

The inventor of microfleece refused to patent it. - calanya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_fleece

======
dtf
Another fascinating story about Feuerstein from his Wikipedia page:

 _When the Malden Mills factory burnt down on December 11, 1995, Feuerstein
decided not only to use his insurance money to rebuild it, but to also pay the
salaries of all the now-unemployed workers while it was being rebuilt.
Feuerstein spent millions keeping all 3,000 employees on the payroll with full
benefits for 6 months. By going against common CEO business practices,
especially at a time when most companies were downsizing and moving overseas,
he achieved a small degree of fame....it appears that applied ethics in
business has positive consequences as Malden Mills continues to garner
lucrative Department of Defense (DOD) contracts for 'smart' products that
interweave fiber optic cabling, electronic biosensors, and USB ports into
polar fleece fabric._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Feuerstein>

~~~
kls
While I commend any sort of philanthropy, I have always had a certain amount
of repulsion for the type that ruthlessness exploits the people that help him
stay at the top. While jet setting around the world to save the the next
village that is in vogue. While it is noble to help people it has always stunk
of hypocrisy and giving in public for popularity. I always like when a story
highlights a man that takes care of his own as those are people he is directly
responsible for. Thanks for digging that up.

------
danielnicollet
A guy who spends $25M for what he perceives as good ethics and doesn't try to
self-promote the good deed has my kudos indeed! regardless of where his
ideology comes from. Something that many fame and money crazed entrepreneurs
should learn from these days...

 _While it would cost Aaron Feuerstein $25,000,000 to 'do the right thing' as
well as the turmoil of a November 2001 filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection, it appears that applied ethics in business has positive
consequences as Malden Mills continues to garner lucrative Department of
Defense (DOD) contracts for 'smart' products that interweave fiber optic
cabling, electronic biosensors, and USB ports into polar fleece fabric. Malden
Mills was awarded a $16 million dollar DOD contract in 2006[2]._
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Feuerstein>

------
doki_pen
My dad has worked at malden mills for over 30. Aaron has always wanted malden
mills to compete on new innovation. He believed that no one could keep up with
him and imitators would always be a few steps behind. Couple that with the
extreme high quality of the production process and patents seem opposed to the
companies secret sauce.

Unfortunately, in he is no longer there. Was it a successful experiment? It's
hard to say. He really took a beating on the 95 fire. He kept all employees on
the payroll through the entire episode, even after getting totally screwed by
insurance. He saved Lawrence from an even worse fate then its had. That was
probably more import to him then his own success.

------
muon
Another example is the way Volvo made their 3 way seatbelt patent available to
other manufacturers, and motorists, to benefit from it.

[http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/08/strapping-success-
the-3...](http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/08/strapping-success-the-3-point-
seatbelt-turns-50/)

~~~
arethuza
Or indeed, given the context, how the inventors of the Web allowed everyone to
use their ideas without patents.

------
TamDenholm
Just out of interest. What's to stop some other guy coming along and patenting
it, then unleashing lawsuit city on all the other vendors? Is there some kind
of protection for that, to assure it remains free to all?

~~~
vidar
Abundant prior art.

~~~
TamDenholm
Cool thanks, looked that up. Seem to be a stateside only thing though.

~~~
bobds
Prior art is definitely not just a US concept.

~~~
hugh3
Definitely not, it's the whole core of the idea of a patent that you can't go
round patenting things which already exist.

The term "prior art" might be US-specific though, other countries' patent law
systems have different words for the same thing (wikipedia suggests
"background art" and "state of the art").

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>you can't go round patenting things which already exist

Not strictly right but close enough, better (but still not the whole story due
to US differences _) would be "things which have already been made public".

Prior art is the globally recognised term. It means any [relevant] disclosure
prior to the priority date of the application in hand.

As an ex-patent examiner (not US) I'd use "background art" to represent the
general status of the field (often presented in the preamble of the
specification) and "state of the art" is strictly the whole gamut of prior art
disclosures.

\--

_ most jurisdictions have first to file whilst US has a "first to invent"
system

------
asr
Just curious, is there some sort of GNU for patents? If I were going to not
patent my invention I'd want some way to make sure nobody else came along,
filed for some trivially new derivation, and then managed to extract most of
the value of the original invention.

Maybe some central licensing organization that would license patents for free
as long as the licensees agreed to some GNU-like terms... or is this not an
issue in patent law?

~~~
Zev
As vidar mentioned in a different thread of this story[1], prior art plays a
large part in this process.

1\. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1797836>

~~~
blahedo
But prior art doesn't have the viral effects of the GNU licence. This would be
an actual patent, but with licensing terms that required anyone creating
derivatives to either release them or to patent them under comparably-free
terms.

------
chopsueyar
Decycle the bottles into Old Navy fleeces.

If he had patented it, would there be the same 'push' for residential plastic
recycling? Would we just bury or burn it?

------
mayutana
Can't imagine surving the oncoming winter without my fleece clothings. Thanks
for digging it up.

------
Andrew_Quentin
He is an idiot which is why he has gone bankrupt. As much as people here do
not like patents because they have some negative side effects, on balance it
is only fair that the inventor benefits from his invention. If the inventor is
a scientist, he can license his invention to the men of business. Giving it
free for all does no one good. That is not how we have advanced to this day
and age. Laws have reason. They are made by people of reason. Not congress
mind you, but the very rational and experienced judges who are imminently
familiar with the intricacies of every day circumstances.

If a man who invents something beneficial ends bankrupt is to be applauded is
anything but fair.

