Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest AlexVDL

Damnit I WANT ONE!!!

Or actually 5 of them hehehe... 5x 50 or 60 bucks = 250 to 300 bucks... auch!! Hehehe... but I think its worth it bigtime!!

Kevan you rule, but I NEED THEM FAST heheheh :D

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...

In regards to the FREELOK; provisional patent applied for on Oct. 29, 2002. Provisional patent application transfred to a non-provisional on Oct 28, 2003. Patent approved July, 19, 2005. This is all public record and readily available. Visit the USPTO web site. It has been published for some time.

The FREELOK's U.S. patent # is 6919501

The FREELOK logo is a registered trademark. the date on it's approval is March , 7, 2006

A patent is pending after you apply for the patent. After the patent is approved it is not illegal to have packaging or media/advertising to still say "patent pending". It is normal for a bit of time to elapse before all can be modified to include the patent number.

I believe it is illegal to claim to be patented any time before the patent is approved however.

The FREELOK devices are soley of my own creation. I do not own a crystal ball or a time machine.

I hope this helps to clear up any further mis-conceptions. Anyone remember the saying "there are two sides to every story"?

None of the above is "hearsay" or opinion. It is simply that facts. . . . . that will probably be deleted instantly.

Bill Burton, designer of the FREELOK systems.

Maybe I got "felony" mixed up with "federal offense".

Either way, it's a no-no.

How about a little good news? Something from the sneak peek department:

Front

Back

Contents

Let me know what you guys think!

Link to comment

In regards to the FREELOK; provisional patent applied for on Oct. 29, 2002. Provisional patent application transfred to a non-provisional on Oct 28, 2003. Patent approved July, 19, 2005. This is all public record and readily available. Visit the USPTO web site. It has been published for some time.

The FREELOK's U.S. patent # is 6919501

The FREELOK logo is a registered trademark. the date on it's approval is March , 7, 2006

A patent is pending after you apply for the patent. After the patent is approved it is not illegal to have packaging or media/advertising to still say "patent pending". It is normal for a bit of time to elapse before all can be modified to include the patent number.

I believe it is illegal to claim to be patented any time before the patent is approved however.

The FREELOK devices are soley of my own creation. I do not own a crystal ball or a time machine.

I hope this helps to clear up any further mis-conceptions. Anyone remember the saying "there are two sides to every story"?

None of the above is "hearsay" or opinion. It is simply that facts. . . . . that will probably be deleted instantly.

Bill Burton, designer of the FREELOK systems.

Why would it be deleted? You have every bit as much of a right to post here as Kevan does, just as long as everyone plays nice it's cool. There are a lot of unanswered questions about both systems as the Tremol-No is just starting to appear in the wild and your system is relatively unknown by many members of this forum. From what I understand, Kevan's patent application was approved and he should have a number should you need it as well. It's probably not appearing on the website because it takes a while for the system to get updated with all of the new approved patents.

Here is a comparison featured on the Tremol-No website:

Tremol-No v. The Competition

Enjoy the ride!

Link to comment

I'm aware of the comparison chart. Many of the "facts" he has posted in regards to my product are false. The FREELOK can be used as a divebomb converter, can be used to "dive" when in drop tuning. The FREELOK can be used with "vintage" tremolos and most others, both 6 string and seven string.

"play nice". . . I'm not the one that is confused as to the status of my patent. Come on guys, to look at the stuff some of you have posted you would think I was a criminal. The information is readily available.

The Merriam Webster dictionary I have has the following definitions;

libel n: action,CRIME, or an instance of injuring a person's reputation esp. by something writen

slander n:malicious gossip

gossip n:rumor or report of an intimate nature

rumor n:widespread statement not authenticated

I have read the rules of this forum, I will obey the rules. I have no intention to sue anyone that is simply uninformed and has nothing to gain by doing so, but please get the facts straight before posting false statements. Likewise, follow the rules of the forum. The administrators should actively inforce them as well.

If people were posting false statements about you and you were not aware of it so as to defend yourself, would it get your blood boiling? I have not broken any federal laws. I am not a criminal. I have never mis-represented my product or printed anything false about the others. I never claimed to have a patent when in fact I did not.

I hope you and the other members understand that I am a very forgiving person. Please, cease and desist the unfounded rumors.

If president Bush was the anchor man on the CBS evening news, would you blindly believe everything he told you? Surely we would understand we were being manipulated by his propaganda. I feel that is why it is never a good idea to have someone with their own agenda in any form of media. You simply can not expect to recieve an un-biased report.

This forum is to help others that share a common interest. It is not intended as a conduit for marketing tactics, let alone a witch hunt.

Peace!

(p.s.) I have never recieved a summons. My address is 4 W. Main St. suite 900 Springfield, Ohio 45502

Link to comment

TWO CENTS, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT:

I play Strats and I don't use a whammy. I'm thinking about going the Clapton route and just blocking the damn thing to be done with it. That said, here's my take on the whole Tremol-No v. Everyone Else deal: You got a better product, prove it in the marketplace. I don't want to hear any of this "Oh, my Mac is better than your PC and Bill Gates eats cat poop" crap. Get your widget out there and let the public decide. No whining about unfair comparison and bullspit on your shoes and GET ME MY DUCT TAPE!

Ahem.

Seriously, the market will decide who/what/where/when, and God Bless America. Fini.

Link to comment

Nobody has accused you of anything, Bill. The only thing that came up was whether or not you had actually applied for a patent, and at the time I questioned whether you had done that, the USPTO website had NOT been updated with your information.

I think by coming here and getting into a pissing match with Kevan, you're only hurting your product. I think by coming here and all but threatening people who question the quality of your product with a lawsuit "but for your forgiving nature", you're only hurting YOUR product. Nobody's sitting here actively starting rumors about your product, other than the fact that none of us really know anything about it. I've seen your website, and I've seen Kevan's, and there's no comparison in the resources of available information.

I sincerely wish you luck in marketing your product and continued success in developing new innovations for musicians. Lassiez Faire.

Link to comment

I know that it was in *MY* head that the Freelok was a quick attempt to copy Kevan's design & "beat him to the punch". That idea might have come from another forum instead of here, but it's hard to keep track. It DOES make some sense to assume that - after 20 years of Floyds, both products come out now, at the same time?

So I can understand Bill trying to clear this up and for being upset about people thinking this (and about misinformation on the competitor's site - if it is such), so I for one am not annoyed by his delivery.

I am glad you cleared this misconception up for me, Bill. You & Kevan have a great concept.

Link to comment

I agree with 'pop on this one, the guy has really done no harm at all and is simply defending something he probably spent a lot of time developing just as Kevan has done (I would imagine). I would do the same, and maybe not as nicely. :D

And to brand a perfectly civil discussion as a 'pissing match' is extremely inflammatory in and of itself, Mr. Crafty. B):D:D

Link to comment

I agree with 'pop on this one, the guy has really done no harm at all and is simply defending something he probably spent a lot of time developing just as Kevan has done (I would imagine). I would do the same, and maybe not as nicely. :D

And to brand a perfectly civil discussion as a 'pissing match' is extremely inflammatory in and of itself, Mr. Crafty. B):D:D

Throwing around accusations of libel and slander as well as thinly veiled threats of legal action against anyone who criticizes him isn't exactly civil discourse, Mr. Drak. As for a pissing match, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Link to comment

A little scrolling goes a LONG way. In this case, it goes one more page back.

This whole thing came up back on Page 15 with Matt's post. Let's start there and work our way forward....

If they are not actually patent pending and just say they are to keep ahead, is that a chargable offence?

No. Patent Pending doesn't really mean anything, really. It's just supposed to be a warning that you're in the process of obtaining a patent. There's nothing criminal about using the term, it just doesn't carry any weight, anyway. Kinda like the old "Patent Applied For" label, except that "PAF" tends to carry a bit more weight and meaning if you ever make it to court simply because you should have at least APPLIED for the patent with the PAF label.

Needless to say, if the guy hasn't even tried to get a patent and Kev takes him to court over infringment, the Freelok guy will receive no mercy from the court for misrepresenting his intentions.

Actually, it is a felony to say "Patent Pending" if you do not have a patent pending.

Actually, it is a felony to say "Patent Pending" if you do not have a patent pending.

Mmm, not quite. The fine is actually less than $500 for each infraction, and it is enforced through private infringment actions, not the federal prosecutor. One half of the fine goes to the party bringing the action, the other half goes to the government. No confinement or jury trials, either, from what I understand of section 292.

Still, though, can you imagine getting fined $500 for each sticker? Damn. That's a bitter horse pill to swallow.

BTW, after doing a bit of searching on the Internet, I found a few intellectual property law firms that are claiming it is indeed a "felony to deceive the public by stating a product is "patent pending" when it is not". I do not believe this is correct information in this context. If you are deceiving the public in order to commit other crimes which may be felonies, such as securities fraud, then yes, that deception could be a felony. However, it is not clearly spelled out in the statute that labeling a product as "Patent Pending" is punishable as a felony offense.

When I get back to the office on Monday, I'll check the actual USC and ask our trademarks guy what's up with that.

Maybe I got "felony" mixed up with "federal offense".

Either way, it's a no-no.

How about a little good news? Something from the sneak peek department:

Front

Back

Contents

Let me know what you guys think!

I did not accuse anyone of any wrong-doing anywhere in there, or anywhere else on this site.

Link to comment

The questions relating to patents etc were all speculative and hypothetical as far as I can see, no foul there, with the notable exception of Crafty:

That's just blatent infringement, man. Hope your attorney shuts hisazz down fast with a nice little injunction.

That is unargueably an explicit accustation - I know I'd be pretty P'd off if I was on the receiving end of it. Frankly, I think were I the one who had levelled that allegation, I'd be working on an apology, not finding more percieved fautls to pick on.

I wish both parties the best of luck with their products, only the market can decide which is better, and I'm sure it'll do just that.

Link to comment

I have no intention to sue anyone that is simply uninformed and has nothing to gain by doing so, but please get the facts straight before posting false statements. Likewise, follow the rules of the forum. The administrators should actively inforce them as well.

If people were posting false statements about you and you were not aware of it so as to defend yourself, would it get your blood boiling? I have not broken any federal laws. I am not a criminal. I have never mis-represented my product or printed anything false about the others. I never claimed to have a patent when in fact I did not.

I hope you and the other members understand that I am a very forgiving person. Please, cease and desist the unfounded rumors.

I don't find anything uncivil about that. It's measured and shows a lot of restraint.

As it stands, Tremol-No and FREELOK have valid patents. We're all aware of that, now. We aren't going to knowingly make any false statements which might make us subject to a lawsuit.

If the "brass device" on Kevan's comparison refers to the FREELOK, then it's inaccurate and should be corrected.

This thread ought to get back to "when can I buy it and where?"

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...