Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes

Example: Framebuilding
From: "Jerry & Liz Moos" <>
To: "henox" <>, <>, <>, <>, "H.M. & S.S. Sachs" <>
References: <> <04ed01c2b13f$38c16690$efddfea9@mooshome> <00bb01c2b1b2$5e393e20$a00356d1@pavilion>
Subject: Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:06:15 -0600

The reason someone should bother to challenge a patent is precisely because the prior art, no matter how "obvious to those skilled in the art" may not be known to the examiner. A lot of patents, including the those on internal combustion engine powered vehicles (successful circumvented by Henry Ford) and radio, were obtained by entrepreneurs who had done little or nothing to invent the technology, but knew patent law. If applying for a patent based on others' work is illegal, it is a crime which has a lower rate of prosecution than jaywalking. While such conduct may be unethical, this gets into the realm of personal name calling which the rules of this list frown upon.


Jerry Moos
Houston, TX

----- Original Message -----
From: henox
To: Jerry & Liz Moos

<>; <>; "H.M. & S.S. Sachs" <> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes

> 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