Interestingly Dan Gelbardt, the brainiac behind Creo's technology didn't believe in patents. If I remember correctly he felt that patenting an idea simply gave other people the information they needed to develop a product that got around the patent.
best, gordo
I would have to agree with brainiac Gelbart on this, although he has a lot of patents to his name.
One has to be careful and think what the application of the patent is actually doing.
In the specific case of my patents, the goal is to feed ink into the press in a positive way that is not affected by variables such as water, press speed, temperature etc. That is the desired function.
This function can be done in numerous ways so any patent on one particular method of doing this can be gotten around by doing it in some other way.
So why would I go through the expense of having patents? The reason is that the cost of developing my patent approach is extremely low, it can be applied to just about any open ink fountain offset press, it can be used with high viscosity inks, it potentially will perform better than the more expensive existing concepts, it would be user friendly and it has been successfully tested.
I felt that the probability of someone getting around these advantages was low so I took the chance.
What I badly underestimated was the industry's lack of interest in having a low cost solution to one of their most critical problems. Changing beliefs is the most difficult problem to solve. I am still working on that.
