"Claus was recently informed that his new turbine could be in violation. -ADMIN"

Although patents are a so-called way to establish a sort of an monopoly for a fixed period of time. It is frowned upon when, any patent holder engages in strong arming. Its best if you own a patent on something, to offer a license, once monitary gain thru production has been identified. Im not even sure Claus has become anytype of competition. Theres always going to be individuals that will create a one-off, and quite frankly its not considered a real threat. So whats going on is not only wrong, but most likely it will lead to patent re-examination once an action has been initilized, not a good thing for the guy who has the patent.

 By the time the dust settles, its going to cost both sides, because of a lack of better judgement by the patent holder. Not good for a whole spectrim of reasons. But supposedly the first guy to apply for the patent has some presidence. This can be a really sore topic, YIKES. In alot of cases patents are good, such as the case with neo magnets, done right, the most will benifit.

according to his site he is focused on research and development
and not a manufacture, if he does not build units for sale he is
not infringing on anyones patent, correct?

if they are trying to enforce patent rights based on the attachment
of a generator so that it is freefloating, that drive system has been in use
for years, by diyers that connect an alternator to the shaft of a briggs and stratton or the like shaft to shaft with a solid coupler.

as a matter of fact that is exactly what i use to test power input to rewound alternators for my own amusement,

is there more to the story?

if not, if i were Klaus i would tell them to pound sand
let them hire an atty to draft a letter to cease and desist
which i am sure they could do for 50bucks with some ambulance chaser.

i see no way however that there claim would hold up in court, all Klaus would have to do is demonstrate how another type of brg in the drive system would have benefit
and he therefore would clear the patent.

seems like a bunch of crap to me.

"the stator and rotor are carried by the generator shaft, to allow the generator to follow the flexing movement of the turbine shaft....the bearings being provided to allow flexing of the turbine shaft."

Patent 6911741
Calin 1: "Wind power plant with a wind turbine with a turbine shaft ..."
A lathe is not a wind turbine, therefore the patent does NOT apply. ALL conditions must apply.

Why not a copy of the letter? Would have been most helpful to see the exact text from Scanwind. Additionally this patent is about a non rotating coupling to stabilize the gear or generator, again a Lathe does not apply. Looking over the patent its about a third bearing before the gear or generator.

Many inventor's or IP houses hire an agency to search for key words, with a match you get a letter, they are fishing. You should respond that you will work to revoke their patent if they follow their claims since what you have been doing predates their patent. And their letter exclaims their interpretation of what their patent is, which is un-patentable!.

They are fishing. Their goal is to get you to settle without going to court, (Many believe it can be cheaper than going to court). The threat of a lawyer involved scares many to just pay up if the numbers are small enough.

As another person mentioned, each and every element of the claim must be present in the accused device for infringement to be present.  With that in mind, I'd like to direct your attention to the following claim limitation:

"...wherein a motor (3) is provided to effect the pivoting..."  

I have never seen any type of wind turbine that uses such a motor (but that doesn't mean much, the only turbines I have really looked at are those on this website).  I assume that such a device could be used to forceably furl the blades out of the wind.  But active control of the furling strikes me as pretty dangerous and wasteful for a number of reasons. But leaving that aside, I also note that the turbines I looked at on the Wind Mission website, e.g. the Windflower, all use passive furling.  In that design, at least, no "motor (3) is provided to effect the pivoting" of the turbine.  In that and other similar designs, the wind itself effects the pivoting of the turbine.  For that reason alone, I don't think you have to worry about this patent.