registered design
- Thread starter 420
- Start date
- Status
In business law there is a really confusing grey area between what is considered a trademark-able or patent-able design and a design that is considered to be in the public domain. For something to be patentable (which to be clear is a totally different thing to trademarking) it needs to be an complex and original idea, which a log vape manufacturer would have a very difficult time arguing that is the case.
Log vaporizers are an interesting example because from an engineering perspective, log vaporizers are an exceedingly simple design, a circuit consisting of two parts, a power source and a resistive load heater with no power control or other components. This design has been used many times in all sorts of devices requiring heat, like a car block heater or my grandmothers scented wax warmer.
Now, it could still be argued that log vaporizers are still a unique enough device to merit patent because of unique complexities of each unit; such as the design of the stem system and heatport. But there is another major issue with trying to protect a log vaporizer design. The inventor of the log vape, Bob at Flashevap, made no efforts to protect or patent his design. The fact that the Eterra exists means that there is 'prior art' for the log vaporizer that existed long before anyone else started making them.
Even major improvements to this technology, like Daves improved log vape core would be very difficult to protect unless Bob made the effort to get a patent retroactively and then allowed it to be used as a derivative in the new patent application.
Vaporizers like the Magic Flight, Storz/Bickel and the VapeXHale are companies that have successfully received patents on their vaporizers. Numerous others make the claim but I've never been able to find Sublimators patents, for example. But I think that these are weak patents, and if it came down to defending them in a court they would be invalidated because the designs are not original enough.
I think Magic Flight is the only one out of the group that is actively litigating their patent infringers. Storz/Bickel like to swing their patents around but when it comes to put up they shut up, which is why we have competition with bag valves now in the Zephyr, ViVape and Herbalizer units. In this case it is because they know if they go to court on it they will have to convince the judge that a valve on a turkey bag is an idea worthy of economic protection, and would almost certainly fall flat, and they would rather keep the patent to try to use it against smaller outfits who may not have the resources to fight back. The same goes for vapeXhale and their hydrotubes - we don't see them suing Vaporblunt or glassblowersdirect for infringement because they know it will be a long and difficult battle.
So all in all it's a confusing clusterfuck of bureaucracy and business, but it's really not feasible to protect the designs of log vaporizers or other simple devices that are based off of common principle. For example, I did not invent the Single ended primary inductor circuit; so even though I invented the miniVVPS - because it is based off of a public domain principle it would be difficult for me to argue why I should be able to exclude others from making derivatives of my designs, even if they are straight up copies.
Log vaporizers are an interesting example because from an engineering perspective, log vaporizers are an exceedingly simple design, a circuit consisting of two parts, a power source and a resistive load heater with no power control or other components. This design has been used many times in all sorts of devices requiring heat, like a car block heater or my grandmothers scented wax warmer.
Now, it could still be argued that log vaporizers are still a unique enough device to merit patent because of unique complexities of each unit; such as the design of the stem system and heatport. But there is another major issue with trying to protect a log vaporizer design. The inventor of the log vape, Bob at Flashevap, made no efforts to protect or patent his design. The fact that the Eterra exists means that there is 'prior art' for the log vaporizer that existed long before anyone else started making them.
Even major improvements to this technology, like Daves improved log vape core would be very difficult to protect unless Bob made the effort to get a patent retroactively and then allowed it to be used as a derivative in the new patent application.
Vaporizers like the Magic Flight, Storz/Bickel and the VapeXHale are companies that have successfully received patents on their vaporizers. Numerous others make the claim but I've never been able to find Sublimators patents, for example. But I think that these are weak patents, and if it came down to defending them in a court they would be invalidated because the designs are not original enough.
I think Magic Flight is the only one out of the group that is actively litigating their patent infringers. Storz/Bickel like to swing their patents around but when it comes to put up they shut up, which is why we have competition with bag valves now in the Zephyr, ViVape and Herbalizer units. In this case it is because they know if they go to court on it they will have to convince the judge that a valve on a turkey bag is an idea worthy of economic protection, and would almost certainly fall flat, and they would rather keep the patent to try to use it against smaller outfits who may not have the resources to fight back. The same goes for vapeXhale and their hydrotubes - we don't see them suing Vaporblunt or glassblowersdirect for infringement because they know it will be a long and difficult battle.
So all in all it's a confusing clusterfuck of bureaucracy and business, but it's really not feasible to protect the designs of log vaporizers or other simple devices that are based off of common principle. For example, I did not invent the Single ended primary inductor circuit; so even though I invented the miniVVPS - because it is based off of a public domain principle it would be difficult for me to argue why I should be able to exclude others from making derivatives of my designs, even if they are straight up copies.
Last edited:
and then, even if you succeed in getting a patent, some nations (e.g. China), don't particularly care to recognize intellectual property rights. so not enforceable. whether it is possible to prevent imports of infringed designs into the US is another whole issue/thrash.
lots of ways for a designer/manufacturer to impoverish themselves trying to swing the patent axe.
imo the best course of action is to plan from the beginning to compete with free. via branding and continual innovation.
lots of ways for a designer/manufacturer to impoverish themselves trying to swing the patent axe.
imo the best course of action is to plan from the beginning to compete with free. via branding and continual innovation.
- Status