Fun_People Archive
23 Apr
But ... what was it?!

Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 13:37:23 -0700
To: Fun_People
Subject: But ... what was it?!

Forwarded-by: Keith Bostic <bostic@bsdi.com>
Forwarded-by: cdash@ludell.uccs.edu (Charlie Shub)
From: iayork@panix.com (Ian A. York)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue

In article <4la2nd$1pc8@mule1.mindspring.com>,
Anders Seig <seig@seigheil.com> wrote:
> I am sorry to inform you that this device was invented by myself
> over three years ago.  I have all the proof in my engineering

Dear Mr. Sieg:

I understand that you are distraught; it is never pleasant to know that
a child of your mind is stillborn.  As a careful examination of our full
patent submission will clearly show, however, we refer to your product
(in the PRIOR ART) section and note a number of ways in which we have
improved on it.

For example, you will note that our device is constructed of "synthetic or
natural fibers."  We feel that this is a significant advance, with respect
to user comfort, over your "reinforced sheet metal with duralanium insert
and fully riveted seam" construction.

Also with respect to user comfort, our product does not include the
"two-way locking spikes" that yours have.  We found that many users found
a six-inch steel spike penetrating their lower foot detracted from the
otherwise positive experience.

Also, our product does not include a "hinged locking crotch protector",
"self-lubricating sprockets", or a "spring-loaded toe-mounted skeet
launcher".

We readily agree that your product is better suited for certain
applications than is ours.  For example, our invention lacks the "annular
magnetic guides" and is therefore incompatible with the "personal MagLev
tracks in every home" you envision in your very moving appendix IIIa.
Moreover, our invention is not waterproof below sixty meters, has no
moving parts, and is not rated above 15 tonnes.

It is our opinion (and I believe our attorney, Mr Piano, will agree with
us on this) that our respective inventions are aimed at different markets
and do not represent a conflict in any way.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Sincerely,

Ian York

© 1996 Peter Langston