Parkerwest website SWABBY

there is no patent for just buying it and using it in our own manner. its dumb that somone will want to use scare tactics to protect their "new invention" a modified lawn mower, that is way too big for what it really is. Just like some of the mower parts they are using. Who will ever find out u are using it in the way they said is there invention? Someone simply has to use it one step different and there is no violation. but that means they will have to be up all night looking for PW's working and looking at their recovery systems. good luck. sory guys I just think they are stupid and overpriced
MY$.02
 
There are many companies out there selling the flocculant to take the chemicals and metals out of the waste water.

If you think about it, why would suppliers sell a product knowingly that would be used in a process that the contractor could be sued for?

Why would manufacturer's make a product that would be used for a process that would be violating someone's patent?

It does not make sense to me why a product would be out there and being sold and marketed to contractors that are in the business and using equipment that could possibly be violating a patent?

Like Joe said, it would be hard for a company to search every company out there and investigate them to see if they are infringing on their patent.

If you had hydraulic legs on your trailer (no wheels on the hydraulic legs) and lifted up your trailer when using the flocculant then your trailer would not be on wheels when using the process, could that be a loophole? hahahahaha
 
there is no patent for just buying it and using it in our own manner. its dumb that somone will want to use scare tactics to protect their "new invention" a modified lawn mower, that is way too big for what it really is. Just like some of the mower parts they are using. Who will ever find out u are using it in the way they said is there invention? Someone simply has to use it one step different and there is no violation. but that means they will have to be up all night looking for PW's working and looking at their recovery systems. good luck. sory guys I just think they are stupid and overpriced
MY$.02

Just comments dont take this the wrong way.:wave3:

I agree there is not a patent to buy flocc,.....

I dont think Cathy is scaring anyone,.....

I dont think it is to big 48 inches in a parking garage, I wish it was like the big lawn mowers 72" (Bill did say he built a 72"),

I think if you become a big player in the parking garage cleaning someone would know what process you are using .

I agree you have to use the process diffrently, not to be in violation.

I dont think the swabby are stupid, overpriced possibly.

<EMBED src="http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid303.photobucket.com/albums/nn158/cleanupamerica/City of Pasadena - Paseo de Colorado Contract/MVI_0276.flv" width=600 height=361 type=application/x-shockwave-flash wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true">
 
I like the idea of a driveable surface cleaner, especially one that can vacuum up the dirty water, I would like the idea even more if it were more affordable.

I would just hate to go into garage cleaning and end up getting sued for using something that was intentionally sold to me knowing what I would be using it for and in the end getting sued, that would suck! hahahaha

There are so many ways out there to do a job and recover and deal with the wastewater, the hard part is choosing a system that will work in many different situations so you are not constantly having to add to your trailer or modify it or have to swap things in/out all the time.
 
I like the idea of a driveable surface cleaner, especially one that can vacuum up the dirty water, I would like the idea even more if it were more affordable.

I would just hate to go into garage cleaning and end up getting sued for using something that was intentionally sold to me knowing what I would be using it for and in the end getting sued, that would suck! hahahaha

There are so many ways out there to do a job and recover and deal with the wastewater, the hard part is choosing a system that will work in many different situations so you are not constantly having to add to your trailer or modify it or have to swap things in/out all the time.


Drivable or otherwise, size could be a great advantage

Thanks for the info James.

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/_tU7eiJSa8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0 width=640 height=505 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED></EMBED>
 
I agree John, that flocculation is a chemistry term, and that there are different methods of achieving flocculation.

I however did not read the entire patent but from what I understand "using a powdered flocculant on a wheeled/mobile unit (trailer or otherwise) in conjunction with pressure washing/cleaning or steam cleaning with or without a vacuum system or with or with out a drivable surface cleaner" you are in violation of their process, .......not "flocculation violation" per say the process/combinations is the patent.

Am I incorrect?

There is a guy who claims he has a patent on ALL coil cleaning using 15 GPM or more. I guess he invented VOLUME pressure washing.

Anyway, the patent attorney we use said his patent has to describe his whole system and if we make one modification to that system the patent can't be enforced and no lawyer would touch it.

Where is the patent on flocculation? What's the number? I might run it by him and see what he says.
 
I found your link Nigel.

I don't even need to send this to the lawyer. It's so complicated you can change many things and operate (and sell) without violating the patent in my opinion.

How do I know this? I have been involved in three patents. One of them was Ventsation scent clips back in the 90's. Mike Farmer invented these. He detailed the process of impregnating scents into plastic that comes out over time. Medo copied his process, but USED DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT to manufacture the product. They then dared him to sue them. Because he couldn't win.

The most rock solid patents are the most simple.

I certainly don't mind a guy getting paid for his research, but hamstringing an entire industry (like Dupont does) just invites copying.
 
Flocculation is a reaction when (In Waste Water Operations) chemicals (Polymer) are introduced into waste water (same as reclaiming), the chemicals (polymer) binds with suspended solids (dirt, oils, etc.) gravity then pulls this binded flock to the bottom of the tank in which it is mixed, clear water or supernate is on the top, flocked sludge will be on the bottom where a valve can be installed to drain the sludge to be deposed of properly.

I will be at work tomorrow night, I'll do a jar test and take some pictures to demonstrate this process.

It's kind of cool!
 
I dont see it Nigel unless your using a parkerwest swabby system with flocculent from them and are not licensed with them. I dont think it can be inforced. sunbrite sells floc I dont think they would if there was any chance of legal trouble.

Good talking with you greg

I found your link Nigel.

I don't even need to send this to the lawyer. It's so complicated you can change many things and operate (and sell) without violating the patent in my opinion.

How do I know this? I have been involved in three patents. One of them was Ventsation scent clips back in the 90's. Mike Farmer invented these. He detailed the process of impregnating scents into plastic that comes out over time. Medo copied his process, but USED DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT to manufacture the product. They then dared him to sue them. Because he couldn't win.

The most rock solid patents are the most simple.

I certainly don't mind a guy getting paid for his research, but hamstringing an entire industry (like Dupont does) just invites copying.

So what can be done diffrently and which lawyer to keep on retainer...lol
 
Drivable or otherwise, size could be a great advantage

Thanks for the info James.

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/_tU7eiJSa8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0 width=640 height=505 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED></EMBED>

That is a huge surface cleaner, great for doing parking lots or parking garages, I wonder if he would be interested in making and selling them
if he is the one that made that one, a lot of guys that do garages I think would be interested in something that big.

That is cool!
 
Good talking with you greg



So what can be done diffrently and which lawyer to keep on retainer...lol


For one example, if you use a gas powered mixer instead of a "1 hp electric motor powered by a generator" you've made your own "innovation" that changes the product.

There are probably 20 or 30 things you could do differently. The reason the patent process makes you spell out your entire process is to protect your "invention". Using water to clean a coil is not an "invention" using flocculation to clean dirty water is not the "invention".

Any "inventor" can threaten to sue or even send you a "cease and desist" letter. But it has no teeth unless you have copied their process exactly. Attorneys know this. They will send "cease and desist" letters all day long because it costs them $0.39.

I have been on BOTH sides of this issue in the past. Patent protection is costly. Too costly for most. Expecially if the company is on shaky financial ground to begin with.

I don't know about Parker W. but IF they are claiming that they hold the patent for ALL cosmetic pressure washing involving flocculation they are blowing smoke. It's not possible under the patent system to do that.
 
Nigel, is the owner of that large surface cleaner a member here or any of the bbs's?
 
Flocculation is a reaction when (In Waste Water Operations) chemicals (Polymer) are introduced into waste water (same as reclaiming), the chemicals (polymer) binds with suspended solids (dirt, oils, etc.) gravity then pulls this binded flock to the bottom of the tank in which it is mixed, clear water or supernate is on the top, flocked sludge will be on the bottom where a valve can be installed to drain the sludge to be deposed of properly.

I will be at work tomorrow night, I'll do a jar test and take some pictures to demonstrate this process.

It's kind of cool!

It is very cool and fast, som flocc send the crud to the top.

Here is one of the most amazing one I have seen, this could solve the suspended solids problem we have

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/VqDJVzYDf70&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0 width=480 height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
 
For one example, if you use a gas powered mixer instead of a "1 hp electric motor powered by a generator" you've made your own "innovation" that changes the product.

There are probably 20 or 30 things you could do differently. The reason the patent process makes you spell out your entire process is to protect your "invention". Using water to clean a coil is not an "invention" using flocculation to clean dirty water is not the "invention".

Any "inventor" can threaten to sue or even send you a "cease and desist" letter. But it has no teeth unless you have copied their process exactly. Attorneys know this. They will send "cease and desist" letters all day long because it costs them $0.39.

I have been on BOTH sides of this issue in the past. Patent protection is costly. Too costly for most. Expecially if the company is on shaky financial ground to begin with.

I don't know about Parker W. but IF they are claiming that they hold the patent for ALL cosmetic pressure washing involving flocculation they are blowing smoke. It's not possible under the patent system to do that.

My question is if is was that easy to modify and not infringe, why did cleanupamerica not just modify it so they would not end up in court. Unless I dont know the whole story between the two companies.
 
Thats it Nigel. 2 sides to a story now if they filed a patent on all possible methods of using floc thats another story, but highly unlikely
 
My question is if is was that easy to modify and not infringe, why did cleanupamerica not just modify it so they would not end up in court. Unless I dont know the whole story between the two companies.

Does anyone know the true outcome of the case? Was it simply settled by CUA giving in? Or was there an actual judgment. The disposition of the case would answer a lot of these questions.
 
Back
Top