Menu

Daily Archives2017 April 21

Home

Patent Experimental Use – Invalidity in Lough V Brunswick (Fed Cir 1997)

[ad_1]

INTRODUCTION

Imagine that you are a car mechanic. You notice that engine coolant frequently corrodes a part of the motors. As a mechanic, you have to replace this part once a year. To address this problem, you design a new part to contain the coolant. Hopefully, the part you made will last longer.

To find out if the part works, you decide to test your invention. You install the part into your friends’ cars, explaining to them that you want to see if the part will help keep the motor from corroding. Your friends use their cars for two years, with no problems. Therefore, your invention outperforms existing products. You decide to patent your invention.

Some time later, a car maker begins selling a new car motor with a device like your part installed in the car. Believing that the company illegally used your patented invention, you sue to enforce your patent. However, before you have a chance to present evidence, the car manufacturer asks the court to dismiss your lawsuit. In a motion for summary judgment, the car maker argues that a trial is not necessary because the car maker has not violated the Patent Code, even if everything you say is correct. The car maker claims that you gave up your patent rights because, contrary to patent law, you spent more than a year testing your invention in public. In other words, the car maker argues that the Patent and Trademark Office should never have given you a patent.

However, you believe that you needed the two years to test your invention to ensure that your device would work as you intended. You tell the judge that a jury should decide whether a long period of testing prevents patenting an invention. You argue that whether you spent too long testing the device in public, making your patent invalid, is not a question that a judge can decide without hearing evidence on the issue.

However, the judge agrees with the car maker that this is a question of law. This ruling means that a judge decides the question without hearing evidence. Despite your objection, the judge grants the car manufacturer’s motion for a summary judgment. This means that you did not get a chance to have a jury trial because the judge ruled on a question of law without hearing your evidence.

This scenario could happen in real life. Just like the hypothetical court, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Lough v. Brunswick Corp., considered whether an inventor’s testing of an invention was a question of fact or a question of law. The Lough court held that determining an invention’s use in testing is a question of law. The Lough court’s decision has failed to remove confusion on the time limit to apply for a patent. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court will soon consider the Patent Code’s time limit for patent filing in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will settle this area of patent law.

This Note will show some of the Lough court’s errors that created the current confusion on the time limit for patent filing. The Note begins by explaining the United States patent system, including bars to an inventor’s use of an invention before filing for a patent. Part II reviews the Supreme Court’s holding in Kendall v. Winsor that these bars on the use of an invention before patenting are questions of fact. Part III shows how the Federal Circuit overlooked this Supreme Court precedent. Part IV then describes Lough v. Brunswick Corp.’s facts, procedure, holding, and reasoning. Part V analyzes the Federal Circuit’s Lough decision. Specifically, Part V argues that the Federal Circuit departed from Supreme Court case law when the court held that bars on the use of an invention before patenting are questions of law. Also, the Federal Circuit committed a sequence of errors leading up to Lough. This Note concludes that the Federal Circuit Court misinterpreted the case law and states that whether an inventor tested the invention should be a question of fact.

I. STATE OF THE LAW

A. General Patent Law

Under certain conditions, the Patent Code grants inventors exclusive rights to their inventions. If an inventor obtains a patent, the Patent Code gives an inventor monopoly rights for twenty years after applying for a patent. During this time, the patentee has the sole right to make, sell, import, or use the invention in the United States.

To avoid unfairly prolonging these monopoly rights, an inventor has only a limited time to apply for a patent to protect an invention. The reference point for this time limit is the date on which the inventor applied for a patent. The patent system creates a one-year grace period during which the inventor may use the invention before applying for a patent.

B. Public Use

If the inventor uses the invention in public more than a year before applying for a patent, an inventor loses the right to obtain a patent. If the inventor does not apply for a patent within one year after using the invention in public, the law assumes that the inventor did not want patent protection and that the inventor donated the invention to the public. As a result, the inventor is unable to obtain a patent after a year of use in public.

“Public use” of an invention occurs when anyone uses the invention in its natural and intended manner. The public use of an invention need not be publicly accessible. For example, if an airline’s domestic commercial flight has an inventor’s unpatented navigation device installed on the plane, the device is in public use. The public use doctrine is codified in 102(b) of the Patent Code. Section 102(b) of the Patent Code bars an inventor from obtaining a patent if any public use of a completed invention occurs more than one year before the inventor applies for a patent.

C. Experimental Use

Courts extend the one-year time limit if the inventor tests the invention. Section 102(b) does not explicitly consider an inventor’s need to test an invention. Instead, “experimental use” is a judicially-created doctrine intended to give an inventor extra time to refine an invention. During this time, an inventor may conduct experiments in public without losing Patent Code protections. Patent law determines that experimental use occurs when the inventor, or anyone else, tests an invention in such a manner. Experimental use of an invention may negate a 102(b) claim that a patent is invalid. This gives an inventor one year of public use, plus any reasonable period of experimental use, before 102(b) bars the inventor from obtaining a patent.

II. SUPREME COURT HELD PUBLIC USE AND EXPERIMENTAL USE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT

When deciding public use and experimental use questions, the Supreme Court has uniformly treated 102(b) bars as questions of fact. A jury usually determines a factual question. In Kendall v. Winsor, the Supreme Court has held that a jury should decide whether trial evidence is sufficient under the law to cause the loss of patent rights.

In Kendall, an inventor used workers to help test and develop a textile machine. Before completing the invention, one employee left the inventor’s business to build a similar machine for a textile company. The question for the trial jury was whether the inventor’s experimental use of the machine before applying for a patent made the patent invalid. The jury found that the patent was valid because the inventor’s work in his business was experimental, which negated the defendant’s allegation of public use.

The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court held that public use and experimental use were questions of fact and that the law supported the jury’s holding that the patent was valid because Kendall was experimenting with the invention before applying for a patent. The Supreme Court noted that only a jury could properly weigh the many facts needed to determine experimental use. This fact led the Supreme Court to reason that only a jury could determine whether an inventor had proven that experimental use negated a claim of public use. Therefore, the Supreme Court implicitly held that experimental use is a question of fact because jurors can only decide factual questions.

III. FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEPARTURE FROM KENDALL

The Federal Circuit took a different approach than the Kendall court regarding whether experimental use is a question of fact or law. Over time, the Federal Circuit decided three cases that eventually led it to conclude that experimental use is a question of law. This section will discuss these three cases to demonstrate the path the Federal Circuit took to lead to its outcome.

Federal Circuit law regarding whether experimental use is a question of fact or a question of law is not entirely consistent. The Federal Circuit has sometimes held that experimental use is a question of fact. At other times the Federal Circuit has held that experimental use is a question of law. Generally, the Federal Circuit has not provided a rationale for choosing one rather than the other. This chain of inconsistency started with one Federal Circuit case, In re Foster.

A. In re Foster

In Foster, the Patent Office Board of Appeals (“Board”) rejected an appeal of a patent denial. The Board denied the appeal because the invention was too obvious to justify a patent. After the applicant appealed, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, a predecessor to the Federal Circuit, affirmed the Board’s denial of the patent. The only issue before the court was whether the invention, a synthetic rubber material, was an obvious improvement under 103. Section 103 bars patents for improvements that are obvious to anyone familiar with the appropriate field. Thus, if Foster’s rubber material was an obvious improvement, then it would be barred under 103 from patent protection. The Foster court held that the synthetic rubber was only an insignificant, obvious improvement. Foster did not state whether 102(b) bars are questions of fact or questions of law.

B. In re Corcoran

The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals relied on Foster to decide In re Corcoran. Corcoran was an appeal of a Board rejection of a patent on a different issue than the one in Foster. Corcoran involved a combined 102(b)/103 bar. The Board held that an inventor’s competitor sold a device that made Corcoran’s device merely an obvious improvement. The issue was whether the facts supported the Board denying a patent because Corcoran exceeded the one year deadline of 102(b) coupled with the 103 bar. The invention was plastic sheeting for use in window blinds. If Corcoran’s plastic sheeting component was an obvious improvement, then 103 would bar patenting the invention. The Corcoran court affirmed the Board’s denial of a patent because similar plastic sheeting had been on sale, making Corcoran’s later invention only an obvious improvement as a matter of law. The Corcoran court based the decision on the law mentioned in Foster.

The Corcoran court relied on the Foster holding to decide that the coupled question of public use and obviousness is a question of law. However, Foster did not address this issue of public use coupled with obviousness. Its holding related to a completely separate issue — whether obviousness is a question of law.

Neither Corcoran nor Foster was solely an experimental use case. When faced with a purely experimental use case, the Federal Circuit used the Corcoran court’s reading of Foster to decide that all 102(b) bars are questions of law. This mistake became more salient when the Federal Circuit again misinterpreted the law in Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.

C.Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.

In Barmag, a machine manufacturer sued a competitor for patent infringement. The parties disputed whether a yarn processing machine was in experimental use. The district court ruled the patent invalid as a matter of law. After Barmag appealed, the Federal Circuit affirmed, finding Barmag’s patent invalid because Barmag violated a 102(b) bar. The Federal Circuit ruled that all 102(b) bars, including public use, are questions of law. Barmag did not refer to Kendall, the Supreme Court precedent that found experimental use is a factual question. Instead, the Barmag court based its ruling on a reading of In re Corcoran. However, Corcoran did not address all 102(b) bars. Corcoran related to a completely separate issue — whether the coupled question of public use and obviousness is a question of law or fact. The Federal Circuit relied on the mistaken analyses in these three cases when it decided Lough v. Brunswick Corp.

IV. LOUGH V. BRUNSWICK CORP.

Lough v. Brunswick Corp. was a patent infringement dispute over a boat part. A jury found that the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s patent. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed and ruled that whether experimental use negates public use is a question of law, properly reserved for a judge to decide.

A. Facts

In 1986, Steven G. Lough was a mechanic for a boat dealership in Sarasota, Florida. As part of his job, Lough worked with Brunswick inboard/outboard motors. While repairing those motors, he noticed that a particular seal often corroded from contact with sea water.

Lough designed a new seal to prevent this corrosion. After making six prototypes, he installed the seals in his boat and in friends’ boats. At trial, Lough claimed that he used the prototypes to test them. For more than a year Lough did not ask anyone if the seals worked well.

Lough did not patent his invention during this time either. Instead, he took more than two years to find out if the seals were adequate. His test results showed that Lough’s seal was superior to any other available at the time. Lough filed for a patent in June 1988 and the Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent a year later.

Lough then sued Brunswick for patent infringement and won a jury verdict. The issue was whether Lough’s testing the seals by placing them in friends’ boats was a public use. The jury found that Brunswick did not prove that Lough’s invention was in public use one year before the patent filing date. The trial court denied Brunswick’s subsequent motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law. Brunswick had argued that the jury verdict was incorrect because the public use of the invention happened more than one year before Lough filed for a patent.

B. Federal Circuit Decision

In its de novo review upon appeal, the court considered whether the jury properly decided that the use of Lough’s prototypes in 1986 was experimental. The court held that whether an invention was in public use more than a year before applying for a patent under 102(b) is a question of law. The Federal Circuit Court based this holding on Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems, Inc. In Manville, the Federal Circuit mentioned that experimental use is a question of law. However, the Manville court did not cite authority for this dictum.

After ruling that experimental use was a question of law, the Lough court found that Lough’s six prototypes were indeed in public use. The court reasoned that Lough provided the prototype seals to members of the public for their free and unrestricted use. The Lough court concluded that the jury’s finding of experimental use was incorrect as a matter of law.

V. ANALYSIS

The Lough court erred in its ruling. The court did not follow Supreme Court precedent. It incorrectly held that experimental use is a question of law because of a chain of errors. The Lough court should have followed Kendall, which held that experimental use is a question of fact. Instead, the Federal Circuit followed a chain of errors to find that experimental use is a question of law.

A. The Lough Court Incorrectly Chose Not To Follow The Supreme Court’s Kendall Decision

The United States Supreme Court held that experimental use is a question of fact in Kendall. Despite this binding precedent, the Lough court held that public use is a question of law, then compounded that mistake by also holding that experimental use is a question of law. The Supreme Court has already decided the proper analysis for public use and experimental use disputes. The Supreme Court has uniformly treated public use and experimental use as questions of fact. The need for consistency in United States patent law is a compelling reason to follow the Kendall holding that public use and experimental use are questions of fact.

Striving for consistency, the Supreme Court instructed courts to defer to trial courts’ findings of fact when deciding cases involving 102(b) bars. The Supreme Court has never referred to statutory bars only as questions of law. The Supreme Court precedent provided guidance for experimental use questions before the Federal Circuit.

B. Federal Circuit Erred When Reading Foster-Corcoran-Barmag Trio

The Federal Circuit has mistaken its own precedent on experimental use. The mistake in Barmag was the culmination of a chain of errors. In Barmag, the Federal Circuit held that a 102(b) bar is a question of law. Barmag did not refer to Kendall which found that experimental use is a factual question. The Barmag court’s ruling was based on an erroneous reading of In re Corcoran, which the Barmag court thought to state that 102(b) bars are questions of law.

However, In re Corcoran used the label “matter of law” regarding a combined 102(b)/103 question. In other words, the In re Corcoran court never held that a purely 102(b) question was a question of law. Instead, the court cited In re Foster for the proposition that whether a 102(b) bar exists is a question of law.

Foster does not stand for this proposition. Section 102(b) bars were not even at issue in Foster. The only issue before the court was whether the invention was an obvious improvement. If it were an obvious improvement, then it would be barred from patent protection under 103, not 102. Barmag’s weak holding resulted from stacking error upon error.

C. Federal Circuit’s Confusion Led To More Confusion

The Federal Circuit’s confusion in the Foster-Corcoran-Barmag trio led to more confusion. The Barmag court erred in using Corcoran and Foster to hold that courts may reexamine experimental use findings de novo upon appeal. These cases do not address whether 102(b) bars are questions of law or questions of fact. Unaware of this chain of errors, the Lough court committed a remarkably similar error by supporting the holding on experimental use with an unsupported authority.

Lough cited a dictum in Manville as authority for holding that experimental use is a question of law. Manville mentioned this proposition nonchalantly without citing any authority. As it did in the Foster-Corcoran-Barmag trio, the Federal Circuit again stacked error upon error by reading a case out of context. This mistake resulted in the Lough court erroneously holding that experimental use is a question of law. Furthermore, the Circuit’s mistaken interpretation in the Foster-Corcoran-Barmag trio and in Manville should require a Supreme Court reassessment of the experimental use doctrine to restore sense to 102(b) bars.

D. Why Experimental Use Should Be A Question Of Fact

The Supreme Court should reassess the experimental use doctrine by analyzing why experimental use should be a question of fact. The Supreme Court should reexamine its holding in Kendall that a jury should decide questions of experimental use. When a jury decides experimental use under a judge’s guidance, the practice will lead to consistency in experimental use decisions. In Kendall, the Court did not overrule the jury because it reasoned that limitless review of many conflicting facts could result in inconsistent rulings. If the Federal Circuit’s review of a jury decision is unlimited, the Circuit could select and choose various facts and produce inconsistent results, as it did in the Foster-Corcoran-Barmag trio.

Also, if the Federal Circuit could freely reexamine jury findings of experimental use, appeals to the Federal Circuit would likely increase. Appellate courts should minimize case loads by not opening the floodgates to anyone that disagrees with a jury verdict. In sustaining jury findings on experimental use that are not clearly incorrect, the Federal Circuit would prevent wasting lower court resources used to decide experimental use for the first time. Limiting review of jury experimental use decisions would also minimize excessive use of the Federal Circuit’s resources.

However, the Lough court held that applying experimental use as a question of fact to be a mistake. The Lough court explained that juries are unpredictable. The Lough court further commented that appellate findings will provide consistency that jury findings often lack.

Indeed, consistency may be more likely if judges decide questions of experimental use. On different cases with similar facts, different juries could give different verdicts. If judges, patent attorneys, and business people could predict a patent’s validity, appeals on experimental use would be less likely. Consequently, the Lough court held that judges should decide experimental use questions.

However, the Supreme Court aptly considered and rebutted these concerns in Kendall. Congress created the patent system to benefit the public through providing temporary rewards to the inventor in exchange for public disclosure of the technological advancement. Undue deference to a patent challenger may disrupt the bargain between the inventor and the public. As flawed as the jury system is, the best way to determine experimental use is still to have multiple jurors checked by an experienced trial judge.

Prior cases have held likewise after considering inventors’ practices and trial fact-finding procedures. De novo review of experimental use verdicts is difficult and demanding. Since reviewing courts do not have the benefit of the trial testimony, and because frequently conflicting trial evidence requires findings of credibility, experimental and public use should be questions of fact.

CONCLUSION

In Lough v. Brunswick, the Federal Circuit incorrectly decided that experimental use is a question of law. The Lough court ignored the Supreme Court’s Kendall case and misconstrued other precedent. The ignored case law provides better reasoning and guidance to the use of the experimental use doctrine. Soon the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to adopt a standard on experimental use when it rules on Pfaff v. Wells Electronics. The trier of fact, whether it be a judge or a jury, should determine whether an inventor’s use of an invention before applying for a patent constitutes experimental use.

© 1998 Frederic M. Douglas. All Rights Reserved.

[ad_2]

Source by Frederic Douglas

Police Equipment Essentials and Extras

[ad_1]

In order to do his or her job, an officer must be outfitted from head to toe with appropriate police equipment. Police supply stores sell uniforms and badges so that officers can be readily identified. Police gear is often ordered in bulk. However, a department must order certain pieces of clothing to size to accommodate the different builds of officers. Clothing and equipment is now offered for sale on the Internet.

Some items are required for all officers. For example, almost all on duty street officers need a police duty belt which is also known as a gun belt. The belt allows officers to have their hands free to interact with each other and potential criminals while carrying their gear. Equipment commonly found on gun belts includes:

  • Handcuffs- these are used to restrain a criminal. They are commonly made of metal and applied while the alleged criminal’s hands are behind his or her back. This allows the officer to easily frisk the individual or get him or her into the police car without resistance.
  • Fire arms- in the United Kingdom most police are unarmed. However, in the United States many police carry handguns. Police must be trained to use handguns and the guns must be appropriately maintained.
  • Alternative protection devices- police in the United States that do not carry handguns usually have some sort of protective police equipment such as pepper spray or a baton. Alternative protection devices are more commonly used in areas where the threat of violence is not as probable (e.g. often campus police do not carry handguns). Pepper spray is a chemical agent often used in riot control or self-defense. When an officer sprays a person with pepper spray it causes tears and temporary blindness as well as significant pain. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented people who have died following exposure to pepper spray, so police try to avoid using it whenever possible.
  • Biking supplies- police that cover small areas that do not have roads or where cars cannot navigate conveniently commonly use mountain bikes. Examples of such areas include universities and sections of large parks like Central Park in New York City. Officers on bicycles need accessories such as helmets and bike gloves.
  • First aid kits- police can often be first on the scene of an accident and need to be equipped to care for an injured person.

Other police gear is only necessary in special circumstances and is not carried by officers on an everyday basis. Such equipment is employed by specialized police task forces in the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) or in specialized units of drug enforcement divisions.

For example, ballistic vests, also known as bulletproof vests, are usually worn only when the threat of incoming gunfire is probable. This sort of police equipment is often worn by SWAT teams. The vests are worn around the torso to protect officers from the bullets of handguns and shotguns. They can even protect against hand grenades. Unfortunately, they do not protect the head or extremities.

Police are only able to do their job if they are well-equipped. For this reason advocates for police work demand that police departments are well-funded by taxpayer dollars.

[ad_2]

Source by Anne Clarke

The Benefits of Cargo Insurance

[ad_1]

For trucking companies, cargo is the most important part of business. Without cargo, there would be no need for commercial trucking. As such, truckers take care to protect and safely transport goods when they are on the road. Unfortunately, accidents do occur and are sometimes unavoidable.

When this happens, cargo may become damaged. In some cases, the trucking company may be held liable for the damage sustained, especially when it is transporting cargo for another person or company. Depending on the type of cargo, this could mean thousands of dollars in unexpected expenses.

Luckily for truckers, though, they can purchase cargo insurance to protect themselves from the damage that may result from an accident. This is helpful for a number of reasons.

When a trucker is at fault, then his or her company will be liable for the damage that occurs to the cargo without question in most cases. In some instances, trucking companies may face severe financial hits that can disturb or even shut down operations, effectively putting a company out of business.

When another driver is at fault, then he or she may be liable for the damage that the cargo endures. Unfortunately, many drivers are under-insured for this amount of damage. This means that the burden may be passed on to the trucking company, leaving it with substantial debts.

Cargo insurance, on the other hand, negates the effects of both of these situations. It covers truckers and their employers when the trucker is at fault in an accident, and some policies even cover trucking companies when their truckers are in accidents with under-insured motorists.

If you are currently looking to add cargo insurance coverage to your trucking insurance policy, get a free quote from the Chicago truck insurance experts of Insure on the Spot today.

[ad_2]

Source by James Witherspoon

Confessions of a Professional Mover

[ad_1]

When you think of a “mover,” what is the first image that comes to mind? A he-man? A common thug? Well, I happen to be a mover, so I took an online poll. And yes, the results broke my heart.

From 100 responders, the composite mover was uneducated, low-class, rude, and untrustworthy. Basically the stereotypical lowlife you see smoking cigarettes outside a pawn shop, his hat turned backward, using the f-word a lot and spitting on the sidewalk.

I admit it. I’m a mover. I lug other people’s stuff, from their brand new 60″ HDTV to their sweat-stained mattresses, 40 hours a week. I earn about $2,850 per month after taxes, drive an old pickup, and rent an apartment in a shabby part of town. My knuckles and shins are always chipped, and I have chronic pain in my back and shoulders, but no medical insurance.

I also happen to hold a bachelor of music degree, and can rock a piano like Rachmaninoff. In college, moving was a weekend job, then a summer job. I graduated in 2005, and I’m still moving.

You are probably wondering why I continue in this profession. Believe me, my friends and family ask me that all the time. Honestly? I’m good at it. Very good.

As with most industries, there is a hierarchy of company personnel. We movers would call it a “pecking order.” I prefer working in a 3-man crew, so I’ll use that for an example.

The lowest rung mover is a “lumper.” Like the name implies, the “lumper” carries boxes and folds the moving pads; he is either too inexperienced or too careless to be trusted to help carry an antique hutch or an artisan leather sofa. He might smoke and spit on the ground, but then he might be a good dude who wants to rise through the ranks.

On the next rung up is the “second man,” or simply “#2.” He has some experience, maybe even takes a degree of pride in his work, and can carry heavy and/or fragile items up and down stairs, and around tight corners. He knows many tricks of the trade, usually has a likable personality, even if a little rough around the edges.

On the top rung is the “loader.” (That’s me.) I am the guy who assembles the load in the truck so that everything fits and nothing can be damaged during transit. Believe it or not, loading a truck is a methodical process. To safely pad-wrap and arrange all the furniture, appliances, boxes, odds and ends of a 5,000 square foot home into a 2,000 cubic foot truck is difficult, especially while the customer prods you to go faster yet be more careful at the same time.

And don’t get me wrong – as the loader, I don’t hang out on the truck while the “lumper” and #2 bring me the goods. On most moves, I carry my fair share. Plus, I hustle to set the pace for the crew. #2 and I handle every item that is delicate, unwieldy, or precious to the customer. In my 10 years experience, I have developed a signature style for handling difficult items, managing the load as a whole, conducting my crew, and interacting with the customer. The results? For one, my crew always gets a fat tip when the job is done. What’s more, other movers request to work with me, and other moving company bosses want me to work for them: seriously, they call like headhunters and make me better offers. I can say, with total humility, “I am the rock star of this industry, in this town and the next town over.”

So back to the “mover” stereotype. Sadly, even a talented loader (or #2 or the “lumper”) can also be a scumbag/druggie/thief, but so can pop stars and celebrity divas (LiLo, Paris, etc.) we all know and love. I have worked with guys who stole from the customer. One guy stole a coin collection, another guy stole a lawn mower out of storage. Honestly there have been dozens of “incidents” where a colleague of mine has shown zero moral fabric. Scum of the earth kind of stuff.

Being a mover is not glamorous, and there have been times when I was ashamed to say, “I’m a mover,” like when socializing in more upscale circles – my girlfriend is a scientist and likes to hang out with that crowd, with me in tow. But that’s more my personal life… back to being a lowly mover.

It is true there are little rewards in moving, which is why movers are often such non-rewarding people, as my poll indicated. The few rewards that do exist get snatched up by guys like me, who give it our all, who catch a little buzz off of excellence, at whatever task.

And no, I don’t plan to be a moving truck loader all my life. I am arranging to buy the moving company I work for now. It’s a strong, reputable operation, and most problems stem from the high turnover rate of come-and-go “lumpers.” I believe I can recruit the very best movers in town, and from nearby towns: honest guys with skill and positive attitudes that I will provide excellent wages and benefits. It would be well worth it to have superior movers and dominate the other moving companies in town.

I cannot disclose the moving company I am in the gradual process of buying. If my crews found out, it might disrupt our dynamic. But I can credit a couple moving companies where I received the best training and leadership opportunities. They are Help-U-Move in Tri-Cities, WA ( http://help-u-move.com ) and Gentle Giant Moving Company in Seattle. I will write another article about how things are going once I am running the show!

[ad_2]

Source by Derek L. Cooper

Understanding Your Target Market – Targeting Different Social Classes – Value Segmentation

[ad_1]

Understanding Your Target Market

Understanding the target market is a crucial aspect of the communication process. When companies launch a new product or change a current product, they try to promote this particular product to increase/maximize profits. Marketers can do that through a marketing communication process. Through mass media, such as television, newspapers or internet advertisement, a target market can be reached by the communication. The Marketing manager acts as the sender and with his/her form of the communication (it could be for example the advertisement on television), the “message” is encoded. The people who view the commercial on television (which is the message channel), decode the message by using their own interpretation. Interpretations can vary from individual to individual, because everyone’s personal experiences and current circumstances influence the way one interprets the message. Thus, messages can even be interpreted differently by the same person at different times.

Feedback

The only way that marketers (and essentially also companies) can know how their message has been received is by the feedback of the viewers. Because selling is only emphasized on the target market, it is most crucial for companies and marketers to understand the target market’s feedback in this communication process.

This however is not an easy task. The target market starts a new communication process when leaving feedback by encoding their message, sending it through a message channel until the company or marketers receive the message and decode it, which has the risk of being misinterpreted as well. Hence, the communication process is quite difficult to understand correctly.

Because the target market determines the sales performance of a company, it is very important to understand the target market correctly. Feedback such as the words “I agree”, positive comments on internet web sites, many recommendations and a high sales rate of a product mean usually that the target market is providing positive feedback.

If the target market sends negative feedback, in the form of negative comments about the product or no sales activity for a given product, the marketers have to not only interpret the feedback as being negative, but also analyze and understand why the target market does not like the product.

In addition, marketers need to understand the target market in regards to consumer surveys. The answers/results need to be closely analyzed so that marketers can understand and predict purchasing behavior and develop products and services that will meet customer’s wants and needs and thus be high in demand, which in turn would lead to high profits.

Targeting Different Social Classes

It is important for companies to adjust their marketing strategy and develop different offerings for consumers in different social classes

Each social class usually has differing needs, wants, and consumption patterns. The upper class and upper middle class usually tend to invest more than people of other social classes. Other consumer behavior patterns among the upper class and upper middle social class that have been identified are that only half of the social class purchases gifts from upscale stores, while the remaining half buys gifts at regular stores. Furthermore, for this class the product characteristics determine the quality one assigns to a product rather than the price.

A distinct consumer behavior habit between the middle class and the lower class is for example that higher percentage of people in the middle-class subscribe to premium cable channels. One reason for this behavior is the financial factor, namely that more people in the middle class can afford the monthly payments for premium cable channels. Finally, homeless people who do not have shelter and often times much food, have significantly different values than people in the upper class for example. Homeless people will spend money primarily on food and shelter, which are their primary and basic needs. In contrast, since upper class consumers have shelter and food, they rather take it for granted and value luxurious items more.

There are many other distinct consumer buying habits that each social class has. And only with the knowledge of these differences, can a company develop an offering that will suit a targeted social class in their wants, needs, and expectations. Offerings that would be valued and affordable by the upper class, such as a Rolls-Royce car are not affordable for someone in the working class. Thus, other car models that will be affordable to the working class as well as meet their needs of commuting every day to and from work have to be developed.

To meet consumers’ values, needs, and expectations of all social classes, a company should develop different offerings for consumers in each social class.

Value Segmentation

Not only should a marketing strategy and/or an advertising campaign be adjusted to the social class one is targeting, but it can also be based on another factor.

Value segmentation is the process of identifying groups of consumers who have a similar or same set of values that differ from those of other groups.

Examples

One example is the market for cosmetics. Women who value luxury and price as well as brand name to be considered someone who values high quality and has the finances to purchase the product might buy a Lancome Definicils for $25, while someone who simply wants to lengthen and darken their lashes and doesn’t value the brand name or quality of the mascara might rather purchase the Maybelline Full’n Soft Mascara from Walmart for $7.

Another example would be the purchase of a cell phone. While some people, especially teenagers, will value for a cell phone to be “new”, and “trendy” as well as expensive and having the latest technology and thus purchase an iPhone for $450, another group of people might simply value the ability to communicate with a cell phone regardless of their location in the United States and buy an LG Rumor for $80.

Another product market where value segmentation can be easily observed is the car-market. The group of people valuing their status as perceived by others might purchase an expensive Lexus or an Audi, while another group of people valuing the basic ability of transportation from one place to another will buy an inexpensive Toyota that will meet their needs.

[ad_2]

Source by Nicole Elmore