Message From Michael Stram

[Mike Everman]

I'll attempt to lean on Kenneth again.

[Mark]

Hey Michael. Welcome to our fine community. Maybe you could come to an agreement with these fine folks, and benefit from their ability to manufacture.
More power to you, if you can look beyond the waste that a fight would be!
Again, welcome and kick off your shoes, man.

I read this cartoon in the New Yorker Magazine at work today and it somehow reminded me of the topic at hand.
Mark
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content ... lineonly01

[tufty]

I've always been interested in evolution and gradations, how one thing evolves into another. If it's not too late, I would like to patent a 45 degree intake, safely inbetween Mr. Gluhareff and Mr. Stram. Then I would have a gimbaled intake that would rotate 360 degrees and of course my design would be modifiable into a gas grill for pulsejet cookery.

Damn. You beat me to it. However, I'm staking my claim for the multi-intake pressure bong. Remember, you heard it here first.

Simon

[Viv]

Well the original email notice sent to us for Michael A Stram seems to have come from some one who does not exist! I have posted the results of our search for Jeremy Brown of Brown and associates in the Brown and associates troll warning thread.

Viv

[Anthony]

Wow. That's such a ******* shame to the pulsejet community. So, what now, we can't develop pulsejets based on a certain design? Wow, the patent is so vast it's like patenting a car as a whole... Better shut down the site now if such things keep popping up like this.

Oh, and yeah, as for the Troll Warning thread, good job for asking them to correspond in French. That's gonna be one heck of a problem for them! Hehehe.

[Viv]

Wow. That's such a ******* shame to the pulsejet community. So, what now, we can't develop pulsejets based on a certain design? Wow, the patent is so vast it's like patenting a car as a whole... Better shut down the site now if such things keep popping up like this.

Oh, and yeah, as for the Troll Warning thread, good job for asking them to correspond in French. That's gonna be one heck of a problem for them! Hehehe.

Well French is our language and if you want to deal with its in french as the official and legal language for all things to do with business and legal matters.

And also our notary does not speak english:-)

Viv

[Anthony]

Wow. That's such a ******* shame to the pulsejet community. So, what now, we can't develop pulsejets based on a certain design? Wow, the patent is so vast it's like patenting a car as a whole... Better shut down the site now if such things keep popping up like this.

Oh, and yeah, as for the Troll Warning thread, good job for asking them to correspond in French. That's gonna be one heck of a problem for them! Hehehe.

Well French is our language and if you want to deal with its in french as the official and legal language for all things to do with business and legal matters.

And also our notary does not speak english:-)

Viv

Yeah, but that's cool for you cause it's one heck of a problem for them (but, I think they'll drop it...)!

[Hank]

Hello- This thread gives me a giggle. As if there were something worth fighting over here.
The usefullness of pulsed combustion as a prime mover was given the heave-ho by the engineering community in the late 40's. Various projects popped up in the late 60's and early 70's under the aegis of the likes of MBB and some of the French aviation organizations. The current wave of major pulsed combustion research under the heading of Pulsed Detonation Engines has crested. The money is disappearing due to the pressures of reality.
If you wish to expend time and effort towards making something worthwhile that would have the common usage worthy of patent, then try this.
Pulsed combustion cycles are subject to ambient pressure. At altitude, with reduced atmospheric pressure, they cease to function. Solve that one without undue complexity.
Side loading pulls the wave form against the direction of motion causing a disruption of function, more vibration that the usual excess and , again , the engine ceases to function. Another world beater, if you solve it.
Prime mover? Never, I think, for anything larger than the scale model.
Your better off having applied some of the principles to heating units and vacuum cleaners.
Later, Hank

[Viv]

Hello- This thread gives me a giggle. As if there were something worth fighting over here.
The usefullness of pulsed combustion as a prime mover was given the heave-ho by the engineering community in the late 40's. Various projects popped up in the late 60's and early 70's under the aegis of the likes of MBB and some of the French aviation organizations. The current wave of major pulsed combustion research under the heading of Pulsed Detonation Engines has crested. The money is disappearing due to the pressures of reality.
If you wish to expend time and effort towards making something worthwhile that would have the common usage worthy of patent, then try this.
Pulsed combustion cycles are subject to ambient pressure. At altitude, with reduced atmospheric pressure, they cease to function. Solve that one without undue complexity.
Side loading pulls the wave form against the direction of motion causing a disruption of function, more vibration that the usual excess and , again , the engine ceases to function. Another world beater, if you solve it.
Prime mover? Never, I think, for anything larger than the scale model.
Your better off having applied some of the principles to heating units and vacuum cleaners.
Later, Hank

Hank were in Canada! how big do you think the heating market is?

Viv

[Hank]

Hank were in Canada! how big do you think the heating market is?

Viv[/quote]

Hello, Viv- Without having researched the particulars and numbers I can make this statement. The market is substantial, alot of it in the rural market where space heaters that could be moved from the milking stall to the area where the Pickup truck is waiting to have it's clutch slave cylinder tended to (they always pick the worst possible time to shit the bed!). Something with wheels on it, independent of line current, light and rugged with all the tolerance towards fuel that pulsed or convective burners have. What do you need is the question to run between your ears.
Later, Hank

[Viv]

Dear Michael

We are still attempting to contact the firm of Brown and associates who represent you with no success.

Your representative Jeremy Brown does not reply to our requests for his contact details.

We can not find any company of the name supplied representing you in this matter.

Please supply the contact details for your representative so that we may procede with formal corrospondance regarding your patent infringement allegations.

Viv

[Viv]

Thanks to Mark for finding this one, I had seen it before but could not find it again.

Dated 1951

http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=037 ... B6B04B01F0

Viv

[Viv]

Well enough time has passed for the real Michael A Stram to have wriiten a letter to us at our company address detailing his claims and legal notice.

As of today we have recieved no communications from him or his alledged representative Jeremy Brown of Brown and associates in a legally admissible or actionable format.

We have so far been unable to trace Michael or Jeremy brown or the owner of the purplepidgeon@earthlink.net email address

We can only assume therefor that this was in fact just a troll posting and email to us by some body trying to cause trouble.

The member registration on this forum for Michael A Stram under the name MS is probably registered to the purplepidgeon@earthlink.net email address but again we have not been able to check this with Kenneth.

We shall ignore it untill the real Michael A Stram steps forward to admit or deny it was him.

Viv

[luc]

Greetings members,

Yesterday, for some reasons, I had a discussion with a USPTO agent for patent that do not disclose all prior art references.

One of the reasons I had this discussion was in regards of the fact that if someone feels a patent should be re-examined for any reasons, the one requesting the re-examination has to pay $2,500 US for that re-examination, even if some responsibility of failing to notice the flaw or prior art, is on the USPTO agent. This seemed to me like a little bit unfair but my last conversation yesterday, clarified the information I previously had. Also, the Stram's Patent (6,216,446 B1) and other questions, were part of the discussion. The new information the agent gave me is most interesting, you will find.

here are few Highlight of this conversation :
1) No one else then the patent owner have to request re-examination.
2) It is the patent owner's responsibility to enforce his patent.
3) A patent writer has no responsibility in listing the prior art patents in the reference listing, BUT, is in obligation to refer it in his patent text.
4) On a patent, the reference listing is stated by the examining agent as a reference of what he has referred to when examining the patent. As an example, The Stram's patent refers to Gluhareff in his text, but the Gluhareff patent is not listed in the reference list. This mean that the examiner did not refer himself and read the Gluhareff patent for Stram's patent approval (Lucky for him ... ).

This is where it become most interesting and it is from the mouth of a USPTO agent :
1) If you read a patent that you feel is very close to your design or invention, read it completely. If you find wrong information, prior art or purely false assumption, highlight those with a marker, keep the patent in a safe place and keep on going with your invention. Don't stop.
2) In the event of this patent owner would feel you have infringed is patent. It is HIS responsibility to sue you in court ... Not you.
3) When defending your self, you simply take out that patent you have put away, bring it up as your defense and highlight all that what is wrong or prior arts.
3) Now, this patent owner has 2 choices. a) Pull back and go home. b) Or fight you all the way.
4) As the USPTO agent informed me, most of patent re-examination are called-up by the court or the owner when choosing option (b), in the event of a litigation and it is the responsibility of the owner to pay the $2,500 US.
5) Now ... the re-examiner will take both arguments, including your little patent you have put away with marked prior art and other stuff and redo an examination.
6) What can happen then? ... a) If you are correct with your findings and marked information, this owner's patent will be canceled by the re-examination, or ... b) If the patent is enforced, you will loose your cause.

That it ... You have nothing else to do. It is the patent owner to do all the dirty work. As the agent told, a patent is as good as your capabilities, budgets and willingness to enforce it.

So, for all the ones that have been scared away from their inventions, by patent such as the Stram's patent, which to my opinion, his full of bullshit and prior arts .... Don't be.

Like the agent told me ... "Read the applicable prior art, stay away from what is patented and when writing your patent, don't lye, don't put bullshit in your patent just to get it .... And most important ... Keep on going if you feel you can and have the right to do.

I hope this additional information will help you all,

Regards,

Luc

[db]

Excellent Luc, You have just done the Forum members a great service, I hope that they and indeed all viewers are properly appreciative....

Cheers db..........