Well, capitalism is a favorite for bashing. Many people think everyone should contribute everything they have and everyone gets an equal share of the profits regardless of contribution. Sound good?

Sometimes half an eg is better than an empty shell.

Intellectual Property whether its published or patented (patent laws are different in the U.S. than elsewhere). I understand that in the U.S. its not the patent that can hold up in court, its the dated art work. Very hard or I should say expensive to defend either way.

I found it's the depth of your money pit to pay for the attorneys to try to defend your work. An it's is usually the bigger corporations that have deeper pockets that can hold out longer than the "common inventor".

slightly off subject.....One way to cure that, is to have an attorney's be more effective, is have them be held liable for malpractice, and not have them self watched by the state's bar. which consists of other attorney's.

As far as ego's are concerned. Some people would love to be "stroked" while their idea's or products more than likly do not even work.

As far as ego's are concerned. Some people would love to be "stroked" while their idea's or products more than likly do not even work.

I like to be stroked if I'm contributing good stuff to people who appreciate it and are trying for themselves too. Even if the ideas are bad, a thank you is always appreciated...

I don't think any of us like the freeloaders who never contribute themselves (Mr Guest generally!)

Worked in methods for just under ten years, and though my concepts saved money in manufacturing, and I alway consulted with the workers on the floor, not looked on very well at first, but it got good results, all one got was, thank you well done, and my salary off course. Not complaining as I did enjoyed my job, and sleepless nights. My ambition on retiring was to have a work shop where I could work on my own ideas, it has not happened. Been down the road of applying for patents, I own one, its a long and expensive exercise. So where does one turn to express ones self? I see that frustration in some of the post I read, I don't know the answer, but I think an outlet is necessary, and recognition should be forthcoming a bit more than thank you. But then again is working in engineering and associated fields a reward in itself?

Regards JD.

There is frustration, but the frustration is focused not on the development of the ideas, it's the implementations and rewards.

One looks at it as, you get the right idea, at the right time, in the right place. But you only realize it was the right idea, time and place afterwards.

e.i. never give up

John,

Are you trying to say that we give too much professional informationa away here? Information that an engineer in close physical surroundings to the poster could disclose for a fee. If so, I have often thought about it. We spent the time, went to school, learned a lot of things that not many people even care to know. So why should we give it away for free?

Mike

I don't think we (CR4) give too much away, though sometimes it's maybe a thin line. A bit of information-sharing is, I feel, very healthy and useful to all, especially if it's reciprocated. We're not compelled to give anything, but it wouldn't be much of a site if we didn't!

What I don't like here (re. the radio program) is the idea that big corps can get free information feeds from lots of little people (who are effectively unpaid), and just get bigger profits for little or no R&D outlay.

Aside, I do draw the line at doing peoples googling for them.

One thing that happens, I would not say it as giving things away, but trading ideas and information.

An example is, I have design Ultrafiltration Units, at my company I had worked for as well as when I had my own company.

It came down to a colleague had information that I needed. and the colleague needed information that I had. The information I ha, had little value to the company. And the info my colleague had what they thought was a low value info to their company. But to each of us, that info was valued. And the information is shared.

If it was a company I worked for, I let the owners or officers of the company approve of the release.

I would call it more like networking.

Unfortunately, that can be abused by individuals looking to advance themselves, which falls under another category, industrial espionage.

IT is not all that profitable to invent anything in the long run under current legal systems in US. Lesser public products patents are regularly violated by chinese based companies on behalf of Large international (many US based) corporations, and the small inventors are not protected by the law and can not afford to fight the infringement, thus they fail. The more important developments would be scrutinized by the government and possibly deemed a national security issue, or held up in product testing until the intellectual properties protections were out of date. It is my personal opinion that intellectual properties should only be assigned to persons demonstrably directly responsible for the concept and design, and the corporations can then pay these persons for the rights to manufacture and distribute the product. This would dramatically change the pharma industry, as now the chemist and not the sales people would be receiving the wealth. Additionally, patent infringements should collect court costs and legal damages for those infringed, a penal costs should be assessed against those who infringe scientific and engineering intellectual properties, and companies that buy and sell such items should be prosecuted just like we would do for stolen goods. For some reason we can conceive of throwing children in jail for downloading metallica songs (something of no real tangible value to society), but we have a problem throwing CEOs from companies like Walmart in jail.

"IT is not all that profitable to invent anything in the long run under current legal systems in US. "

Back in the late 80's a technical journal (where or what it was called escapes me) what I recall, had a good write up. on type of artwork, encompassing your artwork to cover your butt and amount of sales needed for profit. The figures are approx. of what I can remember but I believe it had to make in excess of $14,000,000.00 dollar in sales to break even. Sounds like quite alot. unless it is a consumer good that is mass produced.

I own a couple of patents that have never resulted in any revenue for me. I also read extensively (even beyond CR4, and three months from now, when I am faced with an problem presented by a customer, how can I be sure that it was an original idea, and not something subconsciously recorded during previous research?

My experience with patents is, once the idea is made public, either through patent or other sharing (i.e., a summary report for a client), it is no longer private, but in the public domain- your patents only tell someone else how to work around the protected ideas without violating your rights. The cost of defending a patent is prohibitive, and if it is a really good idea, there is no way, withouth armies of atourneys, one can hope to reap reasonable benefits from it.

My approach is, you want my ideas, you pay now. If the next customer wants the same ideas and is unwilling to due the research into what has been accomplished in the past, he pays again for the same idea. I generally, when I come up with something significant, make it as public as possible (i.e., publishing software solutions to specific problems), I find that I draw more paying customers by publishing my solutions than by trying to lay some sort of claim of intellectual rights to them- my customers are looking for problem solvers. If someone else makes a fortune off my ideas, more power to them (although I do not think that has happened yet).

Bottom line, we need to rethink our entire concept of intellectual property rights. What is a "right" that can not be defended practically?

I'm with you all the way...

Del

"the cost of defending a patent is prohibitive, and if it is a really good idea, there is no way, withouth armies of atourneys, one can hope to reap reasonable benefits from it."

Since you have experience you may already know this, but protecting the artwork under the correct classification helps, but it is not the answer.

"how can I be sure that it was an original idea, and not something subconsciously recorded during previous research?"

I understand that as long as you have made a reasonable attempt at say a patent search, that is o.k., if one does exists that you could not find or over looked. when it is discovered, thats when nogoaitions begin.

And thats when diffintions become challanged, such as what is reasonable?

"What is a "right" that can not be defended practically?"

That makes too much sense, and I you have a very good post that was based from experience, thank you

A true story, I worked for a company where the QA inspector realised that there was a better way of producing a particular item, he applied for a patent and approached a company to manufacture it, and they agreed, but in the meantime the company he worked for got wind of it and he was stripped of the patent and the company claimed ownership as he was Privy to company information, something simular as referred to in another post, The item is now used world wide, he retained his job, not sure if they said thank you.

JD.

Nice story but probably not that unusual.

If he had any design involvement in his job description at all, the idea would belong to the company. Even without a design function the idea was probably done in firm's time and made some use of their existing design/expertise...

His mistake was in the way he played it... he'd have been better approaching his own company saying 'I may have a good idea what's it worth if I develop it to fruition?' They couldn't make him disclose and he could have established some ground rules.

Clasic example of the patent being a worthless waste of time.

You are correct. I know a chap who invented a vaccum purge system. He tried to patent it put was stopped by his employer.

This same system is now marketed and sold by numerous franchised companies who bought the franchise from the original employer.

The chap who invented it got nothing.

It is a condition in my contract of empoyment that anything that I invent, or any new idea that I come up with is the propertey of the company that employes me.

Its the way of the world.

Del said it correctly, since you work for the comapany, it is the company's.

The person that invented bubble gum, the company he worked for, so that they would not have any legal desputes basically paid him $1.00, he recieved no royalitys from it, but his name is on the patent as the inventor, but the company owns the patent.

Here's a link. http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/bubblegum.htm

Yes there is the old adage that one should be a company man, I've had many a lecture on that. Some companies over come this with a suggestion box, and a small reward if it is adopted. It begs the question does the present system fulfils ones needs, twenty years protection, this may vary world wide? but it recalls to mind the story of a person, an American, who invented the CRT, that which you are now looking at, there was a lengthy legal battle with RKO, an American broadcasting company, on patent infringement, then the second world war intervened, and the patent run out, his reward for something that we now used daily, ZERO. If a patent is challenged should it go into limbo? Is it the right system?

Regards JD.

Personally I think the system of patenting is of no help to idividuals or small firms, simply bad value for money. Grand global players might be able to afford world patents, who else?

What on earth is the point in spending money on protecting something for only a part of the globe these days. Should have been overhauled long ago but who shall we give the job to, lawyers?

What we have now is different from that 50 60 years back when "Know hows" were restricted to developed world and some fortunate public in general.with advent of technology communication and access to class education in some of worlds great universities is doing damage to intellectual property to certain extent. there is somebody among us who thinks same as i do or you do , also patent laws are different in different nations , there is no standardisation , with global economy duplication , coping will be there specially in third world nations , for example what can a person do holding a US patent if his rights are commercialised in suppose China at a smaller scale , is it unlikely some body has stolen ideas from backyard and set up a shop in some distant place

Last company I worked for knew it couldn't protect it's product from coppying, so it licensed it in India and made sure a 'good' copy was being produced, whilst still collecting a ryalty... Now that is sensible business rather than drying because your idea has been stolen or wasting a fortune on litigation.

That is good idea,

After experiencing what it took to secure intellectual proprty, I have felt if a small company had a good idea (an idea that does not require large amount of initial capital). implement it in the market place, to get a advanage over the competors before its copied instead investing in the time to protect it. And just using that inovation over the competitor even thou for a short time as an advantage.

Its timing about releasing it to maximize the return, the return being mainly being good will.

A policy which had it's merits but I wouldn't be confident I was going to keep the advantage for more than a few weeks in this world, I guess it really depends on just what it is.

some merits yes, but not an answer.

Perhaps some one should have a futures market on the stock exchange that funds small business patent applications and protects them? Regards JD.

Good Idea!

now shall i steal it ?

Your welcome to it or any one else, the stock exchange in China could then protect ones property, like the music industry? Companies could apply to the market for R&D and buy shares to reduce there royalties? The structure would be different form a single company, but would promote interested party's and free enterprise, and competition. I"ll have to do something about these silly dreams. There thats better.

Regards JD.

John and gang,

The United States Congress is reviewing its entire patent process, including "Intellectual Property" because of the abuses of the current system. As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as intellectual property. What we know, all we have learned, is based on someone else's work and knowledge. Einstein work with several physicists, including his wife, to develop his theories. Why should the credit be for him alone? When we work of a company to design a project, we are working with several engineers and technicians using our knowledge we obtained through our education and experiences. It is not ours alone. Yes, we should be rewarded for our contributions and we are, generally, paid a handsome sum for our intellect. But keep in mind, when we finish one project, it is time to move forward to the next project. Our knowledge is built on the backs of our ancestors clear back to the time of Atom and Eve. BTW, science has show recently that intellect is pasted along in the female gene, the male gene being more concerned with the sex and appearance of the offspring. So, if anyone owns intellectual property, it is the woman, not the man. hehehehe.

What your saying is called progress, but I disagree (somewhat) about the intellectual property. It's the person looks at existing things at a different way, not so much as the grande example you did with einstein, but smaller.

Example:

The guy who saw how a car wash whip the dirt and grim off a car. he applied it differently and invented the weed eater. If it were'nt for him, would someone else thought of it, probally. But they did'nt. He did, and he should get rewarded for that type of insight. Progress.

He has the right to build and sell his model of the weed eater. However, he does not have the right to prevent others from improving on his design and selling their design in competition with him. This, then should spur the original designer to improve his model even more, thus, the price being the same, selling his improvement of the improved model. So it goes. In a free and open market, competition is supposed to create continued progress. Remember, an entertainer is only as good as his last performance, and engineer is only as good as his last project, an author is only as good as his last book, and a computer programmer is only as good as his last program unless his name is Bill Gates.

I think we all know how Bill Gates took and patented someone else's work, DOS, and by stuffing competition, became the wealthiest man on this earth. Bill Gates and Microsoft is one of the major abuses of intellectual property, copyright, and patent system. Microsoft is still in violation of of the court findings of a couple years ago and their "innovations" are still holding back real progress in computer technology. I would not be surprised if Microsoft tries to gain control of quantum computing in the near future.

Another example is the NiCd battery, developed in Germany in the mid 1020's. Following WWII, the original battery was still operating. The American lead-acid battery companies bought up the NiCd patents and refused to allow he battery to be produced or sold in the USA. This went on for years until all the NiCd patents expired. Now we have the NiCd battery many years late. Let's watch our for more such abuses, mainly with the Lithium Ion battery and other electric storage systems that will be developed for our green energy initiative.

Agreed,

"The American lead-acid battery companies bought up the NiCd patents and refused to allow he battery to be produced or sold in the USA. This went on for years until all the NiCd patents expired."

Thats where earlier posts touch off of. Capitalism does have its drawbacks, by using technicalities and attorneys as tools to their advantage.

Where would we be if technology, processes, ideas, patents in general is implemented when developed. of which I had posted (#22) earlier.

Since I brought up the subject of computers and intellectual property, I thought this would be something we can consider as intellectual property that should not be restricted in any way:

Adaptive Technology Developed For Visually Impaired Engineers