From: blockedofcourse@foo.invalid   
      
   On 2/5/2026 7:30 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   > Don Y  wrote:   
      
   >> [I learned, early on, that its too easy to patent things   
   >> that may be of dubious value; spend that effort making   
   >> BETTER things!]   
   >   
   > Many of the largest firms used patents as a way of crippling their   
   > rivals' designs.  Very occasinally this forced designers to come up with   
   > some quite brilliant and innovative solutions - but more usually it   
   > resulted in every company's product being sub-optimal.   
      
   But, almost every patent is "obvious", after it's been issued.   
      
   Identifying the *need* is the biggest issue.  Once you've gone   
   and drawn attention to a perceived need, others will step in   
   and come up with ways around your claims.   
      
   (Rotary) Tablet presses operate at rates that far exceed   
   the technology's ability to "weigh" the individual tablets   
   produced.  Unlike *eggs*, which can have a nominal size,   
   averaged out by the other ova in the container, tablets   
   have to meet individual specifications to ensure the   
   "actives" in EACH dose meet the criteria defined by the   
   manufacturer and approved by the FDA (or equivalent organization).   
      
   You can't say, "Well, over the course of 10 days, the AVERAGE   
   dose will be on target..."   
      
   The easiest way to "control"/monitor tablet weight is to   
   monitor the forces exerted as the tablet is being formed,   
   to a specific geometry -- if the forces increase, then   
   there must be more material in the fixed-size cavity.   
   Unlike weighing individual tablets at 200/second, it   
   is relatively easy to monitor those forces at that rate   
   and selectively "discard" any found to be outside the   
   control limits for the process.   
      
   [The assumption is the actives are evenly distributed in   
   the granulation being compressed -- a different problem   
   entirely]   
      
   But, once you think about it, you could just as easily   
   exert a constant FORCE and monitor the dimensions of the   
   formed tablet -- a thicker tablet formed under a constant   
   force obviously contains more material!   
      
   Which approach is better at ensuring accurate monitoring?   
   Which is better at ensuring accurately produced tablets?   
      
   Both suffer from the realities of any physical process:   
   if the cavity in which the tablet is formed deviates from   
   other "identical" cavities (typically, you produce several   
   dozen tablets "at the same time", each in a different   
   cavity), then your basic assumption is off.   
      
   There are at least three STATIC mechanical tolerances in the   
   fabrication of each "tabletting station", not to mention   
   the instrumentation that is used to monitor production.   
      
   I.e., the "patentable idea" opens the door for myriad   
   other claims that address the practical limitations of   
   the "big idea".   
      
   [And, what do you do when someone figures out how to   
   ACTUALLY weigh individual tablets and your business model   
   falls apart as the patent proves to be worthless in light   
   of those new developments?  Maybe someone making effervescents   
   will be content to use your outdated, indirect and imprecise   
   control/monitoring scheme but most others will be coerced   
   to using the current state of the art -- leaving you to license   
   the weighing technology from some other party!]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)