The wakeboard tower and selling doughnuts

Text on a message board at wakeworld:

Boat companies "Borrow" much more serious and important things every day. Mastercraft has stolen more than a few ideas, and so has every other company in every other industry.

See IPBiz post:


Larson v. Correct Craft on patent assignment on an outlined set of facts wherein the small
inventor Larson was victimized concerning his design of the wakeboard tower.

Meanwhile, Gary Locke writes: "Today's innovators are curing diseases and ensuring our safety" but
advocates things like post-grant review (opposition) and first-to-file which would work to the disadvantage
of small inventors, who as the Correct Craft case may illustrate, are already under some serious
disadvantages. Rather than opening up the patent system, the "changes" advocated by the reformers (and
Locke) would work to the advantage of the "big guy" over the "little guy" and would enhance the "borrowing" noted by
Caleb Rountree on wakeworld.

On this theme, see the IPBiz post
Demise of the (anti-)Doughnut campaign: a parable of patent reform? [and note that Locke's man at the USPTO formerly worked for a big "doughnut" seller):

This little story evokes themes in the story of patent reform, although the patent reform saga has added complexity. In patent reform, the big doughnut sellers (eg, IBM, Cisco) are complaining about the little doughnut sellers ("trolls") and are trying to implement "reform" to favor the big doughnut sellers, rather than to get rid of the doughnuts. The popular press would have the public believe that the little doughnut sellers are the only ones selling doughnuts, and that "reform" will get rid of the doughnuts. Anybody who actually advocated getting rid of the doughnuts would meet the same fate as Dr. Newsom, likely from doughnut selling lawyers. Furthermore, the position of the big doughnut sellers would do significant harm to smaller vendors, who aren't selling doughnuts at all.