Luma Labs Discontinues Popular Product Line After Competitor Gets A Patent... Despite Prior Art Going Back Over A Century
from the this-is-not-innovation dept
Jon Wilson alerts us to yet another unfortunate casualty of our screwed up patent system, led by our clueless US Patent Office. Luma Labs, who made very popular camera straps, has announced that it's discontinuing the product immediately, because a competitor just got a patent on one aspect of their camera straps. They think the patent is bogus, and are pretty sure they could win if they fought, but the cost and resources are just way too high:Our disappointment doesn�t matter much in the scheme of things, however. Our competitor now has a legal tool and we�re pretty sure that they desire to use it. This is, as they say, a problem. We and our counsel are more than confident that we can defend ourselves, and will do so vigorously if necessary. On the other hand, we�re a very small company that sells our products in limited volumes and mounting such a defense would consume the majority of our resources. After all, it took three years to rescind a patent about a method of using a swing. In other words, we have a Hobson�s choice on our hands. We could very well lose everything even if we won.The whole thing really is pretty crazy. They note that they knew the competitor had applied for a patent, but never thought it would be granted because there's tons of prior art going back over a century:
Therefore, we�re acting unilaterally and conceding the market by immediately discontinuing the Loop and LoopIt. Full stop. We apologize for the sudden nature of this decision and our implementation of it, but we feel like our options on this matter are limited.
We�ve been aware for quite some time that one of our competitors applied for a patent relating to camera slings in 2007. Their patent application contained dozens of claims that centered around two primary concepts. One of these concepts�that of using a sliding connection to connect a camera to a sling�applied to our product line. We did our research, consulted our lawyers, and found more than enough prior art related to this concept.Once again, as I have in the past, I'll ask defenders of the patent system to explain how this encourages innovation? It seems to bust all the usual myths that we hear. Patent system defenders claim that if there's prior art it's easy to invalidate a patent. Not if you want to stay in business as a small company. They'll claim that patent examiners are competent. If so, how did this get approved despite prior art going back to 1885? They'll claim that the patent system "protects" innovators. Well here was a company with a successful product on the market, being forced to shut it down completely over a bogus patent. This is indefensible.
That prior art starts with the US 1885 Carbine Sling, which clearly features an attachment that slides along a leather strap and connects to the rifle with a hook. It goes onto Leica�s 1938 TROOV wrist strap which connects to a tripod-based connection with a hook assembly that would slide freely if not for the way that the strap was constructed. Many other makers�especially in the specialty Leica marketplace�developed these variants further, culminating in exact implementations of the concept. For example, thanks to the Internet Archive�s Wayback Machine, we know that leicagoodies.com was selling their version of this concept in 2005. One look at the photo on that page of a product made of a keyring, hook, and webbing tells the story.
In short, the idea of a sliding camera sling isn�t an amazing new invention. It�s just a really good idea that�s been around for a while and which has been iteratively developed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: camera straps, innovation, patents, product lines
Companies: luma labs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
*boggle*
You left of the lawyers for what will be the loosing side drawing the lawsuit out to try and bankrupt the other company.
Maybe if the patent office had the duty to actually look for prior art before granting things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
You're just as clueless as ever out_of_the_blue.
This is a small company without a lot of resources to go full scale against the patent.
Should they have sent the USPTO a notice saying that there was prior art? Perhaps, but the USPTO should've done THEIR due-diligence and notice that there was prior art going back for over a century, and deny the patent claim.
But since it's being rubber stamped anyway, what's the point of registering for patents again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
That's like saying scaling Everest would be easy but for the steep incline.
Are you an actual troll or someone trying to ape a troll for lulz?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This is indefensible." -- No, Luma Labs just isn't defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we are going to use the Patent Office as the standard of what officially is "The Product", doesn't everyone want them to that job correctly?
I think in the long run, everyone loses here. No matter how big or small the company is. Simply put, the American economy is drastically affected by how seriously these clowns do their job.
You guys that speak for the big companies, can you put some pressure here to have this job done correctly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One where a company already making such a product simply files a claim against the new patent holder, which could then be used to prevent payment processors serving that patent holding company, and advertisers from advertising with or for them and of course shut down any websites and/or stores that they operate.
If they then feel that the claim is in error they are welcome to take it to court.
Isn't that how things are supposed to be done now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have that: it's called ex parte and inter partes reexamination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll ask defenders of the patent system to explain how this encourages innovation?
The way Copyright was intended. /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, this isn't a copy'right' case, and secondly, I don't think your statement is sarcastic. The original intent behind IP was nefarious in nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Standards for Innovation
I wonder how long it will be before someone patents the wheel? It won't matter, though. According to Blue, they can invalidate it for $2.
Blue needs a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Standards for Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Standards for Innovation
It just doesn't deserve a patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Standards for Innovation
And what definition is that? Getting a patent for putting a speaker on a belt clip is exactly the kind of thing that Mike points out as ludicrous. Are you thinking of some other Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Standards for Innovation
It's all the sort of thing that Mike pushes as innovation. If they painted it a different color, even better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Standards for Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Standards for Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Standards for Innovation
Blue's Clue's jingle coming back....ARGGGGGGGGG Oh the humanity..... It's just too painful.
If there are clues, I'm sure Blue isn't capable of finding them without an ambiguous gender challenged sidekick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's your patent?
JUst another clueless anti-patent PR rant from mikey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's your patent?
Go away little boy/girl, the adults are talking now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?
Really, they're not that bad. They don't eat too many children and they keep the bridge clean.
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's your patent?
If he had clue I'd sue him. You better not have a clue either or you're looking at years of litigation. I have no intention of licensing my clue patent to you.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll give it a shot
opportunity is everywhere....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IP laws are the real problem and the real solution is to ignore them, flaunt them or better yet make them less strong or end them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
As a complete aside, thanks for linking to the wiki on Hobson's Choice. Ironically, in an effort to educate the readership on this rhetorical device, your link illustrates that the speaker quoted has used it incorrectly in the most typical manner. As the wiki helpfully points out:
Hobson's choice is often misused to mean a false illusion of choice, but it is not a choice between two undesirable options, which is a Morton's fork. Such a choice between two options of nearly equal value is more properly called a dilemma. Hobson's choice is one between something or nothing."
In this instance, the choice seems to be between a) fighting the patent, thereby consuming a majority of the firm's resources (possibly resulting in a Pyrrhic victory), or b) exiting the business altogether.�
Therefore the situation seems more of a dilemma than a Hobson's choice.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems that would be an economical thing to do. No lawyers required for that move!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Assuming the patent in question is indeed U.S. Patent No. 7,866,899, it turns out the USPTO did cite at least one of the references Luma found: the publication of the US 1885 Carbine Sling. Of course, the USPTO also found that the claimed invention was patentable over this reference, so perhaps it's not as relevant as Luma claims.
As for the others, its entirely possible that the USPTO found the references it did cite to be more relevant than what Luma unearthed. Of course, we don't know because no one has made a comparison between the art which was cited and the art which Luma found. So perhaps Luma is posturing a bit (or, you know, a lot).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you be the first. Especially since patents are so easy to read and understand and what they present is so useful and offers so much transparency, start making that comparison here and quoting it. It shouldn't be too difficult, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe anyone has said that patents, in general, are easy to understand. In fact, many are not because they describe complex technology that cannot be easily understood by a layperson. Whether this one is easy or difficult to understand largely depends on the complexity of the underlying technology. I haven't read it, so I can't judge whether it's easy or difficult.
And in any event, I am not a person having ordinary skill in the art of making camera straps, and I doubt you are either. So whether either of us thinks that the patent is difficult to understand means nothing to whether it sufficiently describes the claimed invention to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make or use it.
As for making the comparison between the cited art and Luma's references, I have no idea whether that would be difficult. I do know that it would be labor-intensive, and thus, I do not feel like devoting 4-6 hours to scouring the patent's cited references and seeing how they compare to what Luma found. Of course, neither has Mike, which is understandable. But then, I'm not the one rendering an opinion that the asserted patent is "bogus". Mike is, and he has yet to back up his claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=6b3wAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=7,866,899& ;hl=en&ei=Y6vBTsnBHYSgiQK4mqD-Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved= 0CDAQ6AEwAA
In reading through it, I don't see anything in there that looks particularly patent worthy. The patent seems very broad, for instance
"For a camera having at least one engagement portion ..."
So if it has one or more, again, the patent is trying to be as broad as possible. and it tries to cover as many possibilities as possible as well (claims two through twelve merely broaden claim one even more, adding more possibilities to what the patent covers).
and look at the picture. It's merely a camera strap. Hardly a patent worthy idea.
This patent is overly broad and another example of a bad patent that wasn't needed for this idea to occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a very useful idea. My camera has a strap that I can leave on while also attaching it to a tripod. This "invention" requires constant removal in order to use a tripod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, in your apparently infinite wisdom, you can determine whether something is patentable merely by looking at the pretty pictures? Wow, that's really brilliant of you. Nevermind what the text says about the devices depicted in the drawings; if it looks unpatentable, it must be unpatentable.
Glad we have you around. You should work at the Patent Office.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
I don't care if it cost as little as $.01, they shouldn't have had to do it. There is prior art, the onus on patent approval/rejection is on the USPTO, not on anyone else that might be effected anywhere. The cost to fight a battle you shouldn't have to fight is meaningless....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
I have to disagree here. Sure, in principle Luma Labs shouldn't have had to do anything. But I don't think that they were standing on principle. I think they either had misplaced trust that the patent office was competent at their job or didn't know about the procedures to contest a pending patent. In either case, if I had any investment in the company, I'd be highly pissed off at their management and legal counsel. There's no mistaking that the patent system is broken. But if all that's standing between you and losing one of your products is 65 bucks and submitting the research you've already done, the only sensible thing is to contest the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
Hindsight is 20/20
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
You don't need 20/20 vision to know there's a good chance the patent office is going to fuck something up. You pretty much just need to not live in a cave to know that.
It's simple, really. Luma Labs bet that the patent office would do their job. From what we know, they bet that the money it would take to put together a protest wasn't worth the risk. They either overestimated the cost or the patent office's competency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
Hey now! We live in Igloos up here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
"The practice of �patent trolling� seriously burdens those companies without the financial and legal resources of large, well-established organizations. The financial burden on small businesses can be significant � the least fortunate risk closing their doors � as the result of fighting these expensive and lengthy suits, which often end up with nuisance value settlements for profit-seeking NPEs.
Although Pro Softnet�s day-to-day operations are continuing as normal, this �tax� on progress and innovation is unavoidable."
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/14/bootstrapped-company-behind-idrive-ibackup-is-fed-up -with-patent-trolls/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
Standing on your principles here wouldn't help fix a broken system. I think it would be better to have an open peer review approach. Anything considered 'obvious to those skilled in the art' would be quickly discredited and the patient denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
Congratulations. You've just identified why entrusting the handout of govt. monolopies under our current system doesn't work....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
It would really help me out and would only prevent a small company from going out of business....
Anyone???? What???? Nobody is willing to pay me $65 so that I can do the job I'm being paid by the government to do??? I guess I'll just have to 'phone another one in' and collect my government paycheck, it's not like the company I'm putting out of business is watching out for me, so why should I watch out for their interests. Sure it's part of my job description, but I'm not being paid EXTRA to do it, everyone else gets paid to do their job, plus they get bonuses (lobbying) from their buddies companies to do their job the way the company wants them to, why shouldn't I get bonuses as well? I'm only getting paid by the government, so obviously I'm not going to bother doing anything....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
Well, it would cost $65, plus whatever resources it takes to constantly watch patent applications to be sure that any of your products aren't under threat.
i.e. lots of money and resources.
This is why we can argue that the patent system is a tax on innovation, and a diversion of resources from market incentives for making products, towards incentives to push paper, invest in legal services, and to lock down IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
I might cost $65 to file, but how much does it cost to have a patent attorney draw up the protest?
Even then, as DH points out above, the onus should be on business to police the patent applications of competitors, that task in and of itself is unrealistically huge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
I'm sure the total cost would be more than $65, but it seems like they did the bulk of the work in researching the prior art which would be required to contest the patent. Given how broken the patent system is, this might not have helped, but at least they would have done their due dilligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I used Google and found relevant information within seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. This is not exactly an esoteric art, so it seems quite unlikely that a patent examiner would not understand what was being claimed and what was relevant prior art.
3. I read in its "letter" to its customers that it was coming out with a new product. I have no way of knowing if this was motivated in part by what its competitor was doing before the USPTO, but it would be interesting to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Once again, as I have in the past, I'll ask defenders of the patent system to explain how this encourages innovation? "
Clearly, if they are moving to a new product because they feel the old product is somehow "blocked", they have in the end innovated to get around a patent or to come up with another way to skin the proverbial cat. That would suggest that the patent being granted has clearly lead to innovation.
A great example of the "self-repairing" nature of human endeavour. Mike, you could learn a lot from this real world example of cause and effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So...this company is now blocked from selling their product. They are now going to consume resources into developing a new product that may or may not work. But that's alright that's innovation!
For god's sake man! This company is being blocked! By a clear misuse of the legal system! If their product is shit, the marketplace will take care of them. But from what they tell us, they had a stable market. They were selling and their customers were happy. Now, through no fault of their own, they can no longer sell their product because some guy has a piece of paper with his name on it?
Good innovation occurs when the marketplace demands something and no-one is supplying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think you need! one more ! in there! to really top it off!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Seriously though... the patent system allows them to file an objection, and clearly they were aware of the patent application, and appear to have done nothing, even though they have all sorts of prior art. Further, it isn't clear that the patent 100% blocks their product, or that they would be subject of legal action, they are making that assumption and working with it.
The end result? Innovation. The sort of stuff Mike says doesn't happen in the patent system. He tries to paint it as a winner take all deal, where there is only one solution and everyone else goes home. Yet these guys feel blocked, and avoid the legal issues by... hark! INNOVATION!
Innovation isn't only limited to filling an unfilled need, it can also happen when you come up with a better way to accomplish something that is already done. Bias ply tires were great, but radial tires are better. By your logic, because the need was already filled with bias ply tires, the makes of the radial tire shouldn't have bothered.
Innovation happens when you look at a problem, look at the current solution, and realize you have a better way to do it. The demand is already there... they just found a better way to accomplish the desired result, and maybe do even more. Otherwise, they might have just gone on selling their existing product without any new development or innovations.
Innovation, brought to you by the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation in SPITE of the patent system.
Correlation does not prove causation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation in SPITE of the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is about like saying it is ok to go cut off a guys arm, it encourages him to learn to use his other one. So that is good right? Guy used to be terrible at using his left arm but now that I took his right one just look he is great using his left!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now that beeing said say wikipedia.org has to take its search down, please tell me how would you "get around" the patent or "come up with another way" to make a website like wikipedia.org relevant without the posibility to search through it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When you get your patent on air, I will start holding my breath looking for a solution. Until then, I won't waste my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually what you've described is similar to the Broken Window Fallacy, which Mike has discussed here several times before. Suffice to say Mike already knows how damaging your kind of thinking is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem here is not the innovation, is the bypass that our patent system makes on the market, by artifically clearing out competition.
Instead of competing for the best solutions, all one has to do now is to use the patent system to prevent any competitor from getting to the game in the first place, no matterif they have been around longer than you have - as long as you havethe lawyers on staff.
Because the way our legal system works, if you have the resources, you can delay and marginalize all defense until they run out of money.
I dont see how this can be defended, even by modern day conservatives- i thought the small business person was our lifeblood - then how do we have a system that allows multinational corps review and just take whatever innovation they find, knowing that they will always win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Mike, if you'll be so kind as to show us the patent in question then I will take a wack at it.
There are three possibilities.
1. They invented and patented a ligitimate and nonobvious new strap and the other company's new line would in fact infringe. Note that even if it does, they may be able to pay a royalty and proceed with their line.
2. The PO did not make appropriate rejections (I doubt this given the prior art you cited above) for the SPECIFIC CLAIMS.
3. The company who is qqing may in fact not even infringe, and the competitor may in fact not even try to sue or any suit might be tossed on summary judgement. In other words, the defendant is just incompetent and has incompetent attorneys (this happens).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I dunno. Call me cynical, but this seems like a good way to cancel a product line without being "the bad guy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"We are killing X because it is not generating enough revenue"
Customers will either chime in in support of the product, meaning you can increase the price, or say "yeah, X kinda sucked, kill it".
If this were a concoction, it would serve no purpose I can discern, and set a vicious trap if it ever came out that the story was a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's probably Black Rapid
http://www.blackrapid.com/product/camera-strap/rs-7/
Notice the "patent pending" lingo in the lower left corner.
But I don't think that the lawyers should do all the competing. They should duke it out in the marketplace and let the consumers decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent # 7866899
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent # 7866899
1. For a camera having at least one engagement portion each configured to receive an engagement portion of a stand, a system for coupling with the engagement portion of the camera, the system comprising:
a first strap;
a coupler having a first portion and a second portion, the first portion of the coupler sized and shaped to engage with the engagement portion of the camera, the second portion of the coupler sized and shaped to engage with the first strap;
an enclosure having an interior area with an aperture and an exterior; and
a shoulder strap with a first end portion and a second end portion attached to the exterior of the enclosure, the first end portion of the shoulder strap attached closer to the aperture and the second end of the shoulder strap attached farther from the aperture, the first strap having a first end portion attached to the enclosure inside the interior area.
I notice that a lot of the "prior art" which mike thinks is at least nearly relevant to this patent likely has nothing to do with what is claimed.
Overall, it looks to me like a case of them having patented a decent technology which is presumed to be a valid patent under the law and was examined by an expert patent examiner. I do not see any references cited in this thread that make me instantly question the novelty or non-obviousness of the patent.
That said, I cannot say whether or not the company at issue would actually infringe on this patent. Nor can I say whether or not legal action was planned by the patent owner.
Overall, it seems like the instant situation in the original post was just a company squimish about patent issues deciding to cancel their product line rather than put their big boy pants on, or they just decided f it, not worth the trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent # 7866899
Fortunately, some industrious reader decided to probe further and find the patent above. Great, next question: is the cited prior art invalidating prior art? Does the prior art cited by Luma actually disclose the claimed invention? No one here seems to know; they just assume it does because Mike says so.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: the only way Mike can prove that he knows a damn thing about patent law is for him to demonstrate it. He has yet to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent # 7866899
http://ip.com/patent/US8047729
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And all you hippies thought the republicans were only talking about the EPA with those pesky water quality standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you assume....
Patent system defenders claim that if there's prior art it's easy to invalidate a patent. Not if you want to stay in business as a small company.
Assumption #1: this small company actually has legit prior art. Sure, it may claim that it does, but the company has an interest in painting the patentee as the bad guy. I see nothing from the company showing how the patent in question (which was never disclosed) is anticipated by its cited prior art.
They'll claim that patent examiners are competent. If so, how did this get approved despite prior art going back to 1885?
Assumption #2: the purported prior art would actually invalidate the patent in question. How do you know that the 1885 "prior art" discloses the claimed invention? Where's your offer of proof? Perhaps there was a reason why the patent examiner did not find the prior art invalidating.
They'll claim that the patent system "protects" innovators. Well here was a company with a successful product on the market, being forced to shut it down completely over a bogus patent.
Assumption #3: the patent is indeed bogus. How do you know? Can you prove it? Show us how the patent claims are bogus. You can even give us a claim chart if you like. We'll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you assume....
Sure it may confuse and baffle many of the sheeple, but it's easy to see that the underlying concept is a basic shoulder sling that allows the object to hang at the side when not in use, and be quickly pulled up to the appropriate position when needed. I seem to recall a gun collector friend who had an old German gun that had a very similar shoulder sling and 'O' ring design that allowed the gun to hang down the side when at rest, and quickly be raised to firing position when necessary.
I'm sure they didn't describe it with the same terms, but it's the same basic concept....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When you assume....
It depends on what those "convoluted words" in the claim mean. If they mean something that is more limited in scope than the basic concept, then the claimed invention very well may rise to the level of a "new invention" (i.e., novelty). It also depends on whether the prior art discloses those limitations.
By the way, "new invention" is redundant. In order to be an invention, it must be new.
Sure it may confuse and baffle many of the sheeple, but it's easy to see that the underlying concept is a basic shoulder sling that allows the object to hang at the side when not in use, and be quickly pulled up to the appropriate position when needed. I seem to recall a gun collector friend who had an old German gun that had a very similar shoulder sling and 'O' ring design that allowed the gun to hang down the side when at rest, and quickly be raised to firing position when necessary.
That's great, but I don't think the patent claims merely recite the underlying concept. Read Claim 1. Does it merely recite the underlying concept of a shoulder sling that allows something (e.g., a camera, a gun, a telescope, binoculars, etc.) to be quickly raised when needed, or does it recite something more specific than that? I think the latter. Whether that's patentable, I don't know, but I do know that painting the patent with the broad brush of "a camera shoulder sling" is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent reform
In this case, though, I am surprised that there was no appeal to the Patent Board of Appeals, a relatively low cost way of having the USPTO overrule itself????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
If that is true, the patent will not stand up in court.
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world�s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don�t have any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
"But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters."
Nor have they ever claimed to be.
"They cannot be trusted and have no credibility"
Where are your credentials? Provide a real name and a link to your patents, then we'll talk. Otherwise, you have significantly less credibility, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]