Charles (in GA)
Well-known member
Title says it all.
I know there were patent infringement lawsuits involving the clevis on handle vs clevis on square drive, back in the 1930's. From Alloy Artifacts P&C page..... "During the 1930s P&C continued to expand its automotive and aviation tool business, although this period may have seemed quiet in comparison with the drama of the late 1920s. One interesting event did occur though, when P&C was sued for patent infringement by Samuel Eagle, the inventor of a design for flex-head (or "hinge") handles used by Plomb. Eagle had received patent #1,380,643 in 1921, and Plomb had offered tools in this design since the late 1920s. (See for example the Plomb DTH Hinge Handle.)
P&C had also offered flex-head handles since the 1920s, but in a slightly different design with the fork on the flex head, rather than on the handle. The flex-head handles became a very popular tool, and at some point in the early 1930s P&C began offering flex handles in the Eagle design as well. (P&C referred to their original design as "Outside Head" models, with the Eagle design as the "Inside Head" version.)
In the early 1930s Samuel Eagle filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the P&C Hand Forged Tool Company, but in a 1935 decision (Eagle v. P&C Hand Forged Tool Co., 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 918, 920) the court found in favor of P&C. The court determined that the Eagle patent was invalid based on claims in several different prior patents, and this case has been cited in later patent infringement cases as a precedent. "
But this is long overwith, patents expired, etc................................
So, Which is stronger and why??????????????????/
Charles
I know there were patent infringement lawsuits involving the clevis on handle vs clevis on square drive, back in the 1930's. From Alloy Artifacts P&C page..... "During the 1930s P&C continued to expand its automotive and aviation tool business, although this period may have seemed quiet in comparison with the drama of the late 1920s. One interesting event did occur though, when P&C was sued for patent infringement by Samuel Eagle, the inventor of a design for flex-head (or "hinge") handles used by Plomb. Eagle had received patent #1,380,643 in 1921, and Plomb had offered tools in this design since the late 1920s. (See for example the Plomb DTH Hinge Handle.)
P&C had also offered flex-head handles since the 1920s, but in a slightly different design with the fork on the flex head, rather than on the handle. The flex-head handles became a very popular tool, and at some point in the early 1930s P&C began offering flex handles in the Eagle design as well. (P&C referred to their original design as "Outside Head" models, with the Eagle design as the "Inside Head" version.)
In the early 1930s Samuel Eagle filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the P&C Hand Forged Tool Company, but in a 1935 decision (Eagle v. P&C Hand Forged Tool Co., 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 918, 920) the court found in favor of P&C. The court determined that the Eagle patent was invalid based on claims in several different prior patents, and this case has been cited in later patent infringement cases as a precedent. "
But this is long overwith, patents expired, etc................................
So, Which is stronger and why??????????????????/
Charles
Attachments
Last edited:
but maybe there is a difference in material thickness ?
