Advanced Release of Interview with Patent Inventor William Gindlesperger from e-LYNXX Corporation

Posted on December 9, 2008

0


As the first publication, electronic or otherwise, to post the following excerpt from today’s interview with William Gindlesperger (following my commentary below), who was recently awarded a patent for his industry changing Gindlesperger Method, the reaction to this landmark award has ignited the businessworld, and in particular the printing industry. 

In a recent printweek.com article by Matt Whip, the UK-based publication reported the following opinion expressed by a UK patent office official:

“However, the UK patent office said that merely transferring a process that already existed to an electronic platform was unlikely to result in an enforceable patent.

Merely computerising the whole procedure wouldn’t be anything you could patent,” said Jim Calvert, deputy director of the UK Intellectual Property Office.”

What the patent official does not appear to understand is the true nature or elements of the methodology as it relates to the patent itself.

I had actually touched on these unique elements in a post I wrote earlier this year about my extensive research, which was partially funded by the Government of Canada’s Scientific Research and Experimental Development Program, on the utlization of advanced algorithms in the procurement process.  And in particular, the development of my theory of strand commonality.  Here is a link to the article; https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/similarity-hueristics-iterative-methodologies-and-the-emergence-of-the-modern-supply-chain/   

The fact is that the Gindlesperger Methodology extends far beyond the mere automation of a manual process.  It possess elements that are very much in line with the theory of strand commonality in which unique attributes from seemingly disparate streams of data or information are linked to produce a collective real-world outcome.  And it doesn’t matter if there are only two or three strands or variable streams as the primary difference is in the complexity of the algorithms (re the greater the number of strands or variable streams, the more complex the algorithms).

By implying that the Gindlesperger invention is simply an automation of an existing or known manual process without understanding the methodology behind it, is tantamount to making a comparison between the horse and buggy and the automobile.  While both are certainly methods of transportation, they hardly share similar characteristics.

And while the above distinction is important, what is also worth noting is that The Gindlesperger Method applies only to U.S. based companies or non-U.S. organizations doing business in the U.S.

In response to my observations, William Gindlesperger had this to say:

“Since the European Community and Canada currently do not recognize business method patents, our patent is only applicable in the United States (or to foreign entities doing business in the United States).  We fully agree that our new procurement patent does much more than “merely computerising” an established buying procedure.  Before this invention, the prior art had no methodology for achieving these two goals simultaneously: (1) identifying and managing a supplier pool large enough to obtain the benefits of enhanced pricing competition without incurring prohibitive administrative costs or causing a loss of quality control; and (2) creating a pool of suppliers willing to offer extremely low pricing based on their open production capacity on a regular and consistent basis, while also identifying individual suppliers who will offer such pricing on any given job.  The Gindlesperger Method embodied in the patent is novel precisely because it overcomes this deficiency in the prior art and not simply because it uses a computer-operated system to accomplish these goals.”

As indicated in my Friday post, I will continue to expand upon the significance of this patent as well as drill down into the ubiquitous nature of its breakthrough methodology and related applications.

 

CHAMBERSBURG, PA – December 9, 2008 – Newly Awarded Patent Explained: Can Have Positive Impact On Your Bottom Line (An Interview with William Gindlesperger, inventor of “The Gindlesperger Method.”)

With cost savings being wrung out of nearly every aspect of doing business, the procured cost of specification-defined goods and services is likely the last bastion for high-value added savings.  This area is now ripe for deep cost reductions, and that is why U.S. Business Method Patent No. 7,451,106, known as The Gindlesperger Method, is so significant.

Use the following link to access the interview with William Gindlesperger in its entirety: http://www.slideshare.net/piblogger/an-interview-with-william-gindlesperger-interview-dec-9-2008-presentation  

Web Resources: 

The Gindlesperger Method (Case Reference): http://www.slideshare.net/piblogger/the-gindlesperger-method-case-reference-presentation  

e-LYNXX Corporation Contact: joseph.patterson@e-lynxx.com, or 888-876-5432

The Procurement Insights Blog reaches 300,000 syndicated subscribers each month worldwide, and is currently available in several languages including Chinese, Russian, and Spanish.  Look for new language versions being added in the near future.

Use the following link to learn how the Procurement Insights Sponsorship Program generates tangible revenue opportunities for our sponsors: http://www.slideshare.net/piblogger/pi-sponsorship-program-lead-generation-presentation-751195