or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Woo Hoo....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Woo Hoo.... - Page 2

post #21 of 32
Tereson is coming back from vacation today. I'd love to hear her side as well.
I saw her post to the BTL list last night.. so maybe she will post over here soon with her own thoughts and stuff
post #22 of 32
actually I take that paragraph to mean Tereson can make whatever changes she needs to make to her product and her patent is still protected. ie going from round tabs to pointy or going from 12 snaps to 16 snaps. (the drawing shows round tabs and the patent mentions "a dozen snaps")
post #23 of 32
Oh I am going to go and check the BTL list thanks for letting us know. I do want to hear her side as I believe every story has 2 sides and it isn't fair to not want to know the other side.
post #24 of 32
Just curious what the BTL list is?

post #25 of 32
Thread Starter 
It has been gone over by an attorney.

What has to be violated is the claims. The descriptions merely more detailed info on the claims.
To prove a violation you must do so by using the claims 1-13.

But is it just a matter of snaps. It is not. There are several other statements which make enough of a difference that we (my attorney and I) are very confident about.

If in fact it does go to court then there will be a lot of issues that will be brought up which can in fact have portions of the patent proved to be false. It is not unusual for portions of a patent to be dis-qualified after it has been approved. It is also not unusual for a patent to be pulled.

Furthermore, the talk about the prior art not mattering if it was made out of the US is baloney. Prior art can come from your trashcan as long as you can PROVE it was made first. It does not matter if it was made here or some other country. Prior art is just that, Prior art.
I'm sure that this will be one of those cases for the books. A case over diapers... Something that our babies poop in... I know my attorney laughed when we first talked about it, I'm sure any judge would do the same at first glance.
post #26 of 32

So did your attorney go over it this morning?

Because it was just published.

I really want to hear from MOE. Maybe I will email her. I really would not be too excited as I do not read it that way and I have been around the patent block before.
post #27 of 32
Ohhhh I'm so confused.....
post #28 of 32
Thread Starter 
My attorney does have a copy of the published patent and has gone over it. There are still a few more issues that we will be discussing but the main issue we a very confident about.

The patent block is not a good one at all and I know this.

Most people do not even realize that if in fact I am violating anything I have no problem making a change, already have one designed and tested just in case that we are toying with actually starting to produce now.

Everyone can read and come to their own conclusion to the actual patent. I have come to my conclusion with the help of an attorney. If my attorney says to me tomorrow that after further inspection he feels a change should be made then I will do so if he says continue on with what you are doing this is what I will do.

But the bottom line is if the claims are read then it is very easy to see that the claims are not being violated, not only with the snap member issue but with several other statements and claims.

All this being said, I can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that if in fact we make the change that has been worked on it will not because someone has "made us" but in fact because we want to.
post #29 of 32
I think you have exactly the right attitude, Linda. You aren't scared off simply because someone has waved a patent in your face and claimed that you are violating it. Let MOE go to the costly expense of trying to prove that you have infringed upon their patent -- this is a pretty difficult legal standard to prove and the burden is on MOE to do so. Even if MOE wins, they can only get an injunction (that you are ordered to stop making the infringing product) and damages (which are difficult to prove, and include things like lost profits, which only accrue once the patent is public, i.e. from today on).

People who own patents sometimes use them to force others into buying licenses from them, by threatening them with legal action if you don't. I hope none of the pocket making WAHM's give into these threats (unless they are truly coping FB).

post #30 of 32
hmmm. If Linda (or her lawyer) is right, then Tereson has been sorely misled to believe that the claims are not limiting. It sounds as if there is a disclaimer there that says the claims are NOT limiting. You would think the patent would not be approved if it contradicted legal rules. You'd also think that one could not patent something they have not actually created (a diaper that can be changed withought taking it off the baby).
At least her product as decribed by the claims will be protected and the money spent won't be a total loss to her.
post #31 of 32
I agree, Kermit. I don't understand how a patent would be approved if it violated legal rules, and I would have a hard time believing both the patent office and Tereson's attorney would be in the wrong on this...
post #32 of 32

More on the patent issue

Tereson responded and posted her patent as well as the correspondence between she and Linda.

The thread is still up while it's considered, so read it while you can, if you are interested.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Woo Hoo....