Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes

(Example: Framebuilders:Doug Fattic)

From: "henox" <henox@icycle.net>
To: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>, <Root@student.uchc.edu>, <NortonMarg@aol.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, "H.M. & S.S. Sachs" <sachs@erols.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021231195909.00af8c90@pop.erols.com> <04ed01c2b13f$38c16690$efddfea9@mooshome>
Subject: Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 08:25:14 -0800

Subject: Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes

Jerry wrote:

"Many people much more
> familiar with the topic than I claim that Klein "stole" the ideas of a
> number of students and faculty members at MIT and patented them, and was not
> himself the primary originator of the design. While this may well be true,
> that is neither illegal nor unusual. If other parties at MIT neither
> applied for patents earlier nor challenged Klein's patent applications, then
> they should not complain after the fact about the outcome."

A requirement of a patent is novelty and applying for a patent based on other's work IS both illegal and unethical. It is fraud.

Since I've never seen the patent application "wrap" for Klein's patent, I don't know whether or not Klein mentioned all the large tube frames that proceeded his patent application and constituted prior art.. It is possible that the patent was awarded simply because the examiner did not do a competent job (this happens more often than you might think).

Anyway, why should anyone spend the time and money to challenge the patent when the prior art was so well known. It was in Cannondales' best interest to arrive at some sort of settlement with Klein as soon as possible so that there was no legal issue (however spurious) hanging over Cannondales' product development and manufacturing.

Hugh Enox