DC Craneman wrote:There were several earlier pieces published in either "American Crane and Transport" or "Cranes Today." Likewise, there was an earlier suit Manitowoc vs. Lanning in which Manitowoc also prevailed. I reference these same publications as sources.
The substance of the actions were that Mr. Lanning was employed by Manitowoc as an engineer and in that role was the liaison between Manitowoc and its patent legal counsel. While employed by Manitowoc, Mr. Lanning was bound by employment agreements including non disclosure provisions as well as non-complete provisions after his employment. One of the pieces of intellectual property was the variable position counter weight. It was alleged that Mr. Lanning after being advised of what he was bound to by written agreement and acknowledging such at the time of his departure for Manitowoc entered the employment of Sany within 120 days of leaving and apparently recruited or attempted to recruit other Manitowoc engineering personnel.
The only items that I have not seen publicly disclosed is what damages if any were awarded Manitowoc in the earlier matter of Manitowoc vs. Lanning and if Sany under any agreements had indemnified Mr. Lanning regarding those damages, legal costs and possible lost benefits.
The final ruling in the matter referenced above should include the penalties or sanctions granted Manitowoc. My memory is that Manitowoc's request included precluding Sany's import or manufacture of machines utilizing the contested technology and the possible destruction of existing machines utilizing the technology.
Over the years several manufacturers have used patents to protect their intellectual property. The Manitowoc ringer is one and that is why American developed the Guy attachment and the Sky horse trailing counterweight for use until the patent ran out and the Ring Horse was introduced. Likewise there were some battles between tower attachments and outrigger designs between P&H and Lorain. P&H ultimate discontinued their tower production and Lorain ceased using the angled and extending out rigger bean and reverted to an out and down design. Link Belt likewise for many years had the quick disconnect ring and house jacks for their larger truck cranes protected. High strength tubular boom was another item that for a period was patented (possibly American). There were also battles between Demag and Liebherr over luffing boom designs.
One of the most interesting legal documents I ever read was the ruling in a Manitowoc vs. American case where American contested that the entire Ringer design was an infringement on their older Skyhorse patent for some minor back mast rigging detail. They lost.
The judge got into the particulars of how patent law is decided by precedent.....namely, that you can only patent something that is "not obvious to someone skilled in the art of the particular field" and that "Patent law is not intended to grant legal monopolies to every shade of innovation or slight improvement." I'm paraphrasing....but the ruling was very interesting.
Its interesting that after all that drama.....the Skyhorse concept (wheeled counterweight) won out over the ring! Reminds me of the telegraph (Edison) vs. telephone (Bell). In 2014......all data is moved with dots and spaces.....virtually the same as telegraph. The telephone, as an analog device per Bell is almost extinct.
Technological progress is fascinating.
The fundamental aim....is to do everything that is attempted in a first-class way."
-Pierre S. Dupont
