My Caldera Clone

[David Thomas]

BM: Thanks, I hadn't known about Arctic Silver. I've bookmarked their website but it says >150C (302F) whereas JB Weld claims 600F. Also Arctic say their's is weakened somewhat below 0C by crystal formation, and my life includes a lot of sub freezing temps. Arctic has silver and aluminum in it which is definitely better than JB's steel, but I'm planning to fillet the fin-can joints with a hypodermic needle after a run some tests on it as is.

But Arctic silver looks like it could be ideal for some other goofy things I'm doing. Hopefully it won't upset Biolite's patent attorneys too much if I make a wood-fired iPhone charger before they get their's to work.

Editted to add: only for my own use and without posting detailed instructions. But I will brag a bit if I can approach 1 amp at 5 vdc by burning twigs and moose nuggets.

[Jon Fong / Flat Cat Gear]

David,

You may find that the adhesive bond thinkness has a greater impact than conductivity. Getting a good, thin bond along the curve of the can may be a fixturing nightmare. Best wishes – and post some pictures! – Jon

BTW – it's probably a good idea to move this to a new thread.

[David Thomas]

>"Most trademarks are adapted from words or symbols already common to the culture . . . the less distinctive or original the trademark, the less able the trademark owner will be to control how it is used"

I remember when Zilog (developer of the 8-bit Z-80 microprocessor) went after a software house (for "Z/PM"?). And the judge ruled that, no, they didn't have rights to all uses of the letter "Z" and observed that then just 26 firms could lock up the entire English langauge.

[David Thomas]

Jim, James and BM: Thanks for your thoughts.

Jon: I totally agree with you about bond thickness. I think of HX fins as pipes carrying heat. Bigger pipes carry heat better. And, like plumbing systems, big pipes mean little with inappropriately small joints.

And I agree about a new thread. I throw something quick up now and then a full report later after I'm finished all the tweaks.

[Nick Gatel]

Refer to my earlier post of how Otis lost the valuable trademark, escalator. The name Caldera has much value to Trail Designs, and down the road it maybe more valuable than their patented design.

Isn't Patagonia a mountain. And then there is lower case eric's favorite extinct bird :(

Also, names are tied to products. I have many vinyl records manufactured by a company named Apple, no relation to the Apple here in the US. And both used an apple as their logo.

Oh boy do I remember the Z80. Had Sinclair and Radio Shack computers that used ZiLog processors. I don't remember that lawsuit. Could it have been Digital Research's CP/M versus the software house?

[Kevin Beeden]

Well, as the originator of the troublesome clone generator script, I've been pondering this thread, and I guess it's time to comment.

It was never my intention to cause damage to Rand and Trail Designs, and I hope it's obvious that I admire the ingenuity of the Caldera Cone concept. My script started life making conic sections for the inner wall of my red bull burners, trying to make a larger vapour chamber. This eventually became the burner with an inner jet ring. Playing with these walls, I realised the obvious; they were miniature Caldera Cones, so a few tweaks to the PostScript conic section generator produced the first, 200-line script published on OM. People seemed to enjoy playing with this script, so it kept growing, and it is now about 2200 lines.

The legality of publication of the script on OM was based on UK patent law, which, as Alan has shown, clearly differs from US patent law, in that personal, non-commercial use is not a patent violation under UK law. That US law is different in this respect was quite a shock to me.

The morality of the script is open to interpretation; from the outset, I made it clear that it was a copy of Trail Design's Caldera Cone (mentioned in the first post on the OM thread which people could google, and later with explicit links to TD's website). I have also stressed to anyone receiving the script that it is not for commercial use, and the instructions provided with the script state TD's IP ownership, and provide a link to their website and the products they provide.

When someone on OM who had made a clone went on to sell their MSR Titan kettle it was made for, they advertised the clone as a freebie to go with it. When someone else commented that the flissure clone might encourage a sale, I made comment, given that I'd expressly said that the script was not to be used for commercial purposes, even though the clone was only a 'free adjunct' to the actual item for sale; the MSR Titan kettle. You can read the exchange here:

http://www.OUTDOORSmagic.com/forum/forummessages.asp?URN=1&UTN=43864

As for the use of the name 'Caldera Clone', that was a deliberate choice, intended to be a nod of respect to Rand and co. I could have called it something like a Volcano (Volclono?) Stove, but that would have been disingenuous. I wanted the origin of the idea to be absolutely clear from the name, making no attempt to disguise where the idea came from. It was not an attempt to 'cash in' on Rand's invention, since the clone script is free. The same logic applies to the Flissure joint, and the Infernal wood-burning insert (which, as far as I know, no-one has used yet; I certainly haven't).

I have always thought of discussion of clones to be free publicity for the real Caldera Cone; I expect that a significant number of OM readers first encountered the concept via the Clone thread. I cannot say if any of those readers have bought a Caldera Cone as a result. I'm pretty sure that a lot of OM and BPL readers, even those on the MYOG sections, like to read about MYOG, but when it actually comes down to it, end up buying something because of a lack of time, inclination or ability. So, of the small number of people who have been given a script, I'd guess about one third may have made a Clone. And I suspect that almost all of those people are 'tinkerers' for whom MYOG is as much of a hobby as actual backpacking. I also suspect that many of these clone builders have moved on to another project, and may not actually use the clone as a stove.

Until Rand posted that TD _do_ still sell the Fissure Cone, I had taken it as read that they had abandoned the idea, due to production difficulties mentioned on a BPL thread Help me brainstorm a Caldera Cone (TM) for the FireLite 475ml Ti Trapper's Mug. Since a number of people asking for the script have also mentioned that they were attracted by the Flissure variant, it seems that I wasn't the only one unaware that TD still sold the Fissure Cone. Not having seen the Fissure joint, I didn't really understand the tolerance issue. The Flissure joint used in the script is pretty simple to make, and doesn't need very close tolerance maunfacture. Clearly, it would be more expensive to manufacture, due to the extra material required for the overlap, and the waste between the two halves, and the extra machining. But, if Rand wants to use the idea, he's welcome to use it, freely. And if he wants to use the Strata insert to allow a Cone user to use another pan with a Cone (which I think is a genuine innovation, building on Rand's patent), he's welcome to use that, freely, but non-exclusively.

If Rand had asked my advice on whether to patent or not, I think I'd have advised not to patent, given the cost of gaining and sustaining a patent (even without legal costs of defence), and the potential market. I certainly hope he recoups his costs, but that's a choice every inventor has to make for themselves. When I came up with the SqueezeBox Stove, I considered patenting the idea, but, for the reasons above, I chose not to. Not being entrepreneurial, I chose to put the design into the public domain, offering a design script similar to that for the Clone. The SqueezeBox Stove won Alpkit's CoLab design competition at The Outdoors Show at the NEC in Birmingham in 2009, even though that was a very mainstream outdoor exhibition, and not a lightweight backpacking event.

So where does this leave me, and what should I do about giving people the script? Well, from a strictly legal point-of-view, Rand's patent is a US patent, so has no bearing outside the US. Thus, there's no legal impediment to me giving the script to anyone outside the US, certainly not in the UK. So, I think I'll extend the comments about TD's IP ownership, and point out that patent law varies from country to country, and that each user should determine if making their own Clone is illegal in their locale, and consider the morality for themselves. I'll also suggest that if they publish any images or descriptions of their clone, they credit TD with the original idea, and provide a link to TD's website.

[Jack Hoster]

That's the best stove/shield setup I've every seen!

My concern about the cone design was that the creators released it prior to their patent in 2006 at least here.

"You can also make a windscreen that's cone shaped to allow it to have enough space away from your stove at the bottom and then come in around a narrow pot at the top."

It's not really fair to release these ideas to the world and later patent them, making it illegal to use. That's classic "Indian Giving".

[G Watson]

A very interesting link there Jack.

[Jon Fong / Flat Cat Gear]

If you are interested in pursuing this topic, maybe it would be best if you read the patent US 2007/0039603 A1 and looked at the claims. The patent filing was filed in June 7, 2006 AFTER a provisional filing on August 19, 2005. The picture was probably released after the claim was filed. TD has a patent and if you really want to know what is cover then READ THE CLAIMS. It’s a pain in the neck however, it a whole lot better than speculating about what you can and can’t do. My 2 cents – Jon

[Ultra Magnus]

"If you are interested in pursuing this topic, maybe it would be best if you read the patent US 2007/0039603 A1 and looked at the claims. The patent filing was filed in June 7, 2006 AFTER a provisional filing on August 19, 2005. The picture was probably released after the claim was filed. TD has a patent and if you really want to know what is cover then READ THE CLAIMS. It’s a pain in the neck however, it a whole lot better than speculating about what you can and can’t do. My 2 cents – Jon"

I just feel the need to point out the obvious to you, assuming what you say is true, of course… The date on the archived web page goes back to March 2005, and you state TD's provisional patent was filed in August of 2005.
(Edit: Jack apparently edited his post to remove the link to the archived Zen Stoves web page so here it is: http://web.archive.org/web/20050307210235/http://zenstoves.net/Accessories.htm )

Last I checked, March comes before August, so it's a distinct possibility that Rand could have read that sentence on ZenStoves and gotten his inspiration to make the CC from there.

I spent a lot of time on ZenStoves back in those days, and actually got the idea for my cylindrical, high sided, windscreen/pot stand from them (the, out with the old design). I read pretty much every word on the ZenStoves website at one point or another, and I'm sure I also read that lien, but being brand new to alky stoves, probalby wrote it off as too complicated to mess with at the time and forgot about it. I was doing a lot of experimentation with many different stoves at the time, and all my cylindrical windscreens had multiple holes to test different pot to stove distances. A conical setup is a lot less flexible, and once you have something you like, you have to be pretty much committed to a specific pot/stove configuration. And even after seeing TD's cones, I was never interested in making one until I saw the CP flissure joint, even though I've seen several other diy cone projects and tutorials.

Here are some pictures from November 2005 of my "12-10" burner, though the hole count I'm sure is different. I didn't find its performance any better or worse than a single wall chimney stove so I quit making them. My opinion on the 12-10 still stands, and has been confirmed my at least a couple other forum members who took their 12-10's apart (on purpose or on accident) and only used the inner energy drink portion.

and the inner wall-

and here's a selection of my alky stoves from October 2005-

I have more photos dating back earlier in that year. All the photos I have on my dropbox folder show my 1.3l ti pot, which I didn't purchase until a few months after my alky stove addiction took me over. At first I was using one of my wife's kitchen pots. The majority of those stoves in that photo were inspired form zenstoves.net so I think that is evidence enough that I spent a significant amount of time on that website before TD filed for their patent.

The last thing I want to do is to invalidate TD's patent. Rand is a good sport and a good supporter of the community. As far as I can recall, Rand didn't call any diy cone builder's thieves. It's the zealous self appointed patent police doing the name calling that's offended a few of us (when so many other diy cones were discussed on this very forum and met with encouragement and praise) and looking to justify ourselves.

And if you guys are interested in defending more patents, there are a lot of Hennessey hammock knock off's on the hammock forums. From my 5 min google patent search, the asymmetrical guyed out hammock, as well as the hammock with a ridge line is patented and owned by Thomas Hennessey. Here's somewhere to start – http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=670

BM

[G Watson]

My honesty was questioned, and i was called a thief on this very site, for making a clone.

[Jon Fong / Flat Cat Gear]

Gentlemen,
From looking at the zenstoves website, it is unclear to me when the discussion or first pictures of a Cone/pot stand were publicly disclosed. Since I have no data, I cannot draw any conclusion. Those of you who have been on the site during that timeframe may recall. If the pictures/description were posted prior to the patent application, then the patent would not be valid (if that were the case, TD should get a full refund from their lawyer for not determining prior art as this is a large function of the patent attorney). I personally don’t care either way; I just wanted to remind people of the legal issues associated with patents.
In recalling the thread, I don’t think that there was any discussion of anyone being a thief. The fact is, a lot of this discussion is in the grey area. I do stick by recommendation that what you do should pass the smell test with your friends and peers.
That being said, I am somewhat concerned about the tone of these discussion and would like to apologize if my statements caused ill feelings. I believe that TD has done a great job with the CC and if they have a valid patent then they have earn the right to market and sell their intellectual property for profit. Best regards – Jon

[Jack Hoster]

It's interesting how a great post can end up with a weird discussion.

[Randy Nelson]

"Also, names are tied to products. I have many vinyl records manufactured by a company named Apple, no relation to the Apple here in the US. And both used an apple as their logo."

Apple is the Beatles record label. I just finished a biography of Paul McCartney and he said copywriting Apple worldwide was one the smartest things they did because they told Apple US that they could not use that name and they came to an agreement on a very large settlement. Then when the Ipod came out they went back to them because the original agreement stated the name could not be used for anything to do with music. And they got another large settlement. Paul says that copywriting the name Apple was the thing that made them the most money.

[Kevin Beeden]

Jack Hoster said (in one incarnation of the post…):

Quote:

That's the best stove/shield setup I've every seen!

My concern about the cone design was that the creators released it prior to their patent in 2006 at least here.

"You can also make a windscreen that's cone shaped to allow it to have enough space away from your stove at the bottom and then come in around a narrow pot at the top."

It's not really fair to release these ideas to the world and later patent them, making it illegal to use. That's classic "Indian Giving".

The second sentence seems to suggest a link between 'the creators' (I assume he means TD), and the ZenStoves website. As far as I'm aware, there's no link between TD and Zen, and Zen's suggestion about using a conic windscreen was independent of TD. Unless TD, Zen or Jack know otherwise…?

My limited understanding of US patent law is that prior publication (within a certain period) does not preclude granting of a patent. So there's nothing wrong with TD publishing the idea and then going on to patent.

In the UK (and everywhere other than the US), prior publication, even by the inventor, will prevent the grant of a patent: you keep the idea secret (or restricted by confidentiality agreements) until you apply for the patent.

[Jack Hoster]

TD made it pretty clear that it's their original design. It also made it through the patent system in their country which still has first to invent laws. It is likely that they are either the first to invent or purchased the idea from someone who did invent it. Only a fool would boast falsely about something like this in this day and age.

Their stove on the other hand is obviously a copy of the Pika Stove from 2003.

Besides, people are missing the point here. It doesn't matter who originally came up with any idea. TD purchased a patent in their country for a cone shaped windscreen. This gives them the legal right to forbid others in their country from making this windscreen. It also apparently elevates their status here and gives them the right to attack other members, condescend and hijack a discussion as demonstrated by this comment:

"> "I built it using Captain Paranoia's fantastic Caldera Clone post script file. He's done an impressive amount of work on his project."

Seriously? Fantastic? Impressive? *HIS* project? Seriously?"

[al b]

Jack Hoster said
"What will be the next really cool MYOG item to be shared in the forum to become illegal to use later? And with the first to file patent system around the corner, someone with a really cool idea will share it, then have someone else patent it without their knowledge which will make it illegal for the original inventor to even use his own invention. "

But under "first to file" that should count as prior art, thus no one could patent it:

apparently, this can be used by those who can't afford/don't wish to patent or defend a patent: just publish in a (possibly obscure) journal etc, and then no-one else can patent their idea. They can then compete on quality/price/customer service/the kudos of being first etc.

:)

[Author]

Posts