Wile EIf Ultra wins this, why not just move the modular interface outside of the housing? Have the modular plug on say, a 1" lead. Sure, it won't be as neat, but it would still serve it's purpose.

not a bad idea but i agree it wouldn't look all that pretty

Hey can I be there lawyer?:laugh:

erockerThis is a joke! The guy who invented electical wall outlets should sue Ultra for infringing on his design!

:roll:

Good point.

;)

erockerThis is a joke! The guy who invented electical wall outlets should sue Ultra for infringing on his design!

Lol thats what I was thinking.

thebeephahaUltra is lame. This just makes me think they are even lamer.

Why thank you for such a substantiated and scientific analysis. You obviously have superior insight on this matter.

I can run along now and purchase a power supply knowing that I have been enlightened by brilliant research.

:rolleyes:

Just a minute All, Do we understand design patents here?

I see lots of comments here, that would indicate perhaps some clarification is in order on what exactly a design patent embodies.

At USPTO, the layman definition of a design patent specifies a unique characteristic, or feature, that has yet to be documented in the history of patents.

The USPTO is rather strange (as compared to other countries), in that it seeks to identify the first instance of an invention, rather than the first recorded patent of said invention.

Carl's patent in this case seeks to patent the concept of a detachable power distribution system existing internally to a PC chassis.

After almost 3 years of review (since the application was filed in early 2005), the USPTO could not find any "first instances" prior to early 2005, of such a detachable power distribution system in prior art. As a result, the USPTO granted Carl a patent - as it should.

Kudos to Carl for having the foresight/patience to seek a patent. Note that a US patent protects Carl against US sales of his idea by foreign manufacturers, regardless of other country patents that may exist (even at an earlier date). This remains to be one of the HUGE challenges of a World marketplace. The World does not have a World Patent Office that can govern the global marketplace.

Regards,
jtleon

jtleonI see lots of comments here, that would indicate perhaps some clarification is in order on what exactly a design patent embodies.

At USPTO, the layman definition of a design patent specifies a unique characteristic, or feature, that has yet to be documented in the history of patents.

The USPTO is rather strange (as compared to other countries), in that it seeks to identify the first instance of an invention, rather than the first recorded patent of said invention.

Carl's patent in this case seeks to patent the concept of a detachable power distribution system existing internally to a PC chassis.

After almost 3 years of review (since the application was filed in early 2005), the USPTO could not find any "first instances" prior to early 2005, of such a detachable power distribution system in prior art. As a result, the USPTO granted Carl a patent - as it should.

Kudos to Carl for having the foresight/patience to seek a patent. Note that a US patent protects Carl against US sales of his idea by foreign manufacturers, regardless of other country patents that may exist (even at an earlier date). This remains to be one of the HUGE challenges of a World marketplace. The World does not have a World Patent Office that can govern the global marketplace.

Regards,
jtleon

Thanks for the info. But by this you are saying even if it did exist in Australia for example it could still be patented in the US? Or does their research for an earlier instance search world wide?

jonnyGURUThey didn't patent the plugs themselves. Again, they patented the modular interface attached to the housing of a PSU with plugs (non-specific) for the DC output cables to interface with.

But I do agree that sales might be down or something. I mean, I have no factual data on that or anything, but I was reading the ITC complaint and they're actually suing one of their own OEM's. :eek: That's no way to maintain good business relations. Andyson is listed as a defendant because they made modular PSU's for Aerocool, Hiper and Sunbeam (none of the companies are in the market anymore either... are they???) that infringed on the Ultra patent... yet Andyson is also the company that makes the X3 series of power supplies.

WTF?!? :wtf:

I think what Ultra is trying to do is get their OEM for supplying other companies with their idea.
Its like you making the SPORK and having an OEM build it for you because of their production capability. You give them the right to build it for you, but you find out they built it for Dixie as well. Because Dixie has been around forever and already has global connections they are able to sell your SPORK everywhere.

Patent Protection Only follows the Money Trail

DarkrealmsThanks for the info. But by this you are saying even if it did exist in Australia for example it could still be patented in the US? Or does their research for an earlier instance search world wide?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. No worldwide search is performed.

Patents protect the inventor in the country in which the invention is sold. For example:

Sell in US : Need US Patent
Sell in AUS : Need AUS Patent
Sell in Japan : Need Japan Patent
etc.

On the other hand, if you give away the invention, you cannot be sued.

Regards,
jtleon

jonnyGURUAnd that's a PERFECT example of how these patents work. You HAVE TO narrow your claim. If others infinge, fine. You sue. If someone wants to use your idea and copy it exactly, they should have to pay. Otherwise, come up with a new idea. Change it enough to where it no longer infringes.

So its not a Hemispherical Head Design, just a slant?

DarkrealmsI think what Ultra is trying to do is get their OEM for supplying other companies with their idea.
Its like you making the SPORK and having an OEM build it for you because of their production capability. You give them the right to build it for you, but you find out they built it for Dixie as well. Because Dixie has been around forever and already has global connections they are able to sell your SPORK everywhere.

Right... but to my knowledge, Andyson only made modular product prior to becoming the OEM for Ultra and the companies that Andyson did make those products for prior no longer make modular products (example: Hiper's Mark II are not modular. The original Type R is EOL. And Aerocool... when's the last time you saw those guys???)

Never mind all that even, it's just the notion of suing your OEM. I mean, are these going to want to work with you moving forward? I would think not. A company has THE RIGHT to choose who to do business with. If someone I'm doing business with tells me that they're going to sue me for something I did for someone else, I'm going to tell them to piss off when it comes to doing any future business.

jtleonYes that is exactly what I am saying. No worldwide search is performed.

Patents protect the inventor in the country in which the invention is sold. For example:

Sell in US : Need US Patent
Sell in AUS : Need AUS Patent
Sell in Japan : Need Japan Patent
etc.

On the other hand, if you give away the invention, you cannot be sued.

Regards,
jtleon

True, prior art patents are limited to the countries of the patent, but you still have to prove that what's being designed isn't "obvious" in order for it to hold up in court. So if some company called Artlu made modular power supplies in Australia 10 years ago, isn't it in Ultra's best interest to find information on that product, patented or not, if they expect to collect any kind of licensing fees from others making the products in the U.S.? At least in the eyes of the jury that will be deciding the outcome of this case?

What Jury...of U.S. Citizens or AUS Citizens or both?

jonnyGURUTrue, prior art patents are limited to the countries of the patent, but you still have to prove that what's being designed isn't "obvious" in order for it to hold up in court. So if some company called Artlu made modular power supplies in Australia 10 years ago, isn't it in Ultra's best interest to find information on that product, patented or not, if they expect to collect any kind of licensing fees from others making the products in the U.S.? At least in the eyes of the jury that will be deciding the outcome of this case?

In this Florida court, if this case goes to a jury trial, the jury will consist of U.S. Citizens. It is immaterial that an Australian (or other) manufacturer has been building a modular PSU for 100 years, if that PSU was never sold in the U.S.

Of course, a U.S. Court has no jurisdiction over another Country, rather over U.S. based commerce. If the AUS mfctr is importing their modular PSU to sell in the U.S., they must conduct such business in accordance with U.S. laws, including patent laws. Regardless if an AUS patent exists, that is immaterial to sales in the U.S. (a U.S. patent is needed). This unfortunately illustrates the need for a World Patent Office.

Regards,
jtleon

jtleonIn this Florida court, if this case goes to a jury trial, the jury will consist of U.S. Citizens. It is immaterial that an Australian (or other) manufacturer has been building a modular PSU for 100 years, if that PSU was never sold in the U.S.

Really? I was thinking that a defendant could bring forward prior art from another country and say "this was done years ago therefore the design is obvious and Ultra shouldn't have been granted in the first place" but the sounds of it, you're thinking that this would get dismissed because the case is not the validity of the patent in the U.S. but the infringement of the patent in the U.S. Right?

Man... I almost want to see this televised on CourtTV. :cool:

JonnyGURU You Are Correct!

jonnyGURUReally? I was thinking that a defendant could bring forward prior art from another country and say "this was done years ago therefore the design is obvious and Ultra shouldn't have been granted in the first place" but the sounds of it, you're thinking that this would get dismissed because the case is not the validity of the patent in the U.S. but the infringement of the patent in the U.S. Right?

Yes indeed, the Patent Office is not on trial here.

Regards,
jtleon