That's ridiculous. That patent was filed in 2002 and double clicking was available in Windows 95. I think they kind of missed their 1 year window of opportunity there.... It's like that moron that tried to patent the peanut butter sandwich.

_________________
Jeep Liberty Wikibook
# cd /home/fuzzymuzzle.com

I seem to remember double clicking being on Windows 3.11, and whatever my dad had on his 486 (before he had windows 3.1), too.

It doesn't matter how long people have been doing something. And it matters even less how ridiculous you or anyone else thinks something is. I think the Braidini is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen but hey....I wish I'd thought of it and got the patent.

All that matters is that the patent holder show that they have formalized and documented a workflow. I worked for quite a while for a PEO that was sitting on a patent for automatic reminders for recurring paperwork. They had a system that sent out reminders for when, say, a W-4 needed to be re-filed or a state workman's comp package needed to be re-filed. I couldn't believe it when I heard about it either but it's true. If you formalize and document a workflow, regardless of how common it is, you are given a five year waiting period for someone else to either file for a similar patent or file a challenge to your application. If your application is still standing after that period the patent is awarded to you and you own the legal right to control who can utilize that workflow. Which is why I and at least one other poster has been saying over and over again: TALK TO A PATENT ATTORNEY!

Geeze guys I'm very disappointed this has become such an issue. I really like Al's products and would always recommend a tried and true product over a new untested one. If he wishes to seek a patent he can, that’s his right. I'm just really disappointed that some of you would want to discourage new product development by accusing someone of stealing an idea. That product development is something we have fought for.

Guys we all express our ideas on here, I didn't mean to offend anyone by expressing my opinion.

Wes

_________________
2006 Jeep Liberty Sport (KJ4DIW) Ham / Warn 9500ti

http://www.cardomain.com/id/wesbronco

X2, we need all of the development we can get for the KJ, discouraging companies that come out with new products is not something we need to be doing or for that matter can really afford to do.

_________________
Jeep Liberty Wikibook
# cd /home/fuzzymuzzle.com

X3

I think I have said enough on this already

_________________
LIBERTY or DEATH

2005 Sport with "STUFF"

I think it is time to put an end to this, I thank everyone for their opinions and thoughts and most of all your support. I will not go into the details and bore everyone to death, but it is my own fault that I didn't finish the patent process, and I feel something like Jeep did when the Hummer 2 came out with our grill design.

Thank you guys again, for both sides!

On the bright side, someone from the group contacted me that works for a machine shop, a large one, so they maybe able to make my arms faster, I also have a guy in Pa. that will make them at 10 sets a clip, but they will cost me more.

Enough said!

Al

_________________
One Ruby, One Grand Cherokee, One YJ, One disassembled CJ, one Chevy Mason dump, one hotrod IH Pick-up, couple of antique tractors.
Former owner of a 5.5 inch lifted KJ

Patents don't discourage companies from coming out with new products; the encourage companies. Did Coke's patent on their recipe discourage Coke or RC? Extrapolate that out to all the innumerable companies that make products that are similar to other companies' products. Patents are an incentive.


[edit]: doh...didn't read Al's "last word" post.....nuff said for me too