Re: RE: Re: Re: DML and Patent violation problem

From: Matt Schroeder (schroema@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 03 2000 - 18:03:14 EDT


If he Rob can prove existence of "prior art" which is known to exist before
the patent application for the marketed bars he CAN legally sell these
traction bars. BUT they might be different enough in form and function so
as to not infringe in the first place since Rob's only use a set of springs
on one side of the plate and he also uses some other things that are
different.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Wong" <ron-wong@home.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 4:37 PM
Subject: DML: RE: Re: Re: DML and Patent violation problem

> I agree with Matt. As long as Rob's not trying to make money selling his
> fabrication he's got nothing to worry about. If he is trying to make
money
> there could be a problem even if he thought of it first. He didn't try to
> patent his idea so I'm sure there'd be a fight there.
>
> Ron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@buffnet.net]On Behalf Of Matt Schroeder
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:16 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: DML: Re: Re: DML and Patent violation problem
>
>
> That's nothing but TOTAL BULL. If you're not selling anything you can't
be
> infringing on patent rights. Patent law was designed for the sole reason
to
> protect people's rights to designs and ideas that are marketable from
being
> produced and SOLD by others.
>
> Politely tell them to jump in a lake. :-)
>
> If this were true I wouldn't be able to fabricate anything for myself
> because most all worthy items are patented.
>
> Matt Schroeder
> Burnsville, MN
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:53:15 EDT