SuperTeaching: Further Reading
October 28, 2009 by Jason Varnedoe
Published on Oct. 21, 2009, The Exponent ran an article regarding Bernhard Dohrmann’s business venture SuperTeaching. In this article The Exponent pointed out several legal entanglements in which Dohrmann was involved and their relationship to his newest venture, SuperTeaching.
The Exponent has received several requests for further information, which we provide here. A good source was an article published by the San Francisco Chronicle on June 7, 1995, entitled “Ex-Marin Executive Guilty of Contempt.” The URL can be accessed at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/06/07/BU56292.DTL.
Regarding Dohrmann’s patents, a quick search of the U.S. Patent Office reveals the pending patents of SuperTeaching to be 20090148825, 20080248455, and 200220132216.
Naturally, when faced with any amount of unknown information a search for the person’s name is performed using a search engine like Google or Yahoo.
The UAH home for SuperTeaching is http://superteaching.uah.edu/
Jason,
Would you mind providing a copy of the original article? Couldn’t find it in the archives.
Also, Dohrmann has claimed in multiple venues that the SuperTeaching technology is patented. As in he has been awarded patents. That is an outright lie. Anyone can apply for a patent. Actually getting patents is another matter. Whether Dohrmann eventually receives patents is beside the point for two reasons. One, he is still lying now. Two, a patent wouldn’t mean that the technology is effective or desirable in the marketplace. SuperTeaching remains unproven.
See this from the USPTO:
1. What do the terms “patent pending” and “patent applied for” mean?
A. They are used by a manufacturer or seller of an article to inform the public that an application for patent on that article is on file in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The law imposes a fine on those who use these terms falsely to deceive the public.
—
Dohrmann is mischaracterizing the patent status of the SuperTeaching product, which means he is breaking the law as explained by the USPTO.
More background can be found here as well.
Curious, why did my previous comment get deleted?
It never got deleted – the comment just wasn’t approved yet. That’s all. =)
http://exponent.uah.edu/?p=1570 is the first article.
My bad!