[mcliffy2]

But patenting some of these things, with such a small volume market, only serves to drive the cost up quickly, and just having a patent doesnt mean thats it. You have to take someone to court to actually enforce it, and even at that, you may or may not win. Patents that are very simple, like the whole 'cone body' would most likely be lost all together if it went to court. Expert testimony would result in the finding that cone shape body skimmers have been around long before KZ came up with it. And which do you think looks better in that situation? To have a patent that you can at least threaten people with, or to lose it all together?

As a patent attorney, I'm very curious what your basis for this is. Juries and courts alike are far from predictable....I cant give out legal advice, but your logic is all over the place, you are confusing obviousness and anticipation. The fact everyone else copies it after you do it, is in fact evidence, its not obvious. There are tons of patents on things that seem "simple" after the fact.