A Convoluted Tale of 210 ° arc-cuate washing

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

This might be what happened to those patents:

 

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder’s exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. However, under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[1]</sup>

Procedurally, the patent exhaustion doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, shielding authorized purchasers from infringement claims concerning the use or sale of a patented good after the patent owner authorized its sale.

Because the doctrine is only triggered by a sale authorized by the patentee, it is often difficult to figure out if the exhaustion doctrine applies in a particular case, for example, when the patentee restricts or conditions the sale itself, or restricts the use or sale of the patented article once purchased and in the hands of an end user (post-sale restrictions). The 2008 Supreme Court decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., leaves unclear the extent to which patentees can avoid the exhaustion doctrine through limited licenses. Since its development by the courts in the late 19th century, the patent exhaustion doctrine has raised questions regarding the scope of exclusive rights granted by patents and the extent to which a patent owner may extend those rights to control downstream use and sales of patented articles.

 
Holy Cow

Just stumbled upon the Internet Archives - they have all the Official Gazettes for patents on microfilm - online!!

 

In 1956 GE was offering many patents for sale or licensing so I think I found the answer- GE must have licensed/ sold the Hotpoint Patents at some point to Beam. It will take a lot of digging but I need to know when Beam ceased production. That point would be the starting point to look back from. 

Speed Queen is too vast over time to search for.

 
So where does the dual motor Coronado fit into this picture?  I believe that it is mentioned in the linked thread that the owner's manual is 1948, well before Hotpoint and Speed Queen had automatics.  Was Beam licensing the GE patents back in the 40's, or is this pre-GE owning the patents and pre-Beam all together, and it is a Solar made machine? 


swestoyz++8-8-2014-10-14-55.jpg
 
If I understand the first-sale doctrine, it applies only to actual physical articles that incorporate patented technology, not the patents themselves. So I don't think that related.
 
Well Ben !!

When I saw the 2 motor patent I didn't actually think they ever MADE that machine! Now we know they did and why Robert was puzzling over- 

"There seems to be two different distinct eras of the Beam Line, the earliest from 1947 thru 1953 lines and the 1954 thru 1957 lines. "

 

So the one motor machine was applied for in late 1940's and granted 1950 so they obviously converted over to the new simpler machine by 1954. 

 

But they are still all GE patents not Beam. Now were Beam Vacuums still Beam after Franklin  bought them out?? I never heard of a Franklin vacuum. 

Oh it just gets more tangled !!



 

 

This is the kicker - "Then it appears that sometime in the mid 1950's Franklin bought out Beam and in 1958 started to manufacturer the "pig" style Franklin machine complete with the indexing tub. Its also very interesting that in all of this literature Speed Queen was never mentioned even though Speed Queen was the King of Beam made automatics all the way through the 60's."

 

Thank you Cornutt, after a second reading I concur with your analysis.
 
Indexing tub.

I remember reading here the early TL Westinghouse, was an Easy, iirc.  What year did WH.  begin production of their own TL?  Did the early WH.  TL's made by WH.  index?  arthur
 
Westinghouse top loader

In 1961 WH bought 20,000 top load automatics from Easy and rebadged them Westinghouse ( dealers were demanding a top loader to keep up with competition). In 1964 WH developed its own top loader called "CPA" (center post agitator). I am guessing, because it was totally redesigned, that the tub indexed. Jeb
 
Indexing tubs

were a  totally Westinghouse design they even made it into the "Frigidiare's-in-Exile" models after GM dumped Frigidiare.

 

Oh Ben I forgot to mention the two motor patent was ALSO held by GE. I think the closest they came to that was in Roberts early GE it has two motors for the pumping and draining. But only one motor to drive the beast.
 
Indexing tubs

Were a Franklin innovation as was stated in or around 1958 [ see reply #23 ], WH did not come out with an IT washer till 1964, 5 or 6. The Frigidaire IT washers after 1980 were PURE Franklin they had little to nothing to due with the WH IT TL washers.

Great information Jon, thanks for all your research, John L.
 
A new find !! Castner maybe the key

 

I have to read these patents in detail to be sure --

 

Castner worked for SOLAR Corp Webster, Iowa  in 1946 and now I find Solar Corp might have become part of or bought out by Gamble Skogmo by 1951 ! Because Castner's next patent "Snubbing Mechanisms for Gyrating Extractors " was granted granted in 1951 under Gambles-Skogmo it looks like   the <span style="font-size: 12pt;">"Beam" Snubber used in all Beam and Speed Queen machines !!</span>

<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span>

 

 

[this post was last edited: 8/10/2014-10:13]

 
From this patent

it looks like Castner invented the "solenoid clutching" in a varied form but patents have these forms , when the manufacturing engineers get to them configurations get altered to make a cost effective design for factories to produce. As long as they stay in the scope of the patent then no new applications need to be filed but sometimes the engineers find a better way and then that has to be patented too.

 

 
Okay after digging further

I think I see a picture forming. Hotpoint was working with Gambles on the Beam machine around 1949, because I found a patent yesterday by W.P. McCarty ( GE ) in which he talks about the Castner patent from Gambles. It appears they were both working on the same machine at the same time, McCarty was working on the timer control. Castner on the mechanics.

So the Hotpoint ( Beam ) was a collusion of talent from several companies it appears. 

Hotpoint must have had some autonomy from GE at this point. see ppg 1 column 3 in the McCarty patent.

 

 

 

 

 

 
Jet I gotta hand it to ya

I thought I was a transmission freak but you sir take the cake!

Amazing amount of research here and very informative indeed.

I'm trying to get SQ to give their current tranny a name but thus far, they are not biting.

Should we call it Mil-en-e-Cuate 180?

Or Arc-C-Steel 183.5?

Neverbreak Steel 195?

Thoughts?
 
Thanks Washman I think we now -

- have most of the history in the bones of these patents. I didn't ever think this would involve so a many companies. I 'll need to swing through any Borg Warner /McGraw Edison patents to be sure we got everyt hing.

 

Didn't they give a degree swing on this new SQ transmission? I think its funny they had all the tooling for the original transmission why wouldn't they just build those? It would have to be cheaper.

"lok-2-lok 180"

 
 
I believe they still promote 210

stroke if I'm not mistaken.

As far as building the old Arc-Cuate, I doubt the tooling is still around. Some years ago, a facility in Omro was closed. It produced castings and did machining for metal parts. If I was a betting man, I'd say the current tranny is produced by an out side organization to SQ specs. Ripon is probably no more than an assembly facility save for the injection molding done for the agitator and other plastic bits.

The paths of SQ and Frigidaire are eerily similar. McGraw Edison got rid of SQ in 1980, GM dumped Frigidaire in 1979. When the new owners took over, in both instances, existing designs were eliminated and replaced with probably cheaper to produce designs.

In looking at the Arc-Cuate you tore down and cleaned up, one can see the machine work done on the arc gear and the drive gear. That costs money. Nowadays, simple forgings with minimal machining is done to save on cost. The fluid drive is also another cost issue. As are the multiple solenoids and belts to run it all. Bottom line, cost precluded these design elements from going forward. Sad but true.

As good as my SQ is, I know it is in no way the same machine you reworked. The only holdover is the stainless tub. Beyond that, cost was paramount in reworking the design. In fact, I don't even know if the current transmission is even rebuild-able.
 
All Very Interesting, BUT

Building the old Arc-Cuate transmission would still be possible except it would not fit in the current AWs LOL, and yes the tooling has probably been scraped.

Current SQ transmissions are still fully rebuildable, we had a brand new one apart two weeks ago that locked up in a washer trying to do its first load. It seems that a tiny piece of an aluminum transmission housing got in the gear-case and jammed it up. We installed a new GC but took apart the old one changed the oil cleaned it up and resealed it for future use.

SQ built these orignal AC transmissions them selves and they are still building their current transmissions in house, it generally would be stupid to source a major part like a transmission when you are building millions of them for many many years.

When McGraw Edison got away from SQ the new washer was already planned and ready for production, you have to remember that the 70s solid-tub SQs were about the most unreliable AWs being made and sold in the US, they were also one of the most poorly rated for performance and they WERE the poorest selling brand of AWs so I am sure that the new owners knew that they needed to make some big changes if the brand was to survive at all. And SQs sales did improve considerably with the new design both in commercial and in residential sales especially with the addition of using the Amana name on laundry appliances.

John L.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top