Page 18 of 33 FirstFirst ... 8131415161718192021222328 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 645
  1. #341  
    VoxDei, I didn't really do anything too special, I just followed the research of others and took a screen shot. Now Mr. Warman accused me (on another board) of not being able to read because of the dates. Apparently, he would have us believe this patent was effective in 1988. He said the dates should've been obvious and told me to look at the images. Well, here's the image:



    I reduced it a little to fit better so no one's screen get's distorted. In case anyone wants to read the interesting thread discussing this, go to Ryan's Boycott Page and go to the discussion are and read the post with the subject, "This may be controversial, but...".
  2. johnkes's Avatar
    Posts
    45 Posts
    Global Posts
    46 Global Posts
    #342  
    Hawkeye,
    Good find! This is similar to the "submarine patent" where a vague invention floats around in the patent office for a while, pending some changes requested by the patent office. When the inventor sees a similar invention come up, he edits his vague patent to cover that invention, thus invalidating the competing invention.

    He keeps claiming people are stealing from him. I doubt that anyone did a patent search for such a lame invention and decided to copy it for profit. Seems more like a coincidental invention, based on people's independent thinking: "I wish I had a transparent sheet that I can use on my PDA, scratch up, then replace, since I already scratched up the original screen. It would be nice if it had some weak adhesive on the back to keep it from sliding around." So, his claims of people stealing from him do not hold water with me.

    I still think Warman's invention is lame. I went to Staples and got inkjet decals by InventIt. I cut it to size and it works great (for pennies each)!

    JK
  3. #343  
    Hmmm...Concept Kitchen has the lion's share of the market (Mr. Warman is obviously no serious threat). Mr Warman devotes his life to putting their real and potential competitors out of business. And they don't even have to pay him! Sounds pretty far up the learning curve to me.
  4. #344  
    Hey Warman...would you like to insert your foot into your mouth now?

    You stated "The reissued patent started in 1993 before Concept kitchen (1994)."

    The reports above appear to contradict your statement. (Great work Hawkeye!)

    Warman, again YOU HAVE LIED!!

    Your re-issued patent was actually approved in 1996!! Is that why CK stated that your patent was invalid?

    Oh yeah, the response from ConceptKitchen is not old. This is the first time that you made any attempts to address their claims (which you pretty much fell on your face).

    Now, more questions: (and try not to lie this time) You stated that you are taking CK to court? Is that right? If so, when and where? It seemed that if you approached them in 1998, you should have a court date by now.

    ------------------
    KAY

    [This message has been edited by KennethAaron425 (edited 06-13-2000).]
  5. #345  
    Originally posted by D ev R ay 4Real on 05-09-2000:
    Just for a prank, I am gonna e-mail him and accuse him from stealing the idea from me. LOL, hopefully he has a sense of humor.
    Well, now you know the answer to that question.

  6. #346  
    Keep in mind that the real issue here is not whether or not Mr. Warman has a patent. It is clear that he does and he is withing his (legal) rights to protect it.

    It has more to do with his (maybe legal, certainly unethical) methods of protecting it and the arrogance he has in doing so. Let's not get bogged down with nit-picking his patent. He has it, and, unless we retain the services of a patent lawyer, there is little we can do to refute that particular detail of the debate.

    He has also shown little interest in debating the facts of the issue, so again, there is little use in asking him directly to explain the many holes in the story.
  7. #347  
    Ha Haaaa!! The discussions over at The Boycott web site are hilarious!! I would encourage everyone to check them out...it's Warman unplugged, unhinged, and uncomprehendible to the MAX.

    ------------------
    KAY
  8. #348  
    I have checked out the links to the patent and would like to make two comments.

    1. On page 4, column 3, section 45 of the actual patent, under the topic "Description of the preferred embodiment" the patent states:
    More specifically, it will be noted that the viewing screen protective shield 10 essentially comprises a polymetric transparent film 11 adherably securable to the viewing screen 13 of an electronic instrument 12, such as a fish finder and the like. Instruments of this class are typically exposed to adverse environmental conditions such as airborne debris, dust, water vapor, and solar exposure.
    Until someone puts out a springboard to locate bass, I would say that a palmOS device is not a "fish finder and the like" or an "instrument of this class" which it is "specifically noted" that the VSPS adheres to. Also, the main purpose of a palmOS screen protector is to protect from fingerprints and scratches caused by styli, not the aforementioned "environmental conditions."

    2. On page 4, column 4, section 35 on, the patent shows that the description of the screen protector as outlined in the abstract and the prior patent of 1988 is in brackets, and thus "appears in the original patent but forms no part of this reissue specification." Therefore, the patent is no longer for a physical screen protector, but is rather now a patent on the entire method of using any flat adhering polymer to protect an electronic device.

    It would seem to me, then, that anyone can manufacture and sell a plastic sheet, with or without adhesive, as long as they do not themselves physically stick it to the screen of a fish finder for the purpose of protecting it from airborne debris, dust, water vapor, and solar exposure.

    I guess, since the patent is actually on the method of sticking plastic to a screen, the only people violating Mr. Warman's patent are the people who are actually using non-VSPS screen protectors. Watch out, next he'll be suing the consumers who cut their own, for violating his method.

    ejkdreamer
  9. #349  
    ***doh, it looks like ejkdreamer had the same thought as me and beat me to the post by seconds. Therefore, much of my post repeats his thoughts. I'm not trying to copy his thoughts. I just don't want to change my post. ***

    Well, I think I'm finally getting somewhere. I did a search on the IBM Intellectual property page and found the original patent Warman applied for. First off, it was applied for on 2-13-89 (not 1988 like Warman keeps trying to convince us of) and was issued 7-21-1992.

    Reading through this patent, both the abstract and the claims, it is clear that the focus of this patent is on use for Fish Finders. The claims DO NOT say the tab is optional. It also refers to nothing but adhesive strips, not a uniform adhesive like Write Rights. If anyone wants to look it over for him/herself, check out http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05132588__ .

    So it seems to me that Mr. Warman had this "fish finder" patent, and in 1994 realized that CK was going to issue a similar product, but it was one not covered under his patent. So he scrambled, in July of 1994, to get his patent re-issued to cover this type of screen protector. That is why CK states they have been around before his patent.

    I'm no lawyer, so this isn't official, but it's certainly where the facts lead me. Anyone agree?

    [This message has been edited by Hawkeye (edited 06-13-2000).]
  10. #350  
    Great job Hawkeye! Yes, I see your point.

    Perhaps Warman's comment about you was right (on THE BOYCOTT discussion board)...

    You ARE like...a "blood hound". Ha ha

    Just kidding, Hawkeye. Again great work!! Warman's full of inconsistancies.

    ------------------
    KAY

    [This message has been edited by KennethAaron425 (edited 06-13-2000).]
  11. #351  
    Again, we are nitpicking over the details of the patent's wording, which is something only a patent attorney can really do with any bit of authority. We are speculating and assuming which isn't going to get us too far.

    As Mr. Warman is a "professional" Bass Fisherman, it is easy to assume (as I do) that he invented this device initially for the use of his fish finder. As his actions and comments have yet to prove otherwise, I would also assume that he simply felt his patent could be used as a weapon towards anyone that happens to think that placing plastic on any screen is a good idea. However, we can not prove noe disprove simply by stating our opinions of the wording of the patent. Since patent law is really a big grey area, a lawer is a necessity (which is a fact that saddens me).

    The issue is not whether is patent is valid, or to what scope the patent is valid, but if the patent should even exist, from an ethical standpoint, and whether Mr. Warman should be allowed to conduct business in the manner he is doing.

    I see two approaches to resolving this issue.

    1) We fight him in the legal sense by filing formal complaints with the appropriate government agencies and retain the services of a patent lawyer.

    or

    2) We simply make people aware of this man's actions, support those companies he has harmed, and basically do everything we can to let others know about it.

    Since option 1 would require some signigicant cooperation and financial contributions, I would lean towards item 2 as the plan of action.

    Thoughts?
  12. #352  
    Hey Folks,

    Patent lawyers do not come cheap. One of the reasons is patent law is boring(unless you have a passion for it). If you want a little taste try this -
    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...al/novelty.htm

    This is of course not proper legal language but the last line is interesting in leiu of the 7Ē fan comment I seem to remembers IV Bob making in comparison to a larger fan. It appears the patent office does not share the same view.

    The Winky Dink product seems most interesting. It may in fact be prior art which could possibly do the most damage in an attempt invalidate the patent. I wonder why IV Bob has an unopened kit.

    Donít Forget, IV Bob must defend his patent or risk losing it. IV Bob must challenge in legal proceedings. It may never get to court(itís way, way expensive and the lawyers get most of it). Sheryl King pointed out that most actions never see court and she is correct!

    I am totally shocked that Mr. Donald Lisa Esq. has not informed IV Bob to shut up. I am making the assumption that Mr. Lisa knows very well what he is doing. He has practiced the profession for many years and has an excellent reputation among his peers. I know, I asked my own patent attorney last night during a social engagement if he had heard of Mr. Lisa and he had. He even knew in what part of the country Mr. Lisa was practicing. No my patent attorney has no interest in PDA protectors.

    Just for kicks and giggles, try taking a look around the U.S. Patent office site. It wonít tell you everything, but it will make you smarter about patents and copyright law. An important thing to know especially if you write software.

    Food for thought

    footski
  13. #353  
    Homer, I agree with your post, I do think that the best way to fight Warman is to discourage people seeking to buy screen protectors to stay away from his products.

    I think, also, that Warman should address some of his claims regarding his patent.

    Warman simply cannot post these outragously false information on the discussion boards without backing them up with evidence. I along with others here are trying to point out the truth about his patent, and that he is a liar. We are supplying proof that Warman is misleading the public with false information. I think that the less credibilty and honor a person has, the less attractive his product will be.


    ------------------
    KAY
  14. #354  
    KAY:

    I understand your line of thinking, but trying to invalidate his patent is impossible without a court of law. Yes, he may be a liar, but that does not invalidate his patent. Furthermore the patent is not why we should boycott his product. The more we can focus on his immoral actions and the less on his personal flaws, the more legitimate the cause will be perceived as.

    The unfortunate truth is that Mr. Warman DOES have a patent and that, according to US law, he HAS to protect it to retain the rights to it. If Warman would simply have done that, I believe few people would even know of him or bother with his product. What has brought this backlash against him was that he insisted on bragging about the entire process and has really overstepped the boundaries of being a decent professional in society.

    Footski makes an excellent point as well in suggesting everyone go to the US Patent and Trademark's site and just read about the laws. At least we can all walk away from this mess with a better understanding of our current (if flawed) legal system.

    [This message has been edited by homer (edited 06-13-2000).]
  15. #355  
    Originally posted by footski:

    I am totally shocked that Mr. Donald Lisa Esq. has not informed IV Bob to shut up.
    I have two hypotheses, but they are not mutually exclusive:

    Hypothesis 1) Mr. Lisa has tried and failed to muzzle IV Bob.

    Hypothesis 2) The time that IV Bob spends communicating with us is Mr. Lisa's only chance to get some rest.

    bandersnatch
  16. #356  
    Originally posted by Hawkeye:
    VoxDei, I didn't really do anything too special, I just followed the research of others and took a screen shot. Now Mr. Warman accused me (on another board) of not being able to read because of the dates. Apparently, he would have us believe this patent was effective in 1988. He said the dates should've been obvious and told me to look at the images. Well, here's the image:



    I reduced it a little to fit better so no one's screen get's distorted. In case anyone wants to read the interesting thread discussing this, go to Ryan's Boycott Page and go to the discussion are and read the post with the subject, "This may be controversial, but...".
    "I reduced it a little to fit better"


    Show the entire page!!!!!

    You are such a con Hawkeye. Show the rest of this page you will see a filing date of
    Feb. 13, 1989. Don't listen to this CON artist (Hawkeye). Here is URL for the compete document. http://www.vsps.com/RE_35,318.htm

    Thank You
    Inventor
  17. #357  
    WOW, that was a great post from InventorBoy!

    Very clear and to the point. Bravo!

    I think he's getting it.
  18. #358  
    Warman,

    Why are you being such a pain about all of this? If you feel you'll win in court, then great, but your "customer service" skills are lacking, and are not convincing ANYONE.

    Don't really understand that very much...
  19. #359  
    Originally posted by BigBenC:
    Warman,

    Why are you being such a pain about all of this? If you feel you'll win in court, then great, but your "customer service" skills are lacking, and are not convincing ANYONE.

    Don't really understand that very much...
    why should he care about customer service. after all, when he's done with all of his lawsuits he can drop his company and he'll be floating in the money from royalties.
  20. #360  
    One thing I've learned from all of this is that it doesn't do any good to go down to warman's level. Therefore I won't respond to Bill's name calling again except to say I find it ironic that he's calling me the con!

    Bill, when I say I reduced it, I meant width wise so that it wouldn't mess up viewers at 800 x 600, or below. I agree with you, and I encourage anyone who wants all the facts to click the URL and read the entire page. However, you can't deny that the reissue patent wasn't applied for until 1994, and not issued until 1996. Those dates are clear as day at the top of the screen. Maybe if you would explain why you had to get a reissue we would understand a little better. Is it because the original one didn't cover PDA screen protectors?

    In addition, how can you call me a con when I posted a link to your '92 patent in a follow up message? Stop hiding behind insults and propaganda. Trying to turn me into the bad guy for bringing out the facts (facts that you have ever so gracefully danced around and avoided) won't make you the hero here, nor will it make you any more reputable.

    For the sake of all those interested in this topic, I'm asking you to please clearly list the facts regarding your patent, why you got it re-issued, and why you feel certain companies are in violation.

    You've stated in the past that you are suing 138 companies. That's amazing since I can count the screen protector manufacturers for PDA's on my fingers (maybe even on one hand). Why not devote at least some of those resources to marketing, web development, etc.? Turn yourself into a respectable company and your sales will go up faster than if you lie, bully and badger.

    Finally, I'm going to ask you one more time to stop personally insulting myself and other visitors to this site, and others. What do you think being a jerk accomplishes? Do you think that's good exposure to your target audience? If so, it only goes to show how little you know about running a business. Why don't you cut your losses and move on?

    [This message has been edited by Hawkeye (edited 06-14-2000).]

Posting Permissions