Well, if you like to build things and are thinking about something
along the lines of a J-Pole, I have something that I have made about
50 of for my friends who just love having them.

It's a self-standing full sized J-Pole that fits into your pocket or
backpack and does NOT need to be hung from something like the wire
ribbon version.

Construction is simple, but does require welding as the unit is made
from arced spring steel and 1/2 of an 8 ounce paint can.

The antenna and coax fit inside the can, which doubled as the
Horizontal member of a J-Pole.

I purposely used a specially manufactured 4 ounce can suited for this
purpose, with an opening tab (like on the old tobacco cans), that the
lid itself became the horizontal member and would fit snugly to the
bottom of the can for extra weight and support.

But the elements themselves are simple to come by. On 440 antenna's I
used 3/4 inch tape measure spring steel and on 2-meter antenna's I
used 1 inch tape measure spring steel.
You can buy tape measures or order the painted or unpainted steel in
rolls from a supplier.

These are welded to the removable lid so that they roll inward and fit
into the can when not in use.

To use the antenna, you affix the lid to the base and unroll the
vertical and stub completely. They will stay open by themselves.

I also added 4 little arms about 2 inches long each on later antennas,
that could be opened from the lid to give a larger 6 inch wide
footprint to keep it from toppling over on the picnic table if it was
a little windy to stay upright by itself.

It was a fun project, and everyone that got one put them to good use,
especially on Field Day and Fox Hunts.

TTUL
Gary

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
. . .
Antenna designs can be protected by patent, design patent. But that does not
prevent individual from building one. You just can't market stolen design.
. . .

The law does *forbid* you from making a patented item even for your own
use. (From
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...x.html#patent: "The
right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute
and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States
or “importing” the invention into the United States." Notice the word
"making".)

But the law doesn't *prevent* anyone from doing anything they like, as
long as they're not caught. This general attitude is also common among
people who pirate software, music, and other copyrighted items, as well.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:42:41 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

The law does *forbid* you from making a patented item even for your own
use. (From
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...x.html#patent: "The
right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute
and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States
or “importing” the invention into the United States." Notice the word
"making".)

Hi Roy,

Administrative offices are frequently the poorest source of legal
information - especially when worded as vaguely as above.

Instead, Court records show a vastly different interpretation:
"Even though infringement is found, one factor that may negate
willfulness is a bona fide attempt by the alleged infringer to
design around the patent. ... The Federal Circuit reversed,
stating:
This court has indicated that the incentive to "design around"
patents is a positive result of the patent system.... One of
the benefits of a patent system is its so called
"negative incentive" to "design around" a competitor's
products, even when they are patented, thus bringing a steady
flow of innovations to the marketplace. It should not be
discouraged by punitive damage awards except in cases where
conduct is so obnoxious as clearly to call for them."

The obnoxious conduct, in this case, was the licensing of a technology
to then develop patents that would then render the original useless as
a commodity (the only value of a patent). In other words "bad faith"
agreements.

The ruling is from one of many (883) articles on the web specifically
directed toward the State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc. case

More on willful infringement:

"Patent law encourages competitors to design or invent around
existing patents." See, WMS Gaming, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q2d at 1396
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, a good faith attempt to design around the
patent will generally negate a charge of willful infringement,
particularly if advice of counsel is sought during the design
process. See, Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815,
823 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Indeed, even in the absence of advice of counsel, a sincere
attempt to design around the patent may negate willfulness. See,
Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109-1110
(Fed. Cir. 1986).

By-and-large, it is overwhelmingly clear that all such cases brought
and LOST were against commercial interests and not lone individuals.

It seems to me that the raison d'ètre of this body of amateur radio
activity is to improve designs - at least Rhetorically.

I suppose suit for slander or defamation stands a better chance. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Roy,

Administrative offices are frequently the poorest source of legal
information - especially when worded as vaguely as above.

I submit that there's a poorer source of legal information than
administrative offices -- interpretations of the law by people who
aren't lawyers.


Instead, Court records show a vastly different interpretation:
"Even though infringement is found, one factor that may negate
willfulness is a bona fide attempt by the alleged infringer to
design around the patent. ... The Federal Circuit reversed,
stating:
This court has indicated that the incentive to "design around"
patents is a positive result of the patent system.... One of
the benefits of a patent system is its so called
"negative incentive" to "design around" a competitor's
products, even when they are patented, thus bringing a steady
flow of innovations to the marketplace. It should not be
discouraged by punitive damage awards except in cases where
conduct is so obnoxious as clearly to call for them."

The obnoxious conduct, in this case, was the licensing of a technology
to then develop patents that would then render the original useless as
a commodity (the only value of a patent). In other words "bad faith"
agreements.

The ruling is from one of many (883) articles on the web specifically
directed toward the State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc. case

More on willful infringement:

"Patent law encourages competitors to design or invent around
existing patents." See, WMS Gaming, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q2d at 1396
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, a good faith attempt to design around the
patent will generally negate a charge of willful infringement,
particularly if advice of counsel is sought during the design
process. See, Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815,
823 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Indeed, even in the absence of advice of counsel, a sincere
attempt to design around the patent may negate willfulness. See,
Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109-1110
(Fed. Cir. 1986).

By-and-large, it is overwhelmingly clear that all such cases brought
and LOST were against commercial interests and not lone individuals.
. . .

So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of
a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)?
That's not obvious to me from the short quotes you gave, and I'm
surprised in any case that you can draw such a sweeping conclusion from
a couple of paragraphs. But then, I'm not a lawyer. Are you?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:44:25 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:
I submit that there's a poorer source of legal information than
administrative offices -- interpretations of the law by people who
aren't lawyers.
....
So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of
a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)?

Whose making interpretations now? :-)
The findings already answered the matter with sufficient emphasis as
to intent. If you cannot distinguish intent, you should seek legal
counsel.

Your response reminds me of the satire in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy" where the planet Galafria suffered from serious continental
erosion from too many tourists. They were warned that visitors had to
weigh as much when they left as when they arrived, and were thus
warned under penalty of surgical balance to take care to obtain a
receipt each time they visited the 'loo.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,

You have significantly misinterpreted the concept incorporated in "State
Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc".

The issue in this case, and the others that reference it, is the
question of "willful" infringement. The infringement by itself is not
the issue.

Willful infringement allows for punitive damages and other monetary
claims. Non-willful infringement would generally carry only "cease and
desist" type of remedies.

"Willful" means that one knows about the existing patent, or should have
known about it.

The whole issue of "design-around" relates to the case where the
infringer knew about the patent, attempted to design around it, and
failed to sufficiently differentiate the new item, thereby infringing on
the patent. The infringement stands, but since an effort was made to
design around the original patent the infringement is deemed to be not
"willful". The second party is not granted permission by the courts to
continue to infringe on a valid patent.


I believe Roy is completely correct in his statement of the wording of
the patent law, and court interpretations to do not appear to change the
basic concept.

In a practical sense it is unlikely that anyone would want to sue an
individual one-time infringer making an item for his own use. It is
still a violation of the patent law to infringe, however.

73,
Gene
W4SZ



Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:44:25 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I submit that there's a poorer source of legal information than
administrative offices -- interpretations of the law by people who
aren't lawyers.

...

So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of
a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)?


Whose making interpretations now? :-)
The findings already answered the matter with sufficient emphasis as
to intent. If you cannot distinguish intent, you should seek legal
counsel.

Your response reminds me of the satire in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy" where the planet Galafria suffered from serious continental
erosion from too many tourists. They were warned that visitors had to
weigh as much when they left as when they arrived, and were thus
warned under penalty of surgical balance to take care to obtain a
receipt each time they visited the 'loo.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:48:41 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Richard,

You have significantly misinterpreted the concept incorporated in "State
Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc".

The issue in this case, and the others that reference it, is the
question of "willful" infringement. The infringement by itself is not
the issue.

Hi Gene,

As I pointed out that very term, and it is included in every quote, it
hardly constitutes my having missed the issue. I even commented on
the distinction as it applies to the pursuit of Amateur Radio, in that
our service is in improving design. These Cassandra appeals to the
contrary rather misses the mandate of our privilege.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article ,
Richard Clark wrote:

So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of
a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)?

Whose making interpretations now? :-)
The findings already answered the matter with sufficient emphasis as
to intent. If you cannot distinguish intent, you should seek legal
counsel.

As I read the findings, they seem to state that one cannot be held
culpable of "willful infringement" of a patent if one builds a version
of the patented invention *and* makes a good-faith effort to modify it
so that it does not actually infringe on the patent claims. If the
changes aren't actually sufficient to avoid infringement, the fact
that you *tried* to avoid this is enough to keep your infringment from
being "willful".

I didn't see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from
infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented
invention for personal use and does *not* make a good-faith effort to
change it to avoid patent infringement.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave,

With reference to your last sentence:

Did you see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from
infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented
invention for personal use and *does* make a good-faith effort to
change it to avoid patent infringement?

I found nothing that says infringement itself is somehow canceled. Only
"willful" infringement is negated. Otherwise virtually all patents would
be useless. One could always claim some good-faith attempt to change the
patented item.

Again, in practical terms for an individual radio amateur it is unlikely
that there will be any *legal* consequence from making a single copy of
a patented item for personal use. However, it is still an infringement.
The morality is up to the individual.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Dave Platt wrote:

As I read the findings, they seem to state that one cannot be held
culpable of "willful infringement" of a patent if one builds a version
of the patented invention *and* makes a good-faith effort to modify it
so that it does not actually infringe on the patent claims. If the
changes aren't actually sufficient to avoid infringement, the fact
that you *tried* to avoid this is enough to keep your infringment from
being "willful".

I didn't see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from
infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented
invention for personal use and does *not* make a good-faith effort to
change it to avoid patent infringement.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:17 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Did you see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from
infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented
invention for personal use and *does* make a good-faith effort to
change it to avoid patent infringement?

Hi Gene,

"Patent law encourages competitors to design or invent around
existing patents." See, WMS Gaming, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q2d at 1396
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, a good faith attempt to design around the
patent will generally negate a charge of willful infringement,
particularly if advice of counsel is sought during the design
process. See, Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815,
823 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Indeed, even in the absence of advice of counsel, a sincere
attempt to design around the patent may negate willfulness. See,
Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109-1110
(Fed. Cir. 1986).

I found nothing that says infringement itself is somehow canceled. Only
"willful" infringement is negated.

Common infringement cases, as they occur, are ruled upon their merits.

Otherwise virtually all patents would
be useless. One could always claim some good-faith attempt to change the
patented item.

This marks the issue of protection offered, but NOT GUARANTEED. And
again, if it goes to court, it will invariably be between
manufacturers (or the patent holder and a manufacturer). The courts
are quite competent to smoke out the rats.

There is a special case whereby a manufacturer (or anyone for that
matter) CAN build and SELL a patented item irrespective of the patent
holder's wish IFF such a product was available before the issuance of
the patent, and the manufacturer does not diverge from that prior
issue design. This, in itself, proves the poor quality of
bureaucratic interpretations of the law that tar the subject with a
large brush.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC