No they are not, but that's not what we are talking about.
It is when there are no other ones on the market like it. That's why people get a patent, so that nobody can copy what they have already done.

 

I find it hard to believe that you can patent an intercooler. What happened to the patent on the Air Gain System?

 

If this is your defense I think we might all see why attorney's drive such nice cars . When generic concepts and materials are brought together for a specific application it is not hard to patent. Been there done that. Good luck on this one.

 

Is there a link or a patent filing number? When did they file for the DFIC patent, and if it wasn't in the last 5 years, I would assume its patent pending... in which case who knows.

 

God some of you guys are idiots! Why is it every vendor has to go through this crap. You guys did the same thing to M7 when they first introduced their cooler as Alta started posting theres. The funny thing is when you dig up that old thread half the M7 bashers are now raving about the DFIC...what morons!! Let him post his blurb to get us excited and let it alone. I mean really. Who cares about copyright..?? Let him and M7 sort it out if it comes down to it. Is it any business of mine or yours..?? Don't destroy the poor guys thread like so many others. I agree he should've had a little more detail and / or pics before starting the topic but hey you've gotta stick your toes in the water and test it before you jump in.

Why can't more people on this site be mature enough to say "Gee sounds like another cool product for US". We look forward to more info" and leave it at that. I'm sure if there is an isue the grown ups involved in whatever patent debate may occur are proffessional enough to settle their differences elsewhere than public forum.

Seann

 

I agree, IF the intercooler is of universal design and not for a specific application.
The companies that make the big front mounts would have a difficult time getting a patent as the units will fit numerous applications.
The DFIC is a replacement for the stock IC and used in the stock location, and being the only one on the market that flows ambient front to back, obtaining a patent should have been no problem.

 

i agree... its always good news that guys are trying new things.... so many people have been turned off completely by data, or picking anything apart...

personally.... maybe this may sway my mind to this new cooler as long as i can see the real thing somehow.... maybe dmh can send me a unit as a free gift?

 

What in particular is real about the patent for the DFIC? Is there a patent number that I can use to look up the patent claims on the U.S. Patent & Trademark website? Absent a patent number, it is patent pending. Unless a Notice of Allowance to Issue was received, and Peter is delaying the Issue for some reason. But even then (received a Notice of Allowance to Issue but delaying the Issue), there is no stick that can be used against allegedly infringing products.

 

How do you get past the prior art defense (to infringement)? Your position that one can patent an intercooler that flows front to back for the MINI won't get any reputable patent attorney to take that case on contingency. (And probably not any attorney, for that matter.) If you want to mortgage your house taking on that pissing contest, have at it....

 

Man, I thought Canadians were all laid back.
Seriously, I agree with Seann as well.
As I stated before, I'm not bashing dmh for bringing a new product to the MINI community. I am also interested in seeing pics of his aftercooler. I was just trying to explain the difference between marketing a product that can be used in numerous applications as opposed to a product that has a SPECIFIC application.

 

I guess if you don't like the thread, don't subscribe to it.

 

Probably the best advice on NAM

 

Easy Seann,

Don't start calling people names. Lets be mature idiots here.

DMH has picked and picked at the DFIC. Now we know why .

LongBoard

 

I am not an expert on the patent laws, nor do I know enough to argue with someone that is. All I know is that if you were to develop a product for a specific application such as the DFIC, and there are no other products on the market like it, why couldn't it be patented? A few other companies make ICs for the MINI, and they all mount and function like the stock unit, there is no other company that makes one that functions like the DFIC.

 

Give me a break man. Your trying to throw that back for the comment I laid against you in the "where's WMS thread". Nice level of thinking though.

I do like the "point" of the thread which is the introduction of a new product not a post war on patents and who did what first. Like i said leave that to the vendors. Incidently I ordered an M7 DFIC which I'm not likely to trade up anytime soon but I still have enough respect and clout to give this fella a chance to showcase obviously something he has worked to develop.

Seann

PS Canucks are an easy going bunch....I'm relaxing sipping a beer right now but livin' in these damn igloo's tends to get you riled up sometimes!

 

Well, the logic is the same - I was complaining about the tone the thread had taken and you told me to not subscribe. You are now complaining about the tone this thread is taking, and I am telling you to not subscribe.

So, does that mean that we as members are not free to express our opinions? Because, when you net it all out, it is only our opinions. Unless someone has been ordained Emperor of the World that I am not aware of, it really is up to the vendors to decide what to do (in the marketplace and in the courts).

And I too am impressed with the apparent results (ultimately, better engine output over stock) of the M7 DFIC. I too might even buy one in the future. But please don't tell me to stiffle my opinions, especially when someone else is free to express theirs.

 

-edit-....

 

Partsman, I don't believe you understand the nature of patents. One can't patent a product for an application i.e. "for the 2002-2006 MINI Cooper S" - it just doesn't work that way. One can patent a different design, such as this or this, but not for a particular vehicle. Of course if someone can show otherwise I'd be happy to ammend my statement.

IMO, there isn't a big enough market to support the cost of defending a patent even if it could be attained - lawyers aren't cheap. But if Longboard or M7 want to post a reference number, it would be an interesting read.

From USPTO.gov

 

saifa, I don't know if the mods can (or want to) delete individual posts. I personally have no issue with our respective posts (presently #'s 41(mine), 40(yours), 36(mine) and 30(yours)) being deleted, but they have been referenced by others in this thread. Deleting one post while keeping the reference to it could create a potential confusion for casual readers of the thread.

Peace.

 

It would be a very interesting read. In fact, one of the things you have to do to establish your right for relief (against infringement of your patent) is to publish what you are claiming is your unique invention - hence the requirement for claims language in the patent. Whether a given claim (such as a front to back airflow) is sufficiently unique to be afforded patent protection is another matter entirely.

 

 

For starters, I am not trying to put your belief down. If I came across that way, my appologies. That said, as Eric_Rowland posted at number 43, it is not sufficient to just have a unique application of prior innovations for the new idea to be patentable. A front-to-rear airflow I/C for the MINI in and of itself will not get past the examiner. If the front-to-rear airflow I/C was coupled with some secret sauce (like maybe a smaller size (or somehow more efficient) intake scoop that accelerated the flow of air across the cooling fins (and there was no prior invention of the more efficient intake scoop)), then you might get to a patentable invention. First off, you would have to convince the patent examiner of the uniqueness of the combination of the more efficient intake scoop and front-to-rear airflow. Examiners vary in their understanding of the principles involved, which is part of the reason for the non-trivial upfront expense of just getting the patent issued - you are educating the examiner about the uniqueness of your invention. Then, if there is a perceived infringement, the patent holder has some soul-searching about incuring the cost of bringing an infringement lawsuit. And you wonder why patent attorneys are the ones that really are making the money....

 

Where do you get these smilies?

 

Greatbear was the first person I saw use that one. I think he patented it.


Until pics or a description, I guess we just

 

So, have you licensed the smilie from Greatbear? Or, are you just an infringer; or, a blatant, willful and malicious infringer?

I have also seen a grilling smilie that someone posted. Maybe someone could dig up that similie.