This is a good opportunity to remind people that reading the title of a patent and looking at the pictures does not suffice for understanding what's actually being patented. You should get in the habit of actually reading the claims, since that's the substance of the patent.
By my reading of the five claims here, in order to be sued for this patent, you would need at least three sections of hair in your combover process (back and 2+ sides), you would need to comb over the back part before the sides, and you would need to put your hand down on each combed section as you applied hair spray.
> By my reading of the five claims here, in order to be sued for this patent, you would need at least three sections of hair in your combover process (back and 2+ sides), you would need to comb over the back part before the sides, and you would need to put your hand down on each combed section as you applied hair spray.
Do you really think that these arbitrary specifics make it any more novel of an idea? The claims are the source of controversy even in software patents, because they are usually just as silly as the title makes them out to me.
If you accidentally infringe a patent you didn't know existed, it's not willful and the damages are lower. Since it's basically impossible to write software without infringing lots of patents, it's much better not to read any patents, so that you cannot be fined at a higher rate for infringing wilfully.
That's exactly what our legal counsel tells us and which hammers home the uselessness of the current patent system, which in part was meant foster innovation by publishing ideas.
Now folks can publish their ideas, but others have to avert their eyes.
Tough in some situations, since the most heinous software and hardware patents cover end-user stuff where what you see is what is patented. Like the bouncy scroll on the iPhone; it's not the algorithm that is patented, but the end-user product.
Your insight is really that it's impossible to write software because everything is patented, not so much because we're not aware of the patents. Anything we're aware of is patented!
It's also strategic to read patents and violate them anyway. The biggest takeaway from Apple v. Samsung was that other phone companies should have violated Apple's patents, and sooner.
> I believe this patent is already expired, given that the longest patents (utility patents) only last for 20 years.
It expired in 1994, which was 17 years after the issue date, because the change in U.S. law to implement a 20-year patent term hadn't been enacted then [1].
I fail to see the credibility in your law suit, you couldn't possibly have patented it without using my method of patenting patents, I would however be willing to settle for $0.50 plus lawyers fees of $500,000. (I had to hire an entire team as I fully intend to sue the holders of every patent ever patented which used my method (involving the accurate account of the targeted methods transcription upon any form of data storage device))
By my reading of the five claims here, in order to be sued for this patent, you would need at least three sections of hair in your combover process (back and 2+ sides), you would need to comb over the back part before the sides, and you would need to put your hand down on each combed section as you applied hair spray.
Also, this dude would have to catch you doing it.