Patent Discussion

great question. i've often pondered the same thing.

some people one this site have suggested that the only need for a patent is whether you can afford to defend it. that suggests that the companies you mention can, reguardless of the legallities. they have almost unlimited funds to do so.

i'm sure all of us has had a good idea for patent or inprovement of an old patent at one time, but can't afford to put it into production, let alone defend it.

It's a two edged sword. Neither side favors the little guy.

The big guys have patent attorneys on staff who do nothing else. They're either filing patents or arguing infringement suits all the time.

Anyway, say you are granted a patent.

You borrow some money and hire a company to build your turboencabulator. Just before your "real" TE hits the shelves, some cheap knockoff comes along.

You hire an attorney at $300 to write a cease and desist letter.

Nothing happens.

Another letter.

Still nothing.

Litigation begins.

You run out of money...................................................................................

It's been awhile since I worked I this area.

First you have to define the artwork of the patent, and there are three different types. I don't recall what they were, has to do with a process, a device and something else I can't recall.

And then you have to encompass the artwork the best you can, so that a it's protected by even a slight modification are application........ Application I think that's the third type of artwork.

But b'Zero .... (that's Obama for mituzi) changed the US patent of first to come up with the idea get awarded the rights, to first to patent it gets the rights......which is like the rest of the world.

In the past, someone would work on an idea, get it working then file for a patent

I'll stop you right there, never (to my knowledge) has a patent idea previously required testing to get the patent. In the early days unworkable ideas were patented and large corporations patented everything remotely resembling their product or technology and the same goes today.

What are your thoughts?

1) Come up with your idea, then check for patents, then modify or refine your idea so it is different from the patented idea, then check for similar patents until you have a viable idea. Alternatively ignore the existing patented idea if it isn't really relevant to your particular idea and it is unlikely that you will be chased by large multinational corporations because you are costing them millions in revenue.

2) Think very carefully before patenting an idea or product, chances are you will lose far more money than the limited protection (or patent saleability) the patent offers (see previous threads on CR4 regarding patents).

_{Jack - Holder of just the one patent.}

The whole problem with the current Apple patent lawsuits is that those patents were defined to broad.

i remember an instance where a man improved the windshield wiper switch that chysler had the orignal patent on. he designed the intermitant wiper speed that all of us are familar with. he spent millions suing chysler over the patent rights. he finanally won after decades of law suits.

it's all about who has the better legal team.

The best scenario for the use of patents is to design something that is easy to manufacture (removes the "cheap knockoff" scenario), that is unique (isn't that the idea behind patents) and that is needed, desired, or simply sellable in large quantities.

My former employer made millions from an amazingly simple idea. He held his patent costs down by using the abilities of a former patent attorney who was also a former co-worker. He used the idea in a laboratory instrument. It was fairly expensive for its size, a little smaller than a shoebox, but it saved so much time for the end users that the demand went through the roof.

After running the company for 5 years, he sold the business to one of the larger lab instrumentation suppliers. The deal included his assignment of the patent to this large corporations. By then serious competition had finally showed up. He washed his hands of the patent and let the buyer tackle the patent defense. Indeed they do have a patent law team on permanent employ.

When patenting anything one has to weigh the costs of the patent and the defense of it vs. simply getting to market quickly and/or outselling the competition. Most of the employers I've worked for eschewed patents altogether. For them competition from startups was nonexistent due to the high cost. They used sales and marketing to out sell their existing competition. It was too easy for the competition to work around a patent so why bother.

I do recall several employers defending themselves against suits from patent collectors. i.e. companies that buy patents solely for the sake of suing companies that may be infringing on them.

Many patents are submitted just in case they are ever produced. I restore old tools now and then, and often do research on the patent numbers I find. The data base I use has many that were never produced or known to be produced. Here's an example. (It's an interesting database just to wander around in)

http://www.datamp.org/patents/search/advance.php?id=42411&set=4

Intellectual property, particularly patents, has real value these days. Unless you are claiming a cold fusion over-unity device, no model is necessary, and you can claim things that are not built yet so long as you back up your claim by an "enabling disclosure" of how to make and use your invention. A provisional patent application, which is cheap to file and can be informal, can establish your priority provided you follow up with a formal non-provisional patent application within a year.

Patents protect you against someone showing up after you have developed a product and saying: "Hey, that's my idea." Companies that rely on trade secrets can't have that assurance. Companies that neglect to defend themselves by patents are building on sand.

Design patents, to protect the look (trade dress) of your product against knockoffs, are very easy to get because, unlike utility patents, the novelty standard is low.

With the searching tools available on the web, it is much easier than back in the old microfilm days to see if your idea is new and to research the state of the art to find unsolved problems. Bookmark the patent office's Manual of Classification and Free Patents Online

Is the juice worth the squeeze? For me, yes. I enjoy finding things out, learning new subjects, solving real problems, then drafting and redrafting the patent application. Maybe normal people don't see any fun in that.

The OP says: "My annoyance I guess is that I come up with an idea or concept only to find that I should actually do a patent search first before proceeding otherwise it ends up being a wasted exercise or I need a whole lot of money to buy the patent or risk being sued." Doing the patent search should always be the first step, and it is not a wasted exercise unless you don't enjoy learning. The search should suggest ways to perfect your invention or come up with new ones. Licensing the patent for a small percentage of gross revenues is not expensive, and you don't need to buy the patent to be able to use it without worrying about potential liability.

The story of Bob Kearns (intermittent windshield wiper) should warn inventors not to be unrealistic in their expectations. He won his infringement case, but insisted on being a monopoly manufacturer.

Ref: Apple's rounded corners

Samsung are challenging that patent, because unless there's something more that looks to the rounded corners, [that part of] the patent shouldn't have been granted as it's not novel.

How does this happen? The chances are that the rounded corners is just one numbered item on a drawing that does show novel things. If Apple wanted to protect the shape of its phones, it should have trade marked it (even then, I'm not sure it would have worked).

Lyn, wilmot and others have covered most of the other points. One other: customers are often interested in knowing how many patents a supplier has. The company for whom I work are rubbish at defending patents, but having them has won us points in tenders.

The other thing to remember is that unlike a puppy, a patent is just for Christmas...well for 20 years from date of filing. It's a limited monopoly in exchange for sharing the knowledge. That's the trade-off and why Coca-Cola don't have a patent for their recipe!

Does the rounded corners patent cover this?

video

Ohh, the murky world of patent law!

As a freshman I attempted to patent a silly yet marketable product (something like snuggie) through InventHelp. The bureaucracy of this organisation, the black hole of marketing and the financial strife of the legal process was a sad awakening of the inefficiency and difficulties of the patent process.

I have since resorted to utilizing my ingenuity to my small business and engineering work. Nifty process improvements or time and cost saving innovations.

My take on this is that you should not be deterred from you tinkering if its your passion. However, when the commercial viability of any device is noticed, tread extremely carefully lest you end up with a serious heartbreak, a nervous breakdown or a life-wasting lengthy courtroom brawl.

As a real-life case study, check out the story of the engineering college professor who invented the intermittent windshield wiper in 1967. They even made a movie about it, here is the trailer: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/flash_of_genius/trailers/10938315/

With enough lawyers you can patent a rock.