Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Ideale)

From: "Joe Bender-Zanoni" <joebz@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes
To: henox <henox@icycle.net>, Jerry & Liz Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>, Root@student.uchc.edu, NortonMarg@aol.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org, "H.M. & S.S. Sachs" <sachs@erols.com>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021231195909.00af8c90@pop.erols.com> <04ed01c2b13f$38c16690$efddfea9@mooshome> <00bb01c2b1b2$5e393e20$a00356d1@pavilion>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 00:56:10 -0500

There was a challenge to Klein's patent, I believe by Cannondale. I'm away on the remainder of a patent trial for most of Jan. and then I'll research this issue if someone else does not know the facts.

Joe Bender-Zanoni
Great Notch NJ


----- Original Message -----
From: henox
To: Jerry & Liz Moos


<NortonMarg@aol.com>; <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>; "H.M. & S.S. Sachs" <sachs@erols.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes


>
> Subject: Re: [CR]Gary Klein anecdotes
>
> Jerry wrote:
>
>
> "Many people much more
> > familiar with the topic than I claim that Klein "stole" the ideas of a
> > number of students and faculty members at MIT and patented them, and was
> not
> > himself the primary originator of the design. While this may well be
> true,
> > that is neither illegal nor unusual. If other parties at MIT neither
> > applied for patents earlier nor challenged Klein's patent applications,
> then
> > they should not complain after the fact about the outcome."
>
> A requirement of a patent is novelty and applying for a patent based on
> other's work IS both illegal and unethical. It is fraud.
>
> Since I've never seen the patent application "wrap" for Klein's patent, I
> don't know whether or not Klein mentioned all the large tube frames that
> proceeded his patent application and constituted prior art.. It is possible
> that the patent was awarded simply because the examiner did not do a
> competent job (this happens more often than you might think).
>
> Anyway, why should anyone spend the time and money to challenge the patent
> when the prior art was so well known. It was in Cannondales' best interest
> to arrive at some sort of settlement with Klein as soon as possible so that
> there was no legal
> issue (however spurious) hanging over Cannondales' product development and
> manufacturing.

>

> Hugh Enox