January 10, 2013
We get email: Dillon Burroughs, inventor of the Aerating Wine Glass, fires a shot across my bow
Above, an email he sent me yesterday.
Your wish is my demand — wait a sec... that's not right.
No matter, let's move on.
Here's a link to the January 22, 2012 post (below)
Burroughs is alluding to.
I wonder what the folks running 7Gadgets and OhGizmo — the websites where the glass first appeared, which I linked to in my post last year — had to say in response to their cease-and-desist letters.
Or did Burroughs decide to start with the small potatoes publishers like moi, then work his way up the food chain?
Or maybe he's already been ignored or slapped down by their corporate mouthpieces so he's choosing to vent his spleen and wrath here.
Big mistake, son.
After sleeping on it — no, sillybilly, I didn't print it out and put the hard copy under my pillow... what's wrong with you? — I've decided to take a whole new approach to this kind of thing.
Whereas in the past I'd fire off some angry, snarky letter about my First Amendment rights and all to publish stuff I find without fear of retaliation from head cases and inventors gone mad — sometime one and the same — today we're gonna take this situation to a different level.
You — joehead Nation — are going to dictate my response.
I am going to do nothing until I hear the collected wisdom and idiocy of my beloved readers on this topic.
And among you are some very expensive and high-powered legal minds, in a number of these United States (yo, Alaska, I got you on my radar, yeah! — and that Roy Cohn manqué in Georgia with blood running down her chin is not someone you want to encounter in a dark alley or a courtroom — but I digress) and around the world.
Bonus: Everything you say or think appears right here on the front page the moment you spew it out.
Unmitigated, unreviewed for political correctness or sanity by the usual censors and minders.
Gang — ain't NO other place in the world you can get big and famous this fast — and do it anonymously as well.
Laissez les bons temps rouler.
Yo Dillon, you wrote:
I am asking you to either take down the post, or replace it with the proper Aerating Wine Glass made by our company Chevalier Collection, Ltd.
Please let me know how you intend to respond in this matter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Looks like you got your wish pretty promptly, what, with this timely response 28 hours after I first heard from you?
Don't be surprised if some of my homies get in touch directly — it was thoughtful of you to provide your phone number and they like the human touch.
They don't get a whole lot of that from me here, what with me constantly bitch-slapping them to "think like an anesthesiologist."
While we let things take their course, I'm having my Crack Patent/Trademark Team®™© send you a gift copy of my latest book (below):
Most people (well, maybe 17 people to date but let's not go there now) pay 99 cents — cheap at twice the price IMHO.
It'll help calm your jangled nerves as you deal with the riff-raff and incoming likely to result from this post.
There are testimonials as to the book's efficacy on file here should you require supporting evidence.
And if they're not here, well, I'm sure they're in some alternate universe, easily accessible via Gray Cat-monitored wormhole.
Oh, yeah — have you met my cat?
That's her above and below.
She brooks no nonsense so make sure your future correspondence with me is on point and laser-focused.
Her claws and fangs are very sharp.
And she can see right through you.
January 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We get email: Dillon Burroughs, inventor of the Aerating Wine Glass, fires a shot across my bow:
Dillon's request was so meek, clumsy, and devoid of threats (either veiled or outright) that it must not have been penned by a member in good standing of any state bar... ha! That said, since he asked nicely I think it would not be inappropriate to add a note on the original post explaining the situation. However I probably would not take the first post down. The Trevi glass may not be original but the squiggly bit makes for a nicer look than the Chevalier glass. Though I suppose the Chevalier glass gets squigglier and squigglier the more you pour...
Posted by: pilai | Jan 14, 2013 4:33:10 PM
Read the mail a couple of times. I read no threatening tone, nor were there any demands to be seen. It was both professional and to the point.
If it were my blog, I would replace the picture and be done with it. No skin off your nose.
My 0.0266903 cents.
Posted by: Rattlesnake Jake | Jan 14, 2013 8:24:29 AM
The BIG thing is that Dillon has attempted to bully Joe into creating a post.
Dillon does not have that right.
How would you feel if I came to your website and told you that it amounted to "Internet Clutter" and must be taken down?
Dillion is in the wrong. Joe appeasing him would be wrong, too.
Did you ever stop to ask yourself how Dillon came to find a post (reproducing a wine glass that he claims to hold a patent to), months old, and then send his demand letter to Joe?
Do you suppose that Mr. Dillon Burroughs went looking for images with search engines? He set out to bully people. In the orderly world that you promote, I find no place for bullies. Do you?
Posted by: 6.02*10^23 | Jan 13, 2013 10:57:26 PM
I'm with Jesse. I don't understand why this is a big issue. If I had any concerns about the validity of Mr. Burroughs' patent claim, I'd write to him to find out more. Otherwise, I'd just modify the post as he politely requests.
I had a similar issue with a post on my own blog, and I immediately took action to support the person whose work was being infringed upon. http://jdorganizer.blogspot.com/2012/03/got-books-get-bookends.html
Posted by: Jeri Dansky | Jan 13, 2013 5:59:10 PM
After pouring my 1st non-aerated glass of red tonight, here's more info to enlighten everyone and possibly put this to bed. Turns out doing a google search for the Trevi aerating wine glass does produce many sites that link the same photo Joe has posted but..... when you click to buy as I did (four times in a row I tried) it forwards to the Trevi Aerating Wine Decanter not the glass depicted, thus it is a sham to me and what they seemingly did is"dummied up" or prototyped 1 exact aerating wine glass only to have it link to their "legal"( I hope ) aerating decanter. How bizarre and really wrong and bad all at the same time! Shame on you Trevi. You should not do this. It is so morally wrong on every level. Bad, bad, Bad. Good news for Dillon is he has a lock on the wine glass as he should by his patented rights. But friends....
Joe has absolutely no obligation to remove this post. It is in public domain, must he research evey post with a lawyer before posting? It is entirely up to his discretion for he must take these types of e-mails (which must manifest from time to time ) and decide whether to "bow" to the agitated parties demands. Where Dillon screwed up is in his delivery to Joe. It reads soo demanding and yet while the facts are there Dillon needs to explain it just like I did and I know Joe would not be jilted as anyone would have with lines like "Please let me know how you intend to responde to this matter". That's a demand that can set anyone off !#$%&*
Choose words carefully Dillon. Words have so much impact, especially to us mindful creative types.
Posted by: friskypainter | Jan 12, 2013 12:54:26 AM
what's a Continuiation?
Posted by: sherlock | Jan 11, 2013 2:17:17 PM
A patent in the United States is an "exclusive" right. It reserves to the inventor the right to exclude any other person or entity from making, practicing, and producing the invention.
Joe wrote about a post found on another website. Joe has not made, practiced, or produced the invention protected by a U.S. patent.
The demand made by that whiney little rich boy Dillon that Joe do ANYTHING is wholly unsupported by law.
Put simply: this is an example of a bully claiming rights that he doesn't have.
If GC won't bury him in her litter box then I'll just have to post snarky reviews anyplace that Dillon manages to find to sell his stupid "invention".
I'd wager a fair sum that the patent is invalid for failure to meet the standards for a Utility Patent. Patent examiners can be very sloppy and this patent is the result of a Continuiation In Part from a 2008 application. Seems like Dillon and his three buddies tossed a fair sum of money at the prosecution of their patent.
Posted by: 6.02*10^23 | Jan 11, 2013 12:55:15 PM
Honestly, I am not sure what the problem. I have seen harsh cease and desist letters before, and this is not one that I can see. He states his case - 'I own the rights to this, the other company does not and is no longer makeing it' and 'Hey, when people are looking for an arreating glass, they are not finding mine, but this other one, Could you maybe remove the post linking to this infringing device, or replace it with mine?'
This is a letter from the owner, not a letter from a laywer demanding that you remove the article or else. I found it quite polite, but maybe there is some part of this that we are not seeing.
Posted by: Jesse | Jan 11, 2013 11:37:25 AM
Well, ahem..I must apologize to Mr. Burroughs, after sleeping on this I just viewed his patent (which I should have done earlier) and must say he and his partners have the sole legal right to produce and sell this modifyed wine glass. The Trevi seems to be a direct rip off of theirs. That would infuriate me big time too and I would do anything to make it cease. My only concern is that Trevi has somehow been granted a patent also. I don't have time to research that. Please accept my apology sir, it's a great product if it in fact enhances the wine taste and experience.
Posted by: friskypainter | Jan 11, 2013 10:28:01 AM
1. There is a patent. (It took four idiots to "invent" this!)
2. Joe has not infringed.
3. This jerk does not have any legal standing to demand that Joe do anything.
4. Most patents are invalidated where litigation ensues.
5. Each and every one of Joe's posts requires more intellectual effort than "inventing" that stupid wineglass.
6. Dillon has Spinach stuck in his teeth.
Posted by: 6.02*10^23 | Jan 11, 2013 8:48:33 AM
If I put myself in his shoes, being myself a small business owner, I would want to make sure nothing rubs against the possibility of selling my product.
Maybe his email is a little harsh but hey Joe, its hard enough trying to make a living, and since you are a nice person, I am sure you can meet his demands, doesn't hurt you and would probably help him a bit too.
Posted by: Matthieu | Jan 11, 2013 6:52:53 AM
Honey - please check – I think a kerfuffle got into Joe’s chicken coop
Posted by: sherlock | Jan 11, 2013 12:54:10 AM
Perfect music Flautist! Better yet Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Trevi? shall be there and we shall declare the winner, screw the patents and paperwork.
Posted by: friskypainter | Jan 11, 2013 12:16:32 AM
Perhaps a gracious offer to host a joehead nation wine and cheese partay with Mr. Burroughs providing the wines and gifty cases of that unique Aerating stemware (joeheads jointly providing a lovely cheese or two)? I'll be happy to provide the music...
Posted by: Flautist | Jan 11, 2013 12:05:53 AM
As a U.S. patent holder (6,494,315) this situation interests me. From where I sit there is no way Dillon could "shut down" Trevi with a sharp tongued letter. How CRASS to think he has accomplished this! It depends entirely who has the first filed patent application. America recently changed it's patent system. It is "first to file" not "first to invent" and much in accordance with the rest of the globe now. Futher more his belligerent, condesending, and demanding tone sickens me. Joe, my take is PUT THE POST BACK UP until he can back his spew with real facts and docs. Have him submit Trevi's docs to you too. Make him work for it and prove it, for his letter seems false to me.
Posted by: friskypainter | Jan 11, 2013 12:03:43 AM
Advice from the movie _Lawrence of Arabia_:
BRIGHTON: Look, sir, we can't just do nothing.
ALLENBY: Why not? It's usually best.
PS @whitney Schlitz is not Schlitz. "During the reformulating period of the early 1970s, the original Schlitz beer formula was lost and never included in any of the subsequent sales of the company. Through research of documents and interviews with former Schlitz brewmasters and taste-testers, Pabst was able to reconstruct the 1960s classic formula." Yeah, right.
Schlitz died in 1981. Pabst acquired the rights to the name in 1999 and now produces a beer under that name, but it ain't Schlitz.
Posted by: antares | Jan 10, 2013 10:02:38 PM
I agree with Peachie. Those of us that live off of our mind and not physical work have to protect our intellectual properties.
I personally find the product to be something that would end up being highly inconvenient and a gimmick...I could see cleaning be a pain in the ass, and any fine crystal is going to be fragile to an extent with this leading to unsound structures, but hell...the dude was trying to create something new. Just as a gimmick alone, he deserves to be able to protect his work.
That said, Moleman has a point...patent pending gives no protection what so ever until pending is no longer pending. Still, I think someone should try to understand someone trying to protect their inventions and be kind to the inventors.
Posted by: clifyt | Jan 10, 2013 9:35:45 PM
I think we all would do whatever to protect our property
(if indeed this is his).
Soooo, I would write back asking him to remain a reader of BOJ
and place his letter with the original post.
Posted by: joepeach | Jan 10, 2013 6:20:49 PM
More evidence that wine people are kinda snobby. Give me a Schlitz over the fanciest wine any day.
Posted by: whitney | Jan 10, 2013 3:12:58 PM
It is worse!!!!
The jackoffs at Dillon Burroughs' digs in Los Angeles don't have patent protection!
This is their admission: https://www.chevaliercollection.com/science-environment.php
"Patents pending" a statement that has no legal meaning whatsoever!
Dumb bully-boy Dillon is claiming rights that he neither has, nor is he likely to have.
Talk about total bull!
Posted by: 6.02*10^23 | Jan 10, 2013 3:01:04 PM
An image and review of a knock-off (especially where there is no infringing act on your part - you had no idea that the item was a knock-off and you make no profit from the sale of the knock-off/infringing item) is not a tort. It is not a statutory wrong. It is merely a bit of reportage - and your publication of the titular "patent holder's" screed eliminates any Lanam Act issue.
This type of overreach by titular patent holders/marketers/distal GI Tract exits is abhorrent.
Take a tip from the famous comedy duo, Bob & Ray, and do what they did when the New York Times Theater Critic (John Simon) panned their "Night of Two Stars" show at Carnegie Hall. They had a five-day-a-week drive time radio show in NYC and from the day that Simon's review was published they included some hilarious reference to him in every day's show. Ridicule and satire are effective tools.
Dillon Burroughs wears mis-matching socks!
Does Maurice's estate know that the "Chevalier" Collection is attempting to pass themselves off as a charming French actor?
I'm going to call these folks and ask if Dillon's Mom could be a tad bit more diligent dressing him for work on the Internet.
As for the products these idiots market - well, I'll not buy one.
Now, to look up that Patent Lawyer and sent him/her a note about this post. I don't think that this is a proper warning and I plan to put the issue to him/her together with a polite request for a response. The average hourly billing rate for a patent attorney in the U.S. is $750 - with any luck the firm will put a few associates to work on the response.
There are a few things that you don't do in this world: "You don't tug on Superman's Cape, You don't Spit into the Wind, You don't pull the mask of that Old Lone Ranger.." and you don't mess around with BOJ!
(Lyrics: Copyright Jim Croce/EMI Publishing)
Posted by: 6.02*10^23 | Jan 10, 2013 2:00:38 PM
I believe that you should have gone with the bookofjoe policy to simply ignore the things that you find annoying or foolish. Since it is too late for that response I would suggest deleting your post mentioning his company. If the first image on Google is for bookofjoe and not his company, you are his best advertisement. Instead I would link to www.riedelusa.net. Riedel wine glasses are actually cheaper than the aerating glass and set the standard for wine glasses. While I really enjoy gimmicks and doodads, when the best cost less than the fun toy version there is no real value in the shiny toy.
Posted by: Ken | Jan 10, 2013 1:00:38 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.