undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbryans11y ago0 comments

You need to view the actual application to see the provisional filing date.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140117575.pdf

As for my tone, it may sound aggressive, but I also feel that the aggressiveness is justified. This person is (successfully) attempting to leverage an already patent-weary community to force Stratasys into unnecessary legal drama based on nothing. It doesn't really matter if it's misinformation or intentional disinformation, because it is completely inexcusable to make such claims as absolute truth without doing any reasonable amount of research.

Witch-hunt (noun): An intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.

This situation is the definition of a witch-hunt. A mistake would be to just raise the question of patent illegitimacy based on misinformation. It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money.

0 comments

lotsofmangos11y ago

"It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money."

If there is prior art that invalidates the patent (and on a cursory examination taking a few minutes, I have found prior art dating back to 2008 that covers the main claim), then it should be submitted and the patent invalidated.

That isn't a witch-hunt, that is the system working, albeit belatedly.

thedufer11y ago

By giving the wrong date, the author has all but ensured that the patent office is going to drown in completely irrelevant prior art claims.

lotsofmangos11y ago

Not so sure, when you do a search the good ones are generally long enough ago.

Here's yet another project that covers the same ground from September 2010, for instance - http://pleasantsoftware.com/developer/3d/2010/09/26/keep-it-...

edit - another video of that one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEkukmnmK8 and there is also this other thing from 2011, http://hydraraptor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/auto-bed-leveling....

bryansOP11y ago

As I stated in another comment, there may be legitimate prior art, but the author did not claim that. He based his claim on art that existed after the filing, and was wrong to do so.

pyre11y ago

> It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent

It's curious that you did not justify this statement. The author did not (to my reading) encourage people to spam the USPTO with the same prior art submission that he/she did. I might agree with you that such a move would be counter-productive. The reality, though is that submitting prior art to a patent application is how the system works, so how can encouraging people to work with the system be considered a witch-hunt?

Sure, the author is encouraging people to do so as a way to 'spite' Makerbot, but the end result is that the USPTO has crowd-sourced prior art with which to make an informed decision (and this is not a bad thing).

rhizome11y ago

Submitting valid prior art is "a witch hunt?"

bryansOP11y ago

Neither of the pieces of prior art claimed by the author are valid, which is the entire point of my comment.

pyre11y ago

The author states:

- Here are a couple of examples of prior art that I submitted.

- Grrr. Markerbot.

- Please submit prior art to invalidate these patents.

You're stating:

- The author's examples of prior art are false because of a misunderstanding that the author has about the dates with respect to the patent application.

- By encouraging people to submit prior art to the USPTO, the author is creating a 'witch hunt.'

A few things to consider:

1. The author is not encouraging people to submit false prior art.

2. The author is not maliciously submitting prior art that isn't. He/she really believed that the prior art was valid.

3. The USPTO is the entity ultimately making the decision here, not the tech community that you fear is swayed by this blog post, nor the author of the post itself.

4. The author is not encouraging the reader to spam the USPTO.

5. The author may be smearing Makerbot's reputation here, but encouraging people to submit prior art to the USPTO really is a side-issue to this, that should end up with zero negative effect on the situation (with respect to the patent application).

lotsofmangos11y ago

He was perfectly right that there is prior art though, even if his example was flawed.

Reprap huxley video of dynamic bed levelling with z-probe, Apr 20, 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1ZpHlM6UI

I'm gonna go and start building the giant wicker man now.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbryans11y ago0 comments

You need to view the actual application to see the provisional filing date.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140117575.pdf

Witch-hunt (noun): An intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.

0 comments

lotsofmangos11y ago

"It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent, thereby wasting everyone's time and money."

That isn't a witch-hunt, that is the system working, albeit belatedly.

thedufer11y ago

By giving the wrong date, the author has all but ensured that the patent office is going to drown in completely irrelevant prior art claims.

lotsofmangos11y ago

Not so sure, when you do a search the good ones are generally long enough ago.

Here's yet another project that covers the same ground from September 2010, for instance - http://pleasantsoftware.com/developer/3d/2010/09/26/keep-it-...

edit - another video of that one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEkukmnmK8 and there is also this other thing from 2011, http://hydraraptor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/auto-bed-leveling....

bryansOP11y ago

As I stated in another comment, there may be legitimate prior art, but the author did not claim that. He based his claim on art that existed after the filing, and was wrong to do so.

pyre11y ago

> It becomes a witch-hunt when he encourages people to submit prior art to invalidate the patent

rhizome11y ago

Submitting valid prior art is "a witch hunt?"

bryansOP11y ago

Neither of the pieces of prior art claimed by the author are valid, which is the entire point of my comment.

pyre11y ago

The author states:

- Here are a couple of examples of prior art that I submitted.

- Grrr. Markerbot.

- Please submit prior art to invalidate these patents.

You're stating:

- The author's examples of prior art are false because of a misunderstanding that the author has about the dates with respect to the patent application.

- By encouraging people to submit prior art to the USPTO, the author is creating a 'witch hunt.'

A few things to consider:

1. The author is not encouraging people to submit false prior art.

2. The author is not maliciously submitting prior art that isn't. He/she really believed that the prior art was valid.

3. The USPTO is the entity ultimately making the decision here, not the tech community that you fear is swayed by this blog post, nor the author of the post itself.

4. The author is not encouraging the reader to spam the USPTO.

lotsofmangos11y ago

He was perfectly right that there is prior art though, even if his example was flawed.

Reprap huxley video of dynamic bed levelling with z-probe, Apr 20, 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1ZpHlM6UI

I'm gonna go and start building the giant wicker man now.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse