http://www.nhl.com/features/ahl/ahl102705.html
Tapping into a good idea -- When he wasn't plowing over people on the ice, Cleveland Barons defenseman Doug Murray apparently was soaking in his Cornell University education.
Now, Murray is, um, tapping into his entrepreneurial skills to further expand his interests beyond hockey.
Murray and two friends from his Cornell days have invented a new beer tap sure to please the college crowd and sports fans alike. It's called the "Uber Tap."
Instead of the traditional hand pump and one hose for the beer to flow through, the Uber Tap has a foot pump and three hoses to expedite the filling-up process.
Murray, a third-year pro, said the concept originated with his two friends and he then chipped in with his input and financial support. The group is taking pre-orders for the taps -- which cost $89 each -- and is waiting for delivery of the first shipment.
"Since I was a kid, I've always been very entrepreneurial and very interested in running my own company," Murray said. "This was just a great opportunity for me to get my foot in the door. I thought it (the tap) was a great idea. It's funny. Everybody says they thought about it but never did anything about it."
Murray's teammates, naturally, are anxious to chime in with their reviews.
"I promised them if this takes off, there will be free beer at my place," Murray said. "They are cheering for me, I hope."
Hahaha... that's our beloved hotelies! ::laugh::
I'll need to add a bobble foot to the Doug Murray Bobblehead...
The story did not mention that they have or plan to obtain patent for this product.. Hmm..
[Q]Oat Wrote:
The story did not mention that they have or plan to obtain patent for this product.. Hmm..[/q]They have a year from first commercial sale, IIRC. You, on the other hand, can not apply for a patent on something already in the marketplace.
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
[Q2]Oat Wrote:
The story did not mention that they have or plan to obtain patent for this product.. Hmm..[/Q]
They have a year from first commercial sale, IIRC. You, on the other hand, can not apply for a patent on something already in the marketplace.[/q]More importantly, I think the fact that the story doesn't mention any plans to patent the product doesn't necessarily mean that such plans don't actually exist.
But yes, assuming nobody else has created a comparable invention, they have one year from first sale, public use, or printed publication.
Edit: Although, thinking about it, I'm not 100% sure that it'd be patentable over a standard tap, let alone any other improved taps that might be patented but just not on the market.
[q]Edit: Although, thinking about it, I'm not 100% sure that it'd be patentable over a standard tap, let alone any other improved taps that might be patented but just not on the market.[/q]Judging from some of the stupid sh-- that seems to make it through the patent office these days I wouldn't be surprised. (Opinion based on anecdotes, possibly apocryphal.)
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
[Q2]Edit: Although, thinking about it, I'm not 100% sure that it'd be patentable over a standard tap, let alone any other improved taps that might be patented but just not on the market.[/Q]
Judging from some of the stupid sh-- that seems to make it through the patent office these days I wouldn't be surprised. (Opinion based on anecdotes, possibly apocryphal.)[/q]
Based on personal experience with some of the stupid sh-- that gets patented, I have have no doubt that this is patentable.
It really takes a minimal improvement to an existing idea to qualify for a patent.
There's a blurb on the Sharks web site http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=25507
They've got the link to the UberTap web site bolixed up there. Use this link:
http://www.ubertap.com/
[Q]jmh30 Wrote:More importantly, I think the fact that the story doesn't mention any plans to patent the product doesn't necessarily mean that such plans don't actually exist.[/q]Strangely, they also don't give a patent number or say "patent pending" anywhere on the site.
Barring prior publication that we don't know about it would definitely be patentable. My suspicion, however, is that one of the inventors started "publicly using" the invention years ago and can't patent it any more. Who knows if any of the people that saw those public uses remember seeing it, but just one designated driver at the party could foil the application.
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Strangely, they also don't give a patent number or say "patent pending" anywhere on the site.
Barring prior publication that we don't know about it would definitely be patentable. My suspicion, however, is that one of the inventors started "publicly using" the invention years ago and can't patent it any more. Who knows if any of the people that saw those public uses remember seeing it, but just one designated driver at the party could foil the application.[/q]While people typically will include a notice like that, it isn't really required. You don't have to be on notice in order to be liable for patent infringement.
I did a cursory search when I got to work this morning; there are a LOT of patents out there related to kegs and taps and the like. (For what it's worth, none list Doug as an inventor, nor do any use the term "Ubertap"). As I said, I'm not convinced that this would be patentable over the prior art. A foot pump is basically the same as a hand pump, other than adding means such that the motion creating the pressure is located somewhere else rather than at the linkage between the keg and the tap. The fact that it's your foot instead of your hand is really inconsequential. Likewise, the difference between one hose and three isn't all that much, and in any case I have a hard time thinking nobody else came up with the idea of having multiple hoses in the past. There might be other elements to the Ubertap that give it novelty (in the patent law sense of the word), such as the particularly efficient seal mentioned here (http://www.ubertap.com/theuber.html), but then, something as conceptually broad as a seal brings in prior art from things like cars and chemical plants. I'm not denying that it seems to be a good product (I'd certainly consider buying one if not for the fact that I'd have *no* use for it), but that doesn't make it patentable.
For what it's worth, though, considering how polished the website is, if there are any plans to patent it, I'd have to guess they're well underway by now.
[Q]jmh30 Wrote: The fact that it's your foot instead of your hand is really inconsequential. [/q]I think we have both read enough patent applications to know that nothing is inconsequential. Everything is novel. In this case, I would certainly argue that the way that a foot pump changes the logistics of operation would be patentable over a hand pump. The way the PTO works these days, I doubt they would fight back too hard.
[q]For what it's worth, though, considering how polished the website is, if there are any plans to patent it, I'd have to guess they're well underway by now.[/q]I definitely agree with this.
[q]...nothing is inconsequential. Everything is novel.[/q]You have just summarized in a nutshell what is wrong with patent law in this country (IMNSHO).
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
[Q2]...nothing is inconsequential. Everything is novel.[/Q]
You have just summarized in a nutshell what is wrong with patent law in this country (IMNSHO).[/q]Fully intending to do so. I agree with you completely.