Karen's and Jim's comments are very helpful, especially to those such as
myself with little specific knowledge of such areas.

This guy 'sounds like' someone who tried his darndest to extort money from
us when we introduced the Sundance Pollen Trap.  This tool (like the SBB,
the Sundance trap is no more or less than a useful tool) was gradually
developed over about 15 years before introduction to the general market.  It
started with some clever design areas by a Canadian, but before being
introduced had been changed in so many ways that it was almost
unrecognizable from the original.  I believed then, and now, that at least
two of those changes were patentable but decided not to do so for reasons I
will explain later.

As soon as advertising started on the Sundance trap I got a letter claiming
prior patent and copyright.  I have long ago thrown away all the
correspondence, but it sounded suspiciously like that now being sent to
dealers for the SBB.  (It may be the same guy.)  Initially I ignored the
claims.  After about the third letter, I responded pointing our the origin
of the Sundance trap, some of the changes since (including the years the
changes were made), and how it differed from that described in his claims.
In conclusion, I said "if you still feel we are infringing, you have the
ultimate remedy available to you, and I will see you in court".  I was
reasonably certain that all he wanted was a payment to 'go away', and I was
not going to give him that.  I never heard from him again.

Why did we not patent our two most important innovations?  Someone a lot
smarter than I once told me "all a patent does is give you a basis on which
to sue".  That is very true, and suits are very expensive...as are patents.
I was once President of a company whose very existence depended on some six
patents, and those easily cost us in the neighborhood of $1 million to
register in 'most' of the world!

Patents also require that one discloses the 'art', and sometimes this
amounts to an open invitation to find a 'work around'.  I've seen it happen,
and the work around was so good it completely wiped out the original product
that was patented.  In some industries the combination of high patent costs
and required disclosures are resulting in companies relying on 'trade
secrets' to maintain product uniqueness and market share.  A good move,
IMHO.

I certainly hope no dealer succumbs to this guys demands.
Lloyd
Lloyd Spear, Owner of Ross Rounds, manufacturer of comb honey equipment
for beekeepers and Sundance pollen traps.
http://www.rossrounds.com
[log in to unmask]