Roy, I very much enjoy reading your articles. I am sorry to see someone patent your pattern, if not you. Since it was published as prior art, I doubt that the patent holder could make a case against anyone for patent violation. Sadly, one can never be sure what goofball on a bench might do.
Take care,
Ed
Hi Roy,
I believe Water Wisp has a patent on the hook design and not all the patterns that they tie on those hooks. The eye of the hook is perpendicular
instead of the way most other hooks are made. The flies are tied by placing the eye of the hook into the jaws of the vise. You can’t do it that way with standard hooks.
Regards,
Mark
This should clear this all up.
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/cst/cst061002.html :twisted:
Pheasant tail is the Preferred Embodiment, not the sole embodiment taught. See the 2nd paragraph of the Embodiment of Fig. 9. :“While barbs other than those from the ringnecked pheasant tail feather may be used, the barbs from the pheasant tail are much preferred, …”.
The Patent Term for a Utility Patent, filed before June 7, 1995, was 17 year from the date of Grant. This application was filed June 20, 1972, and the patent was granted on July 2, 1974, so this patent would have expired on July 2, 1991. The current Patent Term for Utility Patents is 20 years from the filing date, barring a claim for priority to an earlier application, or patent term adjustment for delays caused by the PTO.
Dave
A patent attorney once told us “Your patent is only as valuable as your ability to defend it.” He who has the gold rules!
For myself, I don’t think any fly pattern should be patentable…any more than a cooking recipe should be.
:oops: Boy, I didn’t mean to really start a ruckus. Or would that be I really didn’t mean to start a ruckus? :oops: (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.)
I surely hope noone ever thinks of suing either FAOL. I was just expressing my feelings on this type of patent. Where I work they have tried a couple of times to push us to ‘submit patentable ideas’ to assist the company in building it’s patent file that is mainly used as bargaining chips when dealing with other companies. Most of them are garbage. Like the Amazon.com ‘one click ordering’ fiasco. Anyone with any business sense who is running a commerce site on the web is gonna eventually decide to create a similar buying procedure. Who wouldn’t want to keep their customer’s data and then allow the customer to fill a cart and then use that data pre-fill the ordering forms. Silly.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to cause a ruckus or try to paint anyone as bad (except the current patent office policies).
Roy, as for your post, if you truly wrote yours down that early, or even before they applied for the patent, and the fly is patented by waterwisp, your prior art would definitely win out.
Don
I do not see any “ruckus”…But I do see where Roy certainly could start one…The Publishing dates here on FAOL certainly do not lie…and hook be dern…sure looks like Roy’s vision to these eyes…I also thank you for not only that vision…but for sharing it here for the masses…
Yes, I am sure Teeny’s patent has expired. Unless he wants to pull a Renzetti and claim it’s his trademark. :roll:
I noticed that there is a FF Show in the PNW soon and Jim Teeny is showcasing his “New Flies” there daily. Hmmm… :?:
Ladyfisher, my friend told me that legal advice is worth exactly what you pay for it. Sounds like our counsel are agreed on that one 
drolfson Posted: Aug 24, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject:
Boy, I didn’t mean to really start a ruckus.
drolfson, you did not start a ruckus… this is a very sore point for some people for good reasons.
AS a matter of interest… well I was intrigued;
I was tying flies last year at the British Fly Fair when an Italian gentleman called Massetti introduced himself and suggested he was the creator of Waterwisp.
Following a bemused question and answer/banter session I now remain unsure as to what the reality is.
Mr Massetti was extremely embarrassed as to having caused me any discomfort and extremely insistent that he had no prior knowledge of my work.
He had found out lately of my claim, allegedly.
He was very convincing and made all the right noises - so much so that I am almost tempted to try to believe what he said; which was that he had neither copied me nor had a fly of mine given to him on the Avon.
He said he came up with the idea while trying to simplify the application of parachute hackling technique.
Whereas my publication is certainly prior art - the magazine my fly was first published in, the Newsletter of the Fly Dressers’ Guild , was not registered with an ISBN number until much later than 1983, thus may not have been available to the Patent Office - though I think it really ought to have been!
Whatever the reality, I had a couple of years of being really mad about it, when I became aware of Waterwisp; in fact my health suffered.
Thus, I still hold on to my claim of originality, though I can no longer claim that I have been plagiarised - without a doubt.
Now there may be room for reasonable doubt… just a tiny one.
Now I do not know what to think, NEVER will.
I am not apologising to anyone but it is time well overdue to stop getting my head twisted about it
Again thanks for the encouragement which I have had from many FAOLer’s on this issue and for those excellent persons who helped keep me sane.
You all know who you are - many famous - some even banned, now :shock:
The reasons I posted this here yesterday were to see how closely you all thought the flies to compare and to give a day to mull it over.
MY advice is that if you have invented a great fly which works for you, get your friends across the internet to test it for you, by publishing it . When you see it later in Sally Salmon’s catalog, you can prove your prior claim
Happy tying and publishing,
Roy
I noticed that there is a FF Show in the PNW soon and Jim Teeny is showcasing his “New Flies” there daily. Hmmm…
Where and when would that show be?
Duck: Go to Teeny’s web site at there is a listing shows he attends…
Rich
Roy Christie just referred me to this thread and I’ve just joined FAOL both to take part in the current dialogue and, frankly, to learn about new ideas in fly tying. As the owner of Waterwisp Flies, just wanted to explain that (a) we bought the patent rights to a particular way of tying upside down and backward dry flies from Giuliano Masetti, (b) we redesigned and patented the hooks we now use to tie Waterwisps (to improve their hooking power and balance) and (c) we have no objection whatsoever to folks trying to tie their own Waterwisp-style flies. In fact, we encourage creativity because that’s how our sport evolves and improves. Otherwise we wouldn’t sell the hooks or encourage folks like Al and Gretchen Beatty, Dick Talleur and Bob Jacklin to write about tying reverse/inverse dries. We have trademarked the term “Waterwisp” for our own proprietary use so folks can’t sell their own ties as Waterwisps. Also, BTW we’re not afraid of commercial competition because we think our flies are tied a lot better than any of the few imitations that some have tried to market from time to time.
Welcome aboard Jim, love to have your input here too!
(That is the “official” welcome.)
Thank 'ee ma’am. I’ll probably be more of a lurker and learner than useful contributor but look forward to being psrt of the site’s growing family. 
Welcome Jim,
Not to be pushy or anything…
Have you given any thought to becoming a sponsor of this site…There are many great companies listed here, And this site, I feel covers more ground than any other site on Fly Fishing, On the entire web…
I’m not affiliated with this site beyond being a member and “Friend of FAOL”… I own no company nor in anyway benefit in the form of profits gained herein…
But I do purchase regularly the items in which I require through this sites sponsors…As do many other Members here…
Thanks for the suggestion, Bill. No, having just joined hadn’t thought about site sponsorship. Can somebody (maybe LadyFisher) fill me in on costs?
I’ll admit, The reason I asked is your WW Hooks…for tying that style of fly…I like the scud hooks alright…and would like to see if I might be missing something in the hook design.
That I might benifit in it’s use, As apposed to the scuds. I’ll keep an eye on the Sponsor page…as always…