5 ms·

> Please be aware of imitators, as the use of jaws with an engraving vise may infringe any patent that issues from my pending patent applications. Don't really

by beachy 3y ago

> Please be aware of imitators, as the use of jaws with an engraving vise may infringe any patent that issues from my pending patent applications. Don't really know much about this area, but this comes across as aggressive, overreaching, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

lelandbatey 3y ago
That's amusing, as original fractal vise's from over 100 years ago (1913) can be found online, including restoration videos of very old ones. Someone trying to repatent such old tech sounds... dubious.
- userbinator 3y ago
  This is supposedly an enhanced version, which could plausibly be patented, but I agree with the parent that it seems a little odd.
bee_rider 3y ago
They’ve also got an infringement info page that seems pretty aggressive… maybe they’ve had a lot of trouble with knockoffs or something?
- poizan42 3y ago
  Note that their product isn't available yet. > Question: How much do they cost? > Answer: Price is not known yet. Production has not started and therefore not enough of them have been made to know what the cost will be. You pre-order with a down payment toward the purchase, and be placed in line. See above. > Question: When will one be ready for me? > Answer: It will be a while yet before production in quantities begins.
- orangepurple 3y ago
  The Chinese already copied the design, improved it, manufactured it, and listed it for sale on a global marketplace. The poor guy is finished.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Or, from another point of view, the inventor and the Chinese both copied a design from 1912 [1] which was shown in a widely shown Youtube video in June 2021 [2] - a month before this "inventor" applied for a patent [3] [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US1059545 https://patents.google.com/patent/US1059545 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBeOgGt_oWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBeOgGt_oWU [3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en
    - planede 3y ago
      And according to the video it was already patented back then in the US. Hopefully the patent office will reject the application.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        The patent office isn't in the business of rejecting applications. That's left for the courts to decide.
        planede 3y ago
        I'm not really familiar with the patent application process, but according to [1] the US patent office does reject application based on prior art. [1] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        However, in practise it issues many patents that have prior art https://www.eff.org/issues/patents https://www.eff.org/issues/patents
  - poizan42 3y ago
    Their claimed invention is about attaching fractal jaws to existing engraving vises and not the fractal vise itself. > The patent pending improvements allow for use with engraving vises and other vises. But in reality their patent applications doesn't even claim that, but rather a specific method for attaching fractal jaws to existing engraving vises as far as I can tell. btrettel found what seems to be the patent applications in another comment https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230009028A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230009028A1/en
poizan42 3y ago
As far as I can tell they are not disclosing the patent application number anywhere. They only give a vague description of what it's supposed to cover. Yet they are being very aggressive about "infringers" of their patent they don't have yet for a product they aren't selling yet.
- btrettel 3y ago
  Former USPTO patent examiner here. Here's the USPTO's new public search tool: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/landing.html?MURL=SearchPatentFullText https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/landing.html?... I tried the following search: (lindsay NEAR2 ste$5).inv. This just looks for likely variations of the inventor's name in the inventor field. Selecting only the US-PGPUB database (published patent applications), I came across the following that seem to match: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230009028A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230009028A1/en
  - varenc 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - cyrnel 3y ago
      > a term that starts with "ste" and is up to 5 letters long. This is incorrect. The $5 matches up to 5 characters after "ste" for a total of 8 characters: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/assets/files/Search%20overview%20QRG%20-%20Patent%20Public%20Search.pdf https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/assets/files/Search... I suspect it's taking a wild guess because this search tool came out after ChatGPT's 2021 data cutoff date.
      - btrettel 3y ago
        I'm guessing they was trying to make sense of my search query? That document seems to explain the search operators, so here's my logic behind the choice of operators: Why `NEAR2`? Maybe Steve is their middle name, so `NEAR` won't work as it only looks at bordering names. I don't necessarily know if the databases are going to present the names as `Lindsay, Steve` or `Steve Lindsay`, so `ADJ` (where order matters) isn't a good choice. Why `ste$5`? Maybe they didn't use `Steve` as their name on the application. Could be `Steven` or `Stephen`. That suggests `ste$4`. However, I've found that adding an extra letter can be more robust. Maybe the database has a typo like `Stephenn`, hence the extra letter.
Gordonjcp 3y ago
So what we have here is a vastly overcomplicated development of a perfectly ordinary lathe chuck. I guess the patented bit is the vastly improved scope for things to go wrong and jam?

by beachy 3y ago

lelandbatey 3y ago

That's amusing, as original fractal vise's from over 100 years ago (1913) can be found online, including restoration videos of very old ones. Someone trying to repatent such old tech sounds... dubious.

userbinator 3y ago
This is supposedly an enhanced version, which could plausibly be patented, but I agree with the parent that it seems a little odd.

bee_rider 3y ago

They’ve also got an infringement info page that seems pretty aggressive… maybe they’ve had a lot of trouble with knockoffs or something?

poizan42 3y ago
Note that their product isn't available yet. > Question: How much do they cost? > Answer: Price is not known yet. Production has not started and therefore not enough of them have been made to know what the cost will be. You pre-order with a down payment toward the purchase, and be placed in line. See above. > Question: When will one be ready for me? > Answer: It will be a while yet before production in quantities begins.
orangepurple 3y ago
The Chinese already copied the design, improved it, manufactured it, and listed it for sale on a global marketplace. The poor guy is finished.
- michaelt 3y ago
  Or, from another point of view, the inventor and the Chinese both copied a design from 1912 [1] which was shown in a widely shown Youtube video in June 2021 [2] - a month before this "inventor" applied for a patent [3] [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US1059545 https://patents.google.com/patent/US1059545 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBeOgGt_oWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBeOgGt_oWU [3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en
  - planede 3y ago
    And according to the video it was already patented back then in the US. Hopefully the patent office will reject the application.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      The patent office isn't in the business of rejecting applications. That's left for the courts to decide.
      - planede 3y ago
        I'm not really familiar with the patent application process, but according to [1] the US patent office does reject application based on prior art. [1] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        However, in practise it issues many patents that have prior art https://www.eff.org/issues/patents https://www.eff.org/issues/patents
- poizan42 3y ago
  Their claimed invention is about attaching fractal jaws to existing engraving vises and not the fractal vise itself. > The patent pending improvements allow for use with engraving vises and other vises. But in reality their patent applications doesn't even claim that, but rather a specific method for attaching fractal jaws to existing engraving vises as far as I can tell. btrettel found what seems to be the patent applications in another comment https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230009028A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230009028A1/en

poizan42 3y ago

As far as I can tell they are not disclosing the patent application number anywhere. They only give a vague description of what it's supposed to cover. Yet they are being very aggressive about "infringers" of their patent they don't have yet for a product they aren't selling yet.

btrettel 3y ago
Former USPTO patent examiner here. Here's the USPTO's new public search tool: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/landing.html?MURL=SearchPatentFullText https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/landing.html?... I tried the following search: (lindsay NEAR2 ste$5).inv. This just looks for likely variations of the inventor's name in the inventor field. Selecting only the US-PGPUB database (published patent applications), I came across the following that seem to match: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230008280A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230009028A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230009028A1/en
- varenc 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cyrnel 3y ago
    > a term that starts with "ste" and is up to 5 letters long. This is incorrect. The $5 matches up to 5 characters after "ste" for a total of 8 characters: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/assets/files/Search%20overview%20QRG%20-%20Patent%20Public%20Search.pdf https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/assets/files/Search... I suspect it's taking a wild guess because this search tool came out after ChatGPT's 2021 data cutoff date.
    - btrettel 3y ago
      I'm guessing they was trying to make sense of my search query? That document seems to explain the search operators, so here's my logic behind the choice of operators: Why `NEAR2`? Maybe Steve is their middle name, so `NEAR` won't work as it only looks at bordering names. I don't necessarily know if the databases are going to present the names as `Lindsay, Steve` or `Steve Lindsay`, so `ADJ` (where order matters) isn't a good choice. Why `ste$5`? Maybe they didn't use `Steve` as their name on the application. Could be `Steven` or `Stephen`. That suggests `ste$4`. However, I've found that adding an extra letter can be more robust. Maybe the database has a typo like `Stephenn`, hence the extra letter.

Gordonjcp 3y ago

So what we have here is a vastly overcomplicated development of a perfectly ordinary lathe chuck. I guess the patented bit is the vastly improved scope for things to go wrong and jam?