4 ms·

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

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