Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 20252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 645
  1. #581  
    Maybe we should contact CK's attorney... They might be interested in filing a Request for Reexamination of WORMan's patent...

    I've been following this thread for quite a while, and am finally moved to post. The contrast of informed, intelligent, and meaningful posts with that of Worman's drivel has been intriguing. ( that too many big words?)I have particularly enjoyed the posts from Hawkeye, rclayton, VoxDei (especially), and numerous others.

    The worst of it is, there is no way to "win". (VisorDx, take a deep breath. You're okay, really...It's frustrating but, we're all with ya.) We need to "balance" the effect of Worman's negativity...

    So every time he posts, "balance" the scales. Stay intelligent, informed, and above all else don't lose your cool. He thrives on the attention, and the anger he creates. It makes him feel big and powerful, when in reality he's petty and insecure. So don't give him anything to feed off of...

    Just because it is the law, does not mean it is just.

    You guys rock...

    Queen of Parts

    [This message has been edited by fixitgal (edited 07-27-2000).]
  2. #582  
    Waddaheckiswrongwiththeformattingofthispage? The long unbroken sentences and left/right scrolling is making me wooosy!!!
  3. #583  
    Originally posted by Inventorb:

    The next time you QUOTE me it better be exact.

    What you just quoted is your conclusion.

    So quit lying to all these readers again, and again and again....

    The truth hurts doesn't it.

    Excuse me, Mr. Warman, but... are you trying to tell us that you never used that phrase in reference to Hawkeye? I read it with my own eyes as I'm sure several others did. The only liar in this bunch is you. Please, for once, stop distorting the facts to suit your needs.

    MarkEagle - Ice is nice!
  4. #584  

    it's sort of ironic you call me the liar. You are the one who lied about, or at least greatly misrepresented, your relationship with Concept Kitchen. You repeatedly made public statements thanking them for royalties, or at least "the money the made you". We know that's not true. You are a liar

    And regarding your accusation of me being the liar, I suggest you look at the following image, liar:

    You just keep chiseling away at your own credibility.

    [This message has been edited by Hawkeye (edited 07-26-2000).]
  5. #585  
    I just figured it out! 'InventorF' is
    Andy Kaufman! Now it all makes sense. He speaks in non sequitors for 90% of his posts but when someone really nails him he writes coherently.

    Alas, Andy was a genius.

    InventorF merely a moron.

  6. #586  
    The high-IQ Inventor says:

    They have complied with
    the cease and desist letter and stopped the sales of Concept Kitchens screen protector.
    What they did is found someone to buy their product use the new name Fellows and are
    now distributing the product under the Fellows name.
    Concept Kitchen says:

    ( from: )

    Concept announced it has signed a definitive agreement for acquisition of it's entire line of award-winning handheld accessories with Fellowes Manufacturing...

    "As we pass the baton to Fellowes Manufacturing, we do so to ensure the best possible retail access to our entire line of handheld accessories for years to come."
    So, Inventor says they sold the product because of his patent. They say they sold their entire line to broaden world-wide retail access.

    Just trying to balance the 'facts' here!

  7. #587  
    Originally posted by Hawkeye:

    it's sort of ironic you call me the liar. You are the one who lied about, or at least greatly misrepresented, your relationship with Concept Kitchen. You repeatedly made public statements thanking them for royalties, or at least "the money the made you". We know that's not true. You are a liar

    And regarding your accusation of me being the liar, I suggest you look at the following image, liar: [removed image]

    You just keep chiseling away at your own credibility.B]

    Nice try but I did not say
    "ignorant dog *****".

    Do not add your own theories to the facts.
    You have no clue what is occurring. This is way over your head.

    Next time please QUOTE the facts not your conclusions or B.S.

    The truth hurts doesn't it.

    [This message has been edited by JHromadka (edited 07-28-2000).]
  8. #588  
    Originally posted by homer:
    The high-IQ Inventor says:

    So, Inventor says they sold the product because of his patent. They say they sold their entire line to broaden world-wide retail access.

    Just trying to balance the 'facts' here!

    Try to get a response from CK regarding my postings this week. Ask the if they received
    a letter.

    Everything I have said is fact not fiction. I can prove my case, although I might add this is
    not the type of forum I am waiting for. Can you or CK prove me wrong (on the facts)?
    In my opinion you cannot.
  9. #589  

    Just as you stated that "inducement of infringement is the same as infringement",
    then implication of an untruth is the same as a lie! (pause while you get out the Websters...)
    For you to say that "Concept Kitchen is making me lots of money" - implying that you
    recieve royalties from them - is a flat-out lie then, especially in light of your own assertion that CK has complied with a cease and desist order. If this were true and you were getting royalties from them, then you would be making less money, not more.

    Also, your childish retort to having insulted Hawkeye: "What you just quoted is your conclusion. So quit lying to all these readers" is just spineless. At least have the b_lls to admit what you meant. (bells? bills? bulls?)

    PS You Have been Warmaned

    **** "At this time the boorishness of Warman is costing him consumers. This is regrettable" **** (oh, wait... no it isn't! )

    I doubt, therefore I might be

    [This message has been edited by linguas (edited 07-27-2000).]
  10. #590  
    Originally posted by Inventorb:
    Nice try but I did not say "ignorant dog *****".
    I am totally amazed. I expect your normal BS answers and cryptic responses....but you are staring right at the truth, and you continue to deny it. You are like a 4 year old that stands on front of his mother with chocolate all over his face, and swears he didn't eat any chocolate. LOL

    Warman, you are a little man. You act like the victim, but you are the bully. When you wake up every morning take a moment to think about your life, and after you stop crying, do something to change it. Once again I pity you. If you would just be honest, friendly and helpful regarding questions about your patent and product, you would probably have made a killing from your little pieces of plastic. Unfortunatly, you will continue to see you sales drop because of your words and actions.


  11. #591  
    Originally posted by rclayton:
    but you are staring right at the truth, and you continue to deny it.[/URL]


    This is the truth. Wake up and smell the coffee. Do not stretch your B.S.

    Can you comprehend these words?

    "The '318 patent contains both apparatus and method claims. The patented method
    covers the step of releaseably adhering a thin flexible transparent film to the outermost major surface portion of the face plate of the electronic instrument to protect the face plate from being damaged during use. Mr. Warman is only charging a royalty on a per use basis for the practice of the method claims, and each licensee gets a free license under the apparatus claims."

    Thank You

    [This message has been edited by Inventorb (edited 07-27-2000).]
  12. #592  
    Originally posted by rclayton:
    I am totally amazed...but you are staring right at the truth, and you continue to deny it. Ryan
    Now Ryan (my all powerful and great leader), let's "parse" his statement...

    "I didn't say" - well, true enough. He typed, he didn't actually speak the words, so far, so good..."ignorant dog *****" - again, true enough. What he typed was "ignorant dog bit*h" Now, perhaps he had another word in mind, though I'm not sure what it would be. To help Bill out, I've provided a list of the one-letter possibilties so that all he has to do is choose one:


    Perhaps by indicating which "word" he intended to use, we can better understand his intention.

    So, what do we have when we look closely as his denial...he didn't actually say the words, he typed them and he didn't actually type "*****," he left out the "c" and inserted a space giving the impression that there was a letter missing that would complete the word. Now, I will have to admit that if I ever wrote to someone that they were an "ignorant dog bit*h" I would intend for the "c" to fill-in the gap, as I suspect that most people would. Remember, though, that Bill has admitted that he's dealing with a diagnosable mental "deficiency" in the form of a lower-than-average IQ score. Perhaps one of the words on the list has "meaning" to him that it doesn't have for the rest of us. If he would just pick it out and explain the meaning, this nasty little diversion from the discussion about his legal bullying could be resolved.
  13. #593  
    Originally posted by Inventorb:

    Can you comprehend these words?
    Can you comprehend these?


    This is the question. Read the question. Understand the question. Answer the question!

    [This message has been edited by linguas (edited 07-27-2000).]
  14. #594  
    Warman, you are incredible.

    As usual, you have completely missed the point, and you have hung your hat on an obscure and nearly irrelevant point.

    By quoting you as calling someone a "dog *****", I would be incorrect.

    By quoting you as calling someone a "dog bit_h", I would be correct.

    THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN MEANING!!!! Can you give us a letter other than "C" that would fit that word? NO. We all know what you meant, we all know what you said, and we all know who is telling the truth and who is the liar (the liar would be you).

    Just as with your irrelevant patent, you try to discredit someone with a very small piece of irrelevant information, and you completely ignore the mountain that is the intent of what we are trying to say to you.

    p.s. - I won't even go into the redundancy of "dog" and "*****"
  15. jb2
    jb2 is offline
    jb2's Avatar
    3 Posts
    Oh boy.. Will someone call one of the networks: ABC, CBS or NBC. This thread is way better than "Who Wants to be a Millionaire", 10 times better than "Survivor" and 100 times better than "BigBrother".

  16. #596  
    Before I start off here I in no way mean to come off as being an IQ snob. I really do not care much about these things. I am though, a member of Mensa, and my IQ is in the high 130’s, so inventorb's post really got be going!
    I do NOT mean to offend anyone here by implying that any particular person is AVERAGE. Please take this as I mean it, inventorb threw out a HUGE bone that I had to pick up.

    I have conferred with fellow Mensans (, an organization restricts membership to those with high intellects); about the legibility of this topic. Take into account that the cutoff for being in MENSA is aprox 130 in many tests (it depends on WHICH IQ test you take what the exact cutoff is) and that IQ scores are weighed so that the average person has an IQ of 100, thus Mensans are all on average, at LEAST 30 higher on the IQ scale than the average poster here, thus fitting inventorb's criteria.

    A couple of us (Mensans) have read this topic (I have read it with great interest since I have used all kinds of screen protectors) and we all coincide in the opinion that the only posts that are genuinely incoherent are inventorb's. So, yes, practical evidence would prove that inventorb is 'on average' approximately at a 70 on the IQ scale, which is 68 points under me, no wonder I am unable to understand him. Maybe we can up convert his drivel into something resembling the speech of a regular 100 IQ Joe.

    Oh, by the way inventorb, if in fact you did not mean to use the 'c' permutation of bit_h what language where you using? Tell us so we know what exactly you meant. I did a search for languages other than English that also use the words "dog", "ignorant" and "you" and have so far found none. I do assume that the whole sentence was in one language correct? I found that Yiddish has bituh or biteh which is “Thank You” but unfortunately the phrase “you ignorant dog bit_h” is NOT in Yiddish. Any hints? We have looked at most western languages, plus most modern middle eastern ones, and Esperanto. Is it some seldom used dialect? I have a friend who is a linguist who is really interested in the etymology of the phrase considering the non use of the obvious “c” permutation of bit_h, as it would be in english.

    Best regards to all on this board!


    [This message has been edited by lcohen (edited 07-27-2000).]
  17. #597  
    Score a point for Mr. Warman, semantically he's right, doqbit*h is not dogbitch. Neither is dogbit_h, dogbit-h, or doqbit@h. The problem is that (it's a proven fact!) the human brain doesn't read words it 'knows' letter-by-letter, it reads the entire word. Any human being (here using English as their 'first' language) will replace a blank space or a 'nonsense' symbol with the appropriate letter, in this case '*' becomes 'c'. No other letter fits.
    This entire dialogue reminds me of being back in school and listening to someone trying to 'win' an argument by twisting around words, using implication, and ignoring direct questions. Kinda like the one kid in the Debate Club who loved to take indefensible positions and use verbal wordplay to squirm around the matter.
    Mr. Warman, you do have a patent. That is a known fact. Whether it is a defensible patent is not proven. The Patent Office itself (as an agency, not an entity) admits that the chief problem they have is that it is they (the Patent Office) leave it up to the patent seeker to look for prior patents, or usage of an idea (or process) before they are granted a patent. The Patent Office doesn't have the manpower to do this.
    Your case is a great example. You claim of 'inventing' the screen protect in the late '80s-early 90's seems to be pretty stronq- the one flaw I can personally detect comes from my own experience. In 1978 I bought my first watch, a Seiko Sports 100. Being choleric, I didn't immediatly read the manual. After about a week, I noticed that the crystal was looking strange. It seemed to be really dirty- I looked for the manual (I was looking for a phone # to call so I could yell at someone). On the first page was a notice that the watch came with a 'scratch protector' that covered the crystal. If you (the watch owner) didn't like it, you could remove it simply by picking the edge with your fingernail and peeling it off, and that was it! Since it was adhered on with static, and not adhesive, I didn't have to clean anything off my watch crystal after taking it off. I remember that pretty clearly because soon after that, BMXers (motocross bicyclers/ motorcyclers) started to use static film on their helmet visors during races as a way to keep them mud-free. We (my family) also sponsored a Japanese exchange student that summer (1978) who brought gifts from her home for us. My gift was a small Casio calculator (about the size of two matchboxes) that I still have. It too had a static cling screen protector. (FYI, both the watch and the calculator were 'electronic devices'.)
    Using your own 'fan' analogy, that's like someone seeing a fan used to cool a room, designing a small fan to cool a car engine and trying to claim that they invented something and demanding that someone else who designed a fan to cool a desktop computer had to pay them royalties. You did not invent static film, you came up with a use for it.
    This country was not formed around the letter of the law. It was formed around principles. The laws were written to uphold those principles. Often people, and organizations, use the letter of the law to trash the principles. You (Mr. William Warman, Bill Warman, Inventorb, or whatever you prefer) are trashing those principles. You, intentionally or not, 'mislead' the Patent Office by not using true due dilligence in your search for prior use. Now you are using that ill-gotten patent to whack other Americans with. It's a known fact that it's very expensive and time consuming to resolve patent issue suits, which is why you have been successful with the 'small fry' (EasyPeel) and impotent against large companies (Concept Kitchen). The threat of court time can cow (or bankrupt them) a small company, but a large company that has legal consul on retainer can ignore threats and just wait for you to initiate legal action.
    I feel sorry for you. You have chosen to live in a devisive manner, striking out in anger and refusing to be a part of a civil society. The mark of a civil person is the ability of that person to be nice to those that inevitably disagree with them.
    I'm a Christian so I choose to love you because my Saviour says that I should. Luckily for me, Jesus doesn't say I have to LIKE you.
    (I like the rest of you.)
    Michael Walters

    [This message has been edited by BobbyMike (edited 07-27-2000).]

    [This message has been edited by BobbyMike (edited 07-27-2000).]

    [This message has been edited by BobbyMike (edited 07-27-2000).]

    [This message has been edited by BobbyMike (edited 07-27-2000).]
  18. #598  
    Warman- You tell us that we have been unprofessional even though we are potential customers. Technically we don't have to be professional. Also, you say that you've stated what your product does ect.., although I may disagree with you, but if you did you should tell us again. We should not have to search through 15 pages to find what you said. That is a frustration to the potential customer and if I can't easily find out what your product does I will not buy it. Sorry for my incorrect spellings if any, but I am only a child of 15 and may not have the IQ of you. But wait, I forgot you had the IQ of a 5 year old. Wonderful, I really am more intellegent than you after all.

    [This message has been edited by skaman35 (edited 07-27-2000).]
  19. #599  
    Warman, youve driven off your potential customers here. Cut your losses, go away. Im sick of having to look at this thread, entertaining as it might be. And though once your stupidity was funny as hell, its just getting old.

  20. #600  
    BTW, 600th post baby!!!

Posting Permissions