Intermittent Wiper Inventor Dies

[D from BC]

Robert Kearns... rest in peace.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/050228-9.htm

Tough call...lead a normal life but feel ripped off... or go to war
with the car companies.

"His daughter Maureen Kearns concurred, saying that her father's home
was filled with legal files. "His life was simply this battle," she
said. "


D from BC

 

[John Doe]

Robert Kearns... rest in peace.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/050228-9.htm

Tough call...lead a normal life but feel ripped off... or go to war
with the car companies.

"His daughter Maureen Kearns concurred, saying that her father's home
was filled with legal files. "His life was simply this battle," she
said. "


D from BC

Thanks for the link. That's one famous example of an inventor being
ripped off and getting justice. That's probably the exception to the
rule.

 

[nospam]

Thanks for the link. That's one famous example of an inventor being
ripped off and getting justice. That's probably the exception to the
rule.

A famous example of how ridiculous the patent system is. Like anyone who
has driven in light rain for more than 30 minutes didn't independently
invent an intermittent wiper.

--

 

[James Arthur]

A famous example of how ridiculous the patent system is. Like anyone who
has driven in light rain for more than 30 minutes didn't independently
invent an intermittent wiper.

--

That statement's a famous example of not understanding patents.

Ideas aren't patentable, only the process or machine that implements
them is. Then you have to teach the rest of the world how you did
it. And you have to be the first.

Best,
James Arthur

 

[Leon]

Robert Kearns... rest in peace.http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/050228-9.htm

Tough call...lead a normal life but feel ripped off... or go to war
with the car companies.

"His daughter Maureen Kearns concurred, saying that her father's home
was filled with legal files. "His life was simply this battle," she
said. "

D from BC

I heard about a similar gadget around 1968 (it might have been
inspired by the patent) and built one for my little Fiat 500D, using a
UJT as an oscillator with an SCR driving the motor.

Leon

 

[Barry Lennox]

I heard about a similar gadget around 1968 (it might have been
inspired by the patent) and built one for my little Fiat 500D, using a
UJT as an oscillator with an SCR driving the motor.

Aha, that brings back memories, I recall reading about a similar
device in a short news columm, IIRC, it might have been "Electronics
Australia" in late 67 or 68. I did build one for my VW, using (IIRC)
a pair of OC71s in a flip-flop, an OC74 driver and a relay. It worked
well enough.

 

[nospam]

That statement's a famous example of not understanding patents.

Ideas aren't patentable, only the process or machine that implements
them is. Then you have to teach the rest of the world how you did
it. And you have to be the first.

And this makes the patent system not ridiculous?

--

 

[James Arthur]

And this makes the patent system not ridiculous?

--

Of course. Patents are so *not* ridiculous that the Founders provided
for them in the US constitution. They're so not ridiculous--their
value so widely recognized--that systems exist in Europe, Asia,
Australia, and just about any country one can name.

Patents provide an essential incentive for certain kinds of
innovation. Like drugs. Without patents, we wouldn't have them, not
the new ones, anyway.

Patents stimulate progress and embolden risk-takers, leagues of
inventors each striving to invent something new, and be first. They
benefit everyone. Sure, there are some silly patents, but mostly,
patents work. Try scanning the patent archives sometime--it's a
public domain goldmine.

If you don't see their value, you must not use antibiotics, ICs,
computers, or a bunch of other cool stuff.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Doe]

And this makes the patent system not ridiculous?

Well-designed patent law can drive people to devise useful things.

In my opinion, many inventions are overlooked because they aren't
necessarily profitable. But those holes (I see) might be as much of an
indication of how well our patent system motivates people.

Our patent system might tend to overcomplicate things. An extremely
efficient design is painstaking and totally fascinating IMO, but
some such designs might be more difficult to protect with a patent
because trying to stop individuals from making and using their own
things is impractical.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

Well-designed patent law can drive people to devise useful things.

In my opinion, many inventions are overlooked because they aren't
necessarily profitable. But those holes (I see) might be as much of an
indication of how well our patent system motivates people.

Our patent system might tend to overcomplicate things. An extremely
efficient design is painstaking and totally fascinating IMO, but
some such designs might be more difficult to protect with a patent
because trying to stop individuals from making and using their own
things is impractical.

Right... Sure... A.G. Bell STOLE the telephone from Meucci, and even
manipulated the patent office to do it.

http://www.italianhistorical.org/MeucciStory.htm

 

[Eeyore]

I don't like pots with intermittent wipers thank you.

Graham

 

[nospam]

Of course. Patents are so *not* ridiculous that the Founders provided
for them in the US constitution. They're so not ridiculous--their
value so widely recognized--that systems exist in Europe, Asia,
Australia, and just about any country one can name.

Patents provide an essential incentive for certain kinds of
innovation. Like drugs.

But not like intermittent wipers. The patent system didn't give us
intermittent wipers, it likely delayed the introduction of intermittent
wipers and made them cost more.

--

 

[Nobody]

That statement's a famous example of not understanding patents.

Ideas aren't patentable, only the process or machine that implements
them is. Then you have to teach the rest of the world how you did
it. And you have to be the first.

And, in theory at least, it has to be non-obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art.

Unfortunately, this is one area where there's a big gap between theory and
practice. The USPTO's preferred definition of non-obvious is simply that
there is no pre-existing record, with the result that anything which is so
obvious that no-one would even think of writing it down is considered
patentable.

 

[Rich Grise]

And, in theory at least, it has to be non-obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art.

Unfortunately, this is one area where there's a big gap between theory and
practice. The USPTO's preferred definition of non-obvious is simply that
there is no pre-existing record, with the result that anything which is so
obvious that no-one would even think of writing it down is considered
patentable.

Some years ago, I read an article somewhere that said that somebody
had accidentally patented the wheelbarrow. All he really wanted to patent
was a novel swivel handle arrangement, to make it easy to dump, but in
his illustrations, his artist had drawn an ordinary wheelbarrow with
the new handles; apparently there was no wheelbarrow in the prior art,
because it's been obvious for thousands of years, but they granted
the patent anyway.

I think that in fact, the only ramifications were the newspaper article
about the silly patent. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Doe]

And, in theory at least, it has to be non-obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.

Unfortunately, this is one area where there's a big gap between
theory and practice. The USPTO's preferred definition of non-obvious
is simply that there is no pre-existing record, with the result that
anything which is so obvious that no-one would even think of writing
it down is considered patentable.

Yup. Another feature I find less obscure but amusing is the idea that
a patent is rearward looking. Because you are granted a patent doesn't
give you the right to the device, it just means no one else can have
that right. I suppose that's to make clear that a patent can always be
challenged like if the stuff was hiding in the public domain
somewhere. (I'm not suggesting I understand patents, the one Nobody
listed and the one I just described are IMO two notable issues.)

 

[John Doe]

But not like intermittent wipers. The patent system didn't give us
intermittent wipers, it likely delayed the introduction of
intermittent wipers and made them cost more.

Having to pay for copying the design of intermittent wipers was
because the car makers didn't come up with their own design. Again, to
reiterate the same idea you continue denying, having to pay the
originator is what motivates much invention in the first place. Your
persistence sounds sound like Third World politics.

 

[James Arthur]

Having to pay for copying the design of intermittent wipers was
because the car makers didn't come up with their own design. Again, to
reiterate the same idea you continue denying, having to pay the
originator is what motivates much invention in the first place. Your
persistence sounds sound like Third World politics.

It's true that an inventor can ask too much for his invention, and
if he's got a patent he can hold up the use of that invention.

That's his choice, his reward for having invented and disclosed the
thing, but it's obviously not in his best financial interest. The
inventor profits only if the thing is made and sold, so that's what
usually happens.

Maybe this gent's mistake was trying to pitch his idea to Detroit, a
recalcitrant dinosaur that even today resists innovation.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Having to pay for copying the design of intermittent wipers was
because the car makers didn't come up with their own design. Again, to
reiterate the same idea you continue denying, having to pay the
originator is what motivates much invention in the first place. Your
persistence sounds sound like Third World politics.

It's true that an inventor can ask too much for his invention, and
if he's got a patent he can hold up the use of that invention.

That's his choice, his reward for having invented and disclosed the
thing, but it's obviously not in his best interest financially. The
inventor profits only if the thing is made and sold. That's the
incentive, and that's what usually happens.

Maybe this gent's mistake was trying to pitch his idea to Detroit, a
recalcitrant dinosaur that even today resists innovation.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

And, in theory at least, it has to be non-obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art.

Unfortunately, this is one area where there's a big gap between theory and
practice. The USPTO's preferred definition of non-obvious is simply that
there is no pre-existing record,

No, that's 'novelty,' another requirement.

with the result that anything which is so obvious that no-one
would even think of writing it down is considered patentable.

'Obvious' is subjective, obviously, but there are a few guiding
principles. One is that if an idea is so obvious and has commercial
value, surely someone would be exploiting it.

Obviousness is, though, not as clear-cut as novelty (being the first
to describe something new).

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Some years ago, I read an article somewhere that said that somebody
had accidentally patented the wheelbarrow. All he really wanted to patent
was a novel swivel handle arrangement, to make it easy to dump, but in
his illustrations, his artist had drawn an ordinary wheelbarrow with
the new handles; apparently there was no wheelbarrow in the prior art,
because it's been obvious for thousands of years, but they granted
the patent anyway.

I think that in fact, the only ramifications were the newspaper article
about the silly patent. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Very unlikely, IMO, but possible that a clerical error could cause
this.

What most people don't understand is that the description of the
invention (the Specification section) is NOT what is patented. Just
because the thing starts off with an essay about wheelbarrows doesn't
mean he's patented a wheelbarrow.

What's patented is limited to the Claims, which would usually describe
a very particular, specific type of or improvement to a wheelbarrow.
That--and only that--is what's patented.

As far as prior art, any patent instantly self-destructs if prior art
can be proven--you can't patent anything pre-existing.

Cheers,
James Arthur