|Date:||Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:18:55 -0500|
|From:||"ESCO automatic digest system" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>|
|Subject:||ESCO Digest - 20 Oct 2006 to 24 Oct 2006 (#2006-37)|
There are 4 messages totalling 671 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. TAD device
2. Re: Sterilization
3. On patents and OrthoClear v. Invisalign
4. RME and indirect bonding
|Date:||Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:32:00 +0300|
Dear ESCO readers,
I'm interested in a device called "TAD" which is "torque angulation
device", used in ligual ortho and manufactured by a korean company. If anyone has more info about the name and contacts of that company, please let me know, Best
Dr. Mohamed Azhar Kharsa, Ph.D. (Ortho)
Senior Specialist Orthodontist
King Fahad Hospital-Post Office
|Date:||Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:28:10 -0800|
|From:||"Blair Adams" <blairadams1@CANADA.COM>|
Hello Gentlemen (& ladies, although there don't seem to be any in the group??)
I have a problem during the winter with dry-heat sterilizers that are vented directly to the exterior of our building. Cold air comes down the exhaust pipe from outside and prevents the sterilizers from reaching adequate temperature. Is there anyone who can help me find some kind of flap that will prevent this but also allow hot air to escape??
Blair Adams Ottawa Canada
|Date:||Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:51:50 -0700|
|From:||"Stanley M Sokolow" <overbyte@EARTHLINK.NET>|
|Subject:||On patents and OrthoClear v. Invisalign|
Barry Raphael on 19 Oct 2006 wrote: "The developers of the technique have so thoroughly protected it with patents that they have effectively created a monopoly in this industry segment by being allowed to destroy all competition."
I also regret the death of OrthoClear, Zia Chisti's second orthodontic venture . However, the problem lies not with the actions of Align Technology Inc., but rather the culprit is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The idea of a patent is that a new invention should provide the inventor with a monopoly on the invention for the 20-year duration of the patent. In exchange for the monopoly, the inventor is supposed to reveal the inovations in the patent application. These revelations theoretically are a benefit to society because they give competitors the knowledge used in the invention, so techology can continue to advance. Without this exchange of a time-limited monopoly for the revelations, inventors would keep the inner details of their new creations secret, relying upon trade secret protections in law. The founders of our country actually thought about this and provided for patents in the U.S. Constitution. (See http://www.bitlaw.com/patent .) So, patents have been around for a long time, and they indeed are intended to provide a monopoly, which can help as much as it hinders progress. Often, competitors work out a deal with the patent owner so that they pay a royalty for use of the patented invention, but that's not required by law -- an inventor may refuse to grant a license to use the patented invention at any price, and instead may continue to be the only company using the invention until the patent expires. I don't think this is the first time that an invention was only available to orthodontists from a single manufacturer. As I recall, elastomeric ligatures were only available from Unitek as "A-Lastic" modules for many years, until the patent expired and other manufacturers entered the field. There are probably many other examples. The problem is that the U.S. patent office has been granting patent protection for things that are not really new inventions at all, broad patent claims which are designed just to block competition and not to disclose a truly new invention. An example is the patent claim in the Invisalign patent which claims that the sequential numbering of aligners to indicate the order in which they are to be used is a patent-protected invention. That's a ridiculous claim that should never have been admitted into the patent, yet the USPTO did allow it. The idea is obvious and certainly sequential numbering has been used since numbers were invented in antiquity. It was not an invention of the Invisalign inventors. Claims are supposed to be non-obvious and not just restatement of "prior art" in the field. Likewise the idea of manufacturing and shipping all of the aligners in advance should not have been an enforceable patent claim. OrthoClear got around that by shipping two at a time. I don't know what claims eventually led to the settlement by OrthoClear, but if any ridiculous claims like these were among them, the fault lies in the patent office. An even greater abuse of patent law is being condoned by USPTO in its granting of many patents on computer software ideas. The effect of USPTO patent examiners' lax granting of patents on ideas rather than true inventions will plague us for generations to come in ways we'll never see because innovation will simply be stifled at its inception. If you want to know more about the problem, search the Internet on "software patents".
|Date:||Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:44:21 +1000|
|From:||"Mark Cordato" <markc@IX.NET.AU>|
|Subject:||Re: RME and indirect bonding|
Firstly thanks to those guys who have suggested things for incorporating RME and indirect bonding. Secondly, my message yesterday and the s and u transposed, it was meant to be 'using' not 'suing' Lastly, in Australia, photobond is distributled through Henry Schien/Hallas and is made by Kurare. Ray Bertolotti has spoken of it for years in general dentistry. It is now superceeded by all the the one step self-etching primers and something like the general dental version of Pop-L-Prompt could be similar in strength but Photo Bond's performance on hypocalcified enamel and even mild amaelogenesis cases is surprisingly reliable and will, I'm sure be missed when I go to a one-step system. If you do use higher strength bonding agents remember to keep the brackets away form the opposing teeth (for wear) and to rinse the teeth with hot water to soften the adhesive a little before debonding. (A tip I got from ESCO years ago and I swear by it). Regards (and uncontactable for 2 weeks!!!)