The "Rolo" Patent - Did Dingley trade it for business opportunities? - Classic Reels - Welcome to the Classic Fly Rod Forum! - The Classic Fly Rod Forum - Message Board

0 Kudo

The "Rolo" Patent - Did Dingley trade it for business opportunities?

Author	Comment
MFRS	The "Rolo" Patent - Did Dingley trade it for business opportunities?		Lead	[-]
Posts: 337 04/02/2009 11:07	Tags : None The Dingley Rolo Patent is in this link: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?adjacent=true&KC=A&date=19120516&NR=191120133A&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_V3&CC=GB&FT=D The Westley Richards patent is in this link: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?adjacent=true&KC=A&date=19310108&NR=340839A&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_V3&CC=GB&FT=D The question is did Westley Richards let the "Rolo" patent expire (very close to 20 years) and submit their patent. Dingley would have been making reel for them at that time, I wonder if Dingley allowed his patent to expire [or he agreed with Westley Richards to not contest the patent breach if there was overlap (ie. less 20 years)]. Theis would have been a symbiotic relationship between Westley Richards and Dingley, a win,win for both. Your thoughts, Pat this is right down your alley? PS. I see there is slight changes when comparing each but the roller design is the same.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
stefanduma		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 90 04/02/2009 11:36	Are we certain that the patent was 20 years in 1912, I know it is now but what was it then? The Antique Tackle Observer
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
pcg		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2505 04/02/2009 11:55 Admin	My memory is that 20 years is not correct for that period. I have the answer, but no time to pull the research this morning...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
cwfly		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 877 04/02/2009 12:06	A New York Times article of 1920 discussing the new British Patent Act amending the 1907 Act, speaks of increasing the patent from 14 to 16 years with provisions for extensions of 5 and possibly 10 years. The brook runs over the bones of the planet and carries the sky on its back…. Odell Shepard
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
stefanduma		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 91 04/02/2009 12:54	cwfly wrote: A New York Times article of 1920 discussing the new British Patent Act amending the 1907 Act, speaks of increasing the patent from 14 to 16 years with provisions for extensions of 5 and possibly 10 years. I have always thought that it was 16 years but John Drewett quotes the 1898 patent office fees and its 14 years. When someone said it was 20 years it did put doubt in my mind. The Antique Tackle Observer
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
MFRS		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 338 04/02/2009 15:23	cwfly wrote: A New York Times article of 1920 discussing the new British Patent Act amending the 1907 Act, speaks of increasing the patent from 14 to 16 years with provisions for extensions of 5 and possibly 10 years. I posed the question in a previous thread, what is the shelf life of a UK patent here: http://clarksclassicflyrodforum.yuku.com/topic/23048?page=2 It seems the shelf life was not 20 years; the topic at hand then was on early 1900 reels so I was hoping to get this info for the period in question, I thought this was understood as I am not interested in recent patents. So it seems the "Rolo" patent would have expired 14 years later with provisions etc. This rules out my theory, thanks all for your comments/help.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Akroyd		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 55 04/02/2009 16:06	Sorry, I posted 20 years, and a link to a modern webpage. I assumed that you folks would understand that's the current limitations. One thing to keep in mind as well, it's very likely that all of the UK patents had 0 bearing outside the UK and it's commonwealth at that time. I don't believe countries starting acknowledging each other's patents until a later date, but a legal historian would have to dig that up. Thus a US maker could probably have made and sold perfects without infringing. I realize there were not a dearth of US companies producing reels compared to the UK, but still something to think about. Also, no country that I know of has shortened their patents lifetimes, you can imagine the kind of uproar that would produce.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
pcg		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2506 04/02/2009 16:24 Admin	Something somewhat interesting that we're finding also is that there appears to have been some bluffing going on, i.e., a claim is made to a patent that cannot later be found. Also, the extensions were costly, and it appears to have easier to have continued claiming the patent, even when it wasn't rolled. Another thing that appears to have occurred: perhaps the reel maker intended to file that patent, stamped "Patented" on their reel but never quite got around to it. You get the idea.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
cwfly		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 880 04/02/2009 16:39	Don't misunderstand; I know diddleysquat about patent laws. Nonetheless, as far as I do know, there was no prohibition against a foreign citizen applying for a U.S. patent. For example, in 1919 Forster Hardy, "a subject of the King of Great Britain residing at 14 Hereford Road, South Ealing, Middlesex, England" applied for and received a U.S. patent for a fishing rod. In 1922 Laurence Robert Hardy, "a subject of the King of Great Britain and Ireland, residing at London and North British Works, Alnwick…" applied for and received a U. S. patent for a folding stool. Furthermore, I do not believe there were any prohibitions against foreign citizens applying for a patent in the U.K. The brook runs over the bones of the planet and carries the sky on its back…. Odell Shepard
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Akroyd		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 56 04/02/2009 16:52	cwfly- You are correct, there are no prohibitions against foreign citizens applying for patents. However, in the modern age, if I patent something in the US, and someone in the UK manufactures it and imports it into the US, I can sue under my patent. If they sell it in the UK, where I have not patented it, they are free and clear. I don't know if the import export laws applied to patents in the 1900s. Also, Pat's comments about expiration, patent pending, and angry letters still apply today. Currently I have 9 patents with the company I work for, and all 9 of them we have never litigated on, but often an angry letter get's the problem stopped immediately. Marking something patented today requires by law that the patent is granted, patent pending only requires you to have filed. If you do either of these marks without the proper filings, it's a federal crime, and can carry a heavy fine with federal prison time up to 10 years per offence (at least last time I checked). I don't know what the rules were like in the 1900s, but patent law is pretty old, so I would not be surprised if it was similar. You can however send angry letters, without holding a patent, provided you do not stamp your items with 'patented' or 'patent pending'.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
enigma309		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 564 04/02/2009 17:18 Reclusive! Like J D Salinger	In 1882 you were liable for a £50 fine for falsely stamping an item as "Patent" From "The Handbook of Patent Law" 1882 - interesting and educational reading (Patents lasted 14 years in 1882 . . )
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
pcg		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2509 04/02/2009 17:18 Admin	I assure you that in Alnwick, reelmakers did not send each other angry letters. If they did, their respective wives, who were likely to be another reelmaker's sister, would take away their pub quid & there'd be hell to pay. Or they'd be given dirty looks when they attended church on Sunday. There's still much we don't know about contracts, handshakes and agreements struck over a frothy beer, but we do know Alnwick was a very close knit community. Very close. Bluffing about patents? Probable. But these craftsman were not sending each other off to prison over reel designs. Or at least I don't think they were!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
stefanduma		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 92 04/02/2009 19:19	pcg wrote: I assure you that in Alnwick, reelmakers did not send each other angry letters. If they did, their respective wives, who were likely to be another reelmaker's sister, would take away their pub quid & there'd be hell to pay. Or they'd be given dirty looks when they attended church on Sunday. There's still much we don't know about contracts, handshakes and agreements struck over a frothy beer, but we do know Alnwick was a very close knit community. Very close. Bluffing about patents? Probable. But these craftsman were not sending each other off to prison over reel designs. Or at least I don't think they were! The Antique Tackle Observer
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

The "Rolo" Patent - Did Dingley trade it for business opportunities?

The "Rolo" Patent - Did Dingley trade it for business opportunities?

Quick Reply