitors. My problem is with the law itself. In my opinion, sandwiching things between layers of glass is just too basic to patent.

Well, utility patents are typically granted for 20 years from the date of filing. If so, then that particular patent expired 24 Feb 2017.

I'm surprised a patent office would grant a patent that seems so simple to the rest of us, and for a technique that pioneers in the industry were doing well before 1997. The patent office could use a few subject matter experts .

Dana W.

I'm pretty sure applying micas to the surface of glass was also patented.

Tony

Tony Smith wrote:I'm pretty sure applying micas to the surface of glass was also patented.

Tony

If it doesn't burn away or alter the integrity of the finished product, and it's available to the general public, I'm certain someone has stuck it in, under, between, and over glass. It is in the nature of the craft to do this. It is in the nature of the curious artist to try and find something new to do to glass.

It is in the nature of lawyers to stop us from doing this.

JestersBaubles wrote:Well, utility patents are typically granted for 20 years from the date of filing. If so, then that particular patent expired 24 Feb 2017.

I'm surprised a patent office would grant a patent that seems so simple to the rest of us, and for a technique that pioneers in the industry were doing well before 1997. The patent office could use a few subject matter experts .

Dana W.

At the bottom of the patent I referenced, I found many patents that reference this one. Two by the same "inventor". They actually use the word "sandwich" several times.

I doubt that John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, invented putting meat between two pieces of bread, but damned if he didn't get the credit.

NOTICE TO GLASS ARTISTS EVERYWHERE:

I posted an earlier thread discussing the ethical implications of deconstructing another artist's secret technique and divulging what I learned without getting any help from the original artist. The patent at the top of this post tells me why this is a VERY BAD IDEA.

In more than 20 years of creating bonsai trees, I've only seen patents on the tools we use in bonsai. Everything else, the when/where/why/how of bonsai, is researched, taught, and shared. I now see the wide gulf between the operating environments of bonsai and glasswork. I apologize for my audacity. The camaraderie does not translate well.

I'm currently involved in a decade-long project investigating the creation of knees on bald cypress trees in bonsai pots (yes, that's a significant thing). I have an extensive theory of dendrology/environment/function that goes beyond techniques to look at why it works (if it works). Win or lose, when I'm done I'll write up a paper and throw it out there to the world.

However, if I were to do anything interesting in the world of glass, I have no idea what I would do with the information. It might be something someone already knows or it may be something someone runs out and patents without me.

Billsbayou,

I find your posts intriguing. Please share some images of what you are doing in glass.

Sharol

I think Bills is stressing about the process and looking for something to post for what reason?? Why not just get in your studio and make stuff? As artists we are constantly trying out new experiments, new techniques.. some work, some don't.. move on. With all the bafflegab on the internet I doubt many secrets remain for long a secret! Who really cares?? I see poor copies of others good work all the time.. it's annoying but there are a lot of crafters that rely on this approach to making work.

My brother is a patent attorney and I worked with him when younger.
A. The patent expired about a year after they got it. End of story.
B. The patent office frequently issues patents which are then challenged, often resulting in the patent being withdrawn. End of story.
C. You have to understand how to read claims language. It starts very broadly, since most of that is not really patent-able. Really only the last and narrowest claim is what is the patented process. And yes, this was a utility patent(function/process), not design.

This threads seems like it was created to find reasons to lean on the work and knowledge of others and not feel bad about it. Just my opinion. I've been wrong before - but I could be wrong about that.

DonMcClennen wrote: I see poor copies of others good work all the time.. it's annoying but there are a lot of crafters that rely on this approach to making work.