http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/ Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:54:35 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/comment-page-1/#comment-66544 Buscando Host Gratis » Blog Archive » Flash of Genius Review Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:05:10 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/#comment-66544 [...] Review links a patent attorney’s preview of Flash of Genius, a movie about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield-wiper. Stephen [...] [...] Review links a patent attorney’s preview of Flash of Genius, a movie about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield-wiper. Stephen [...]

]]> http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/comment-page-1/#comment-65902 Flash of Genius Review « Servicios de hosting Sat, 07 Mar 2009 07:12:24 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/#comment-65902 [...] Review links a patent attorney’s preview of Flash of Genius, a movie about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield-wiper. Stephen [...] [...] Review links a patent attorney’s preview of Flash of Genius, a movie about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield-wiper. Stephen [...]

]]> http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/comment-page-1/#comment-65119 Flash of Genius Review | hosting de calidad Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:52:29 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/#comment-65119 [...] Review links a patent attorney’s preview of Flash of Genius, a movie about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield-wiper. Stephen [...] [...] Review links a patent attorney’s preview of Flash of Genius, a movie about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield-wiper. Stephen [...]

]]> http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/comment-page-1/#comment-64745 Bob Leavenworth Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:51:41 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/#comment-64745 It is my understanding that Ford argued that Kearns’ patents were overly broad and therefore invalid. It is also my understanding that Ford had developed a testing model for the intermittent wiper using the sum total of 29 parts whereas Bob Kearns came up with 4 parts all of which had only one part which moved. The fact that he combined just 4 parts, common and available to everyone; did this in his basement as opposed to Ford Engineers slaving in their fancy labs; and actually solved this complicated problem is a patent in and of itself. Aren't all inventions the sum of parts or the invention of the part itself regardless of the combination? Isn't an invention the marriage of multiple parts or chemicals or whatever to construct something new and useful? To those unfamiliar with Patents and the laws associated with them, this simply seems common sense which is most likely why a jury sided the way they did.......The common people simply "get it". It is my understanding that Ford argued that Kearns’ patents were overly broad and therefore invalid. It is also my understanding that Ford had developed a testing model for the intermittent wiper using the sum total of 29 parts whereas Bob Kearns came up with 4 parts all of which had only one part which moved. The fact that he combined just 4 parts, common and available to everyone; did this in his basement as opposed to Ford Engineers slaving in their fancy labs; and actually solved this complicated problem is a patent in and of itself. Aren’t all inventions the sum of parts or the invention of the part itself regardless of the combination? Isn’t an invention the marriage of multiple parts or chemicals or whatever to construct something new and useful? To those unfamiliar with Patents and the laws associated with them, this simply seems common sense which is most likely why a jury sided the way they did…….The common people simply “get it”.

]]> http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/comment-page-1/#comment-64744 Bob Leavenworth Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:49:57 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/09/25/flash-of-genius-in-theatres/#comment-64744 It is my understanding that Ford argued that Kearns’ patents were overly broad and therefore invalid. It is also my understanding that Ford had developed a testing model for the intermittent wiper using the sum total of 29 parts whereas Bob Kearns came up with 4 all of which had only one part which moved. The fact that he combined just 4 parts, common and available to everyone; did this in his basement as opposed to Ford Engineers slaving in their fancy labs; and actually solved this complicated problem is a patent in and of itself. Aren't all inventions the sum of parts or the invention of the part itself regardless of the combination? Isn't an invention the marriage of multiple parts or chemicals or whatever to construct something new and useful? To those unfamiliar with Patents and the laws associated with them, this simply seems common sense which is most likely why a jury sided the way they did.......The common people simply "get it". It is my understanding that Ford argued that Kearns’ patents were overly broad and therefore invalid. It is also my understanding that Ford had developed a testing model for the intermittent wiper using the sum total of 29 parts whereas Bob Kearns came up with 4 all of which had only one part which moved. The fact that he combined just 4 parts, common and available to everyone; did this in his basement as opposed to Ford Engineers slaving in their fancy labs; and actually solved this complicated problem is a patent in and of itself. Aren’t all inventions the sum of parts or the invention of the part itself regardless of the combination? Isn’t an invention the marriage of multiple parts or chemicals or whatever to construct something new and useful? To those unfamiliar with Patents and the laws associated with them, this simply seems common sense which is most likely why a jury sided the way they did…….The common people simply “get it”.

]]>