Patent US4022227 - Method of concealing partial baldness | Hacker News Reader

Patent US4022227 - Method of concealing partial baldness

google.com

85 pointsbitcartel33 comments

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.

Also, this dude would have to catch you doing it.

It's also probably worth mentioning that in reading this patent, you are now willfully infringing and liable for triple damages.

Infringing on what?

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.

So, if somebody sends this link to Donald Trump and he reads it? Is he responsible for full fines from that point on?

I suppose he could actually afford the royalties...

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.

Three nothin's is nothin'. This patent is expired.

> 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.

That's incorrect, you don't have to implement all of the claims of a patent to be considered infringing. Any one of the claims is sufficient.

That said, this has long since expired so Trump is safe.

Sorry, still ridiculous. Could I then get a patent on the same process but not using hairspray?

I believe this patent is already expired, given that the longest patents (utility patents) only last for 20 years.

However, just because you can utilize this patent without infringement, doesn't mean you should.

(The rest of us will thank you)

> 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].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_St...

From The Deeper Meaning of Liff by Adams and Lloyd:

    Scraptoft, noun: The absurd flap of hair a vain and balding man grows long 
    above one ear to comb it to the other ear.

Just so you can comment on this patent with the right vocabulary.

This is as stupid as a software patent. I guess software patents are not the only problem and there are much deeper problems with our patent system.

burrito on a stick.

Only legitimate patent ive seen in along time. http://goo.gl/cu88N

Fashion Note > Filing date: Dec 23, 1975

Duly noted. It stinks, both of them. The patent system has been broken for a long time now.

I think I'll patent water and make a killing off of all those water-thirsty creatures out there :-).

Not before I patent the method of thinking. ;)

This is shocking. Why would you ever want to do something like that?

And if you succeed, what would stop someone from patenting existence?

Stop and think about it. :)

The royalties are too high :(

You can't. I patented patents.

That's a shame for you, I just patented the method for patenting patents and it seems you're in violation.

Violation is patented. You are being contacted by my attorney.

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))

I look forward to the first blog rant about this hardcore redditification of HN. :)

I just found it unusual how one person wasn't down-voted, to be perfectly honest.

~ Never mind, they just got downvoted now

Who would buy a combover technique anyway?

At least its not a software patent!

i will patent wiping after taking a shit. -_-

Do I'm getting sued?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com