Another Wave Ripoff - The Miscreant Replies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very Interesting posts here!

Mr. Rogers did step up tp the plate publically on BF, but probably could have used better judgement on Wave Patent Violations, i.e not doing it at all. I personally have seen now two Wave Violations, one on a cheap POS three dollar knife sold by you know who, someone posted it on here, and now Rogers "model". I do have to say this the WAVE works so freakin good, it amazes me everytime I draw my Commander or CQC-7 Wave, and I have been drawing that very same Commander since 1999. So to all the Wave copies I say stop trying!!! Mr. Emerson perfected, patented, owns, and will continue to make his Wave. All the others should just stop stealing his design!
 
your removable hook..was in fact legal and not a rip off of
their design..their design is perm attached and incorporated
into the knife...yours is a totally different concecpt..perhaps
that un announced patent was the one he was going to file right after
he got off the phone..now that you arent going to...personally...
i think you should have called the patent office..got the forms..
and submitted them ! let him buy the production rights from you..
you get the royalties... you got snookerd....
 
I CHECKED THIS MORNING WITH THE PATENT OFFICE.. THERE ARE NO
RECORDS FOUND FOR A REMOVABLE WAVE DEVICE...FILED BY EMMERSON OR ANY0NE
ELSE!! PERIOD
 
Searching ...


Results of Search in db for:
: 0 patents.

No patents have matched your query
 
A) I apologize for the dead link. It's now fixed -- at least it's working for me. If it doesn't work for you, can find it yourself -- just search for Ernest AND Emerson AND pocket, and it's under self-opening pocket knife or something similar.

B) It's spelled Emerson.
 
(Legalese Mode:ON)

The blade opening mechanism known as "the wave" whether in it's present integral form, or any detatchable form or any other variation is protected by the patent numbered 5,878,500. The pertinant paragraph which covers any variation of "the wave" reads as follows.
---------------------
<b>"While certain specific relationships, materials and other parameters have been detailed in the above description of preferred embodiments, those can be varied, where suitable, with similar results. Other applications, variations and ramifications of the present invention will occur to those skilled in the art upon reading the present disclosure. Those are intended to be included within the scope of this invention as defined in the appended claims." (US Patent Number 5,878,500 March 9, 1999)</b>
---------------------

(Legalese Mode:OFF)

In other words, anything that does what the wave does, no matter how it looks, is a wave and the rights to it belong to Ernie Emerson and Ernie Emerson alone.

Any questions?
 
That is a little broad. The patent office is doing those nowadays. You can read it like you are doing, or read it like others are. "..intended to be included withing the scope..." is where your answer lies. Read again college grad.

JC
 
<b>"...as defined in the appended claims."</b>

That's a vitally important point. Without it, you're correct. It would be a very vague and ill-defined document.

BTW, just FYI...

Thanks for the left handed compliment but I'm not a college grad. I'm a High School Dropout. But you shoulda seen the scores on my ASVAB and GED!
;)

(Stay in school, kids!)
 
Well, since it seems that this thread has become more a dividing line between two schools of thought than a discussion of the patent itself, me thinks it time to lock it down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top