Has the Patent Frenzy Gone Too Far

You can't get a patent for stuff that's already in the public domain.

Maybe I mispoke, but patent trolls are doing the same as.

You can get a patent for any improvements to existing patents, and minor tweaks to existing ideas, so what's the difference?

The deciding factors are (meant to be) 1 - There must be an inventive step. 2 - It cannot be obvious. 3 - It must have novelty or newness.

I totally agree with you that the intent of the system is being abused but that is nothing new.

For decades the entire system has been skewed in favor of multinational corporations with deep pockets who can afford to crush any competing patent using time and a raft of lawyers.

It's insanity...and yet another arena where the "little guy" barely stands a chance.

Yep...it comes down to money and power.

...and the players with the power and money are in a race to take ownership of every iota of intellectual property, regardless of how dumb it might sound.

What it accomplishes, is thwarting any attempts by us "little people", to even consider entering the race.

On a happier note...I just received my trademark approval last Thursday. Next week I attempt to build a website.

Post it in the Commercial Section.

Good luck.

Hell no!

I'm gonna throw it right up on the front page. Shameless self promotion.

I've read enough early morning spam that I've earned it.

Go for it!

I know. Post anonymously. Then they won't know who to ban.

it is a problem. I've worked on several patents myself. I was pretty deep into an automotive related patent that was well researched prior to submission of my application. it all looked good and 4 months later I was rejected basically in the time between the patent search I paid for and my application submission another inventor had received a patent for what I felt was a completely different scenario and device but his "claim" was well written and covered everything under the sun and basically blocked me. I was upset on several levels but what really got to me was I highly doubt the invention that was claimed will ever see the market. large companies like Microsoft. Sam sung, Apple and many others have absorbed any number of smaller companies, not for their products or talented people but for their library of patents. usually this is used in a courtroom to play defence against other companies in the field they operate in.

Patents used in this fashion are being used against the spirit of innovation and stiffle the small inventor from taking risks that could ultimetly serve all of us.

It's a double edged sword.

The goal is to write the application as broadly as possible, and get the patent.

I managed to do it, and I'm happy for the protection. It wasn't easy.

You guys may want to take note of this post...I'm going to say something nice about government.

For anybody that's considering a patent, use the resources at the USPTO.

There are a bunch of great people that work there, understand that you are a "little guy", and will do anything they can to help you.

I ended up going into overthink, and wasting time figuring things out on my own. I wish I had contacted them earlier.

good link

In the patent wars, my concern is the Trans-Pacific Partnership of 12 linked together nations. In the 2004 USA-Australia free trade agreement, a lot of protective elements with respect to copyright, trademarks and patents as operated in Australia were gazumpted'

"Intellectual property rights

Australia agreed to extend its copyright expiration period from 50 to 70 years after the author's death where copyright is calculated on the basis of the life of a natural person, and 70 years after the first performance or publication in other cases.

The agreement expands the rights of patent holders.

The agreement requires legal enforcement of digital rights management systems, however an Australian legislative committee has issued a report stating that this portion of the treaty has a "significant flaw": while the agreement provides permitted exceptions allowing the use of copyright access circumvention devices, it also disallows access to the tools used for such circumvention. The report goes on to term it a "lamentable and inexcusable flaw", an "egregious flaw", and even a "flaw that verges on absurdity". The committee expressed the strong view that the Government must find a solution to the flaw before implementing this portion of the treaty.^[4]

So when it comes to the current patent frenzy, the pending (and somewhat secret) Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the bias in particular in favour of existing USA patent holders in the USA-Australia 2004 free trade agreement, I am somewhat concerned, particularly when Australian companies with smart technologies cannot sell direct into the USA in certain circumstances, but Californian oranges can flood out supermarket shelves, while local orchard farmers are pulling out 750,000 fruit trees.

As for the fruit trees and overseas aid, I am strongly of the view that Australia should not send piles of cash to disaster sites, but rather tinned fruit with ring-pull lids, that do not need refrigeration, supports our local agricultural industry and is harder for the middlemen to grab a percentage. And the tins themselves after use can be used in multiple ways, from rain water storage and filtering, to mugs, cooking pots etc etc. I am sure that there is a patent or two in the re-use options!