US Patents for "The Zipper"

I've always been curious about who holds a patent for "the zipper" so I decided to do some research about it. My thought was that the zipper is in or on so many things that somebody HAS to be loaded from everybody having to pay to use it.

Wikipedia gave me these patents. But I couldn't view them.

[edit] Patents
25 November 1851 U.S. Patent 8,540 : "Fastening for Garments & c."
29 August 1893 U.S. Patent 504,037 : "Shoe fastening"
29 August 1893 U.S. Patent 504,038 : "Clasp Locker or Unlocker for Shoes"
31 March 1896 U.S. Patent 557,207 : "Fastening for Shoes"
31 March 1896 U.S. Patent 557,208 : "Clasp-Locker for Shoes"
19 April 1913 U.S. Patent 1,060,378 : "Separable fastener"
20 March 1917 U.S. Patent 1,219,881 : "Separable fastener"
22 December 1936 U.S. Patent 2,065,250 : "Slider"

But the story behind "the zipper" is just as fascinating.
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa082497.htm

But I guess my point in posting this is that the "zipper" as we know it began as something else and evolved through the series of patents into what we now know today basically because of how an inventor chooses to describe their invention through the claims of its usefulness, drawings and specifications.

For example, I would've never thought of a sewing machine as a zipper. But when I think about it, the use of the sewing machine and the zipper as it is known in the present day actually perform the same function - bringing two pieces of fabric together.

Interesting.

So I just finished reading the Patent Section. This was really interesting to me. I thought I had heard that you could patent an idea for something, but I guess I was wrong. From what I read you had to make the invention and show it worked. What i found hard to understand was the nonobviousness clause. Oh nevermind I just read it again and it makes sense. I read it as I couldn't sue someone for copying my invention if it was an obvious change, but I think it really means I can't get a patent for my invention if it is obvious. My mistake. But on this subject, it seems like the author doesn't really get this concept as he seems to quote or cite the article number way more in this section than any other part I have read yet - e.g., "but to qualify as prior art for Article 103, the reference must not fall only within the article 102 catergories...Thus the scope of prior art for obviousmess under Article 103 is restricted in a way that Article 102 prior art...." I don't know just found that section difficult to follow. Another point I found very intersting was the improvements section. The fact that if I use Inventor's product as my base but improve it I can't sell my product without his permission so that we both get royalties. It makes sense, just never thought about that. Inventor should be very happy with me as he is now getting money off of two products - his then my improved one. It seems like Patent law would be a very hard practice. There are many caveats to every clause and it just seems really hard to get a patent or to invent something and not infringe on a patent. The categories explained are just very subjective - like Immoral Inventions - or Obviousness - Subjective? I think so. And one main thing that I saw missing in this chapter - and Spencer maybe you can explain this to me. At work when we have IP information in our notebooks - we have to have these notebook pages witnessed. And from what we are told at work is that since the Patent is based on the first inventor - it is actually based on the date of the witnessing. But I didn't see any reference to witnessing in the book. Can you tell me why? Thanks - Happy Learning

How a Few Popular Tech Products Were Named

Have you ever wondered how popular tech gadgets get their names? These are the products that we are all familiar with, such as Apple’s ipod or the BlackBerry. Creators of these products have the difficult task of deciding on a name that will make the product stand out, but not too much. They also must take precautions to not violate existing trademarks or copyrights. It can be a tricky process, and it is the final important phase of the product development. See the article by Tom Wailgum as he uncovers how several of most popular products of our generation were named. http://www.cio.com/special/slideshows/famous_tech_names/index

Is It Copyright Infringement On Fashion Design To Post Photos From A Fashion Show Online?

This one caught my eye. Designers are suing an online website for infringing on their clothing designs. Hmmm, advertisement or encroachment? I would think the former, but I guess I'm not frenchie in this case. How are these designers losing value or money here on their designs? Is the act of unveiling them at the show considered the "recording" step?

Basic story, website sends photogs to fashion show, where they take pics and later post on website of the fashionable clothes. The french government sided with the designers, the case coming soon to america for real litigation- money. I guess I don't see how the designers can be right in this case. The photographers are clearly capturing an expressive and original record of the clothes that is very different from that of the designer's clothes themselves. Perhaps if the photographers were employed by the designers themselves, then went out and sold the photos on their own I could see infringement of some type.

Dave

Free Software Foundation Files Suit Against Cisco For GPL Violations

This lawsuit was filed in December 2008. As it was stated in PATA 5900 on January 7, 2009 by Spencer, this is a case where the first course of action by the Free Software Foundation was to first bring the copyright violation to the offender's attention (in this case, the offender is Cisco) and request that they stop violating their copyright. This request was originally documented in May 2006.

A brief summary of the story is that the Free Software Foundation came up with some programs that can be distributed and modified by whoever chooses to use it. They are a non-profit organization who's license states specifically that the software that they provide. For-profit organizations can also use and distribute the software, but they must provide the "source code" to enable the users to modify it as is their right through the Free Software Foundation. Discussions were had as early as 2003 to assist Cisco with compliance.

Why would such a large company knowingly continue to infringe on the rights of a non-profit organization?



http://www.fsf.org/news/2008-12-cisco-suit

Kick off !!!!

Just dropping in to say hi and start things off!!
Dave

Welcome

Welcome to the new class blog for PATA 5900 taught by Spencer McIlvaine at Webster University. Only students in this class may post blog entries or leave comments. Everyone else is welcome to read along and hopefully learn something.