BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:31:52 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
Everyone should calm down, and READ the patent before getting angry.

Not to worry, all this fellow has "patented" is a specific VERSION of
a screened bottom board, one that:

  a) Is also a base for the hive as a whole

  b)  Has "entrances" cut into a solid front surface

Its is patent number 6,468,129

Go here, and type in the patent number to see the text.
Click on "images" when the text comes up to see the sketches.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm

This fellow has NO ability to sue anyone who makes or sells
ANYTHING that looks like the usual screened bottom board.

The fellow also appears to have no right to royalties from anyone,
since I have yet to see such a bulky version of a screened bottom board.

I'd be surprised if anyone views this as an "improvement", since the usual
(3-sided, two-inch tall) type goes right onto a standard bottom board that
has been turned "backwards", or a pallet.  The patent application clearly
identifies this more common type of screened bottom board as "prior art",
and therefore, does not make any claims about the defacto-standard version.

But, this fellow has EVERY right to patent his SPECIFIC version of a screened
bottom board, and should not be viewed as trying to pull a "fast one" on the
USPTO or anyone else.

And he has EVERY right to expect friendly treatment from his fellow beekeepers.

If he is stupid enough to try and extract money from woodenware vendors, he
will fail, and will fail at the first step in the process.  Likely, his own lawyer would
advise him that he had no claim against them.

        jim  (who's biggest source of income is "intellectual property")

ATOM RSS1 RSS2