Subject:
|
dimensions in patents (was Re: 8 millimeters or 5/16 inches?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 17:31:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1809 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Brok writes:
> [...] Did you realize, the famousTLG brick patent concerned only *the tube
> connectors* under the brick as an *improvement* to the existing brick, not
> changing the brick idea, the studs or the dimensions.
Although this is primarily only of interest in the United States, I want to
point out that the United States patents held by TLG do not seem to include any
dimensions. In fact, I believe this is common for all mechanical patents in the
United States. The idea being, that the size is irrelevant. If an object is
built by your design, it's still your patent regardless of how big the object
is (more or less).
For some examples, see:
2 x 8 Duplo brick with holes
http://www.patents.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/USD0378838__
Ldraw part 30036, 8x6x2/3 wing
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=USD0380020__
Ldraw part 32034, Technic #2 angle brick:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=USD0387399__
2 x 6 conducting plate
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn10=US04552541
I don't know what in the world this one is:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/USD0394473__
Related to the "original basic brick", I think the relevant US patents are
3005282 (Christiansen, October 1961) and 3638352 (Christiansen, February 1972)
both of which are often referenced in the other patents' text, usually in the
general description establishing precedent. They are not available on the web
site because they're too old.
- Robert Munafo
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|