Patents & CR4

Well put.

"sitting on an idea and allowing it to rust until someone else comes along and takes the risk and funds to develop the same idea is almost a sure tactic that will fail in court. "

See "patent trolls".

"demanding that members play your game your way before you'll talk will not get you what you're looking for"

Asking someone to sign a NDA is not unreasonable, IMHO. I worked for a company heavily invested in intellectual property that demanded a signed NDA before anything was disclosed to the potential investor/partner/customer/employee.

I'd also add that defending a patent is just about impossible unless you are willing to hire an attorney and spend LOTS of money and up to years of your time in court.

Being "first to market" can be much more profitable than taking the time to secure a patent first.

It might help if such persons actually sent out their NDAs and got some cogent evaluations.

Agreed.

Has anyone ever done that here before? I don't recall anyone who did.

This man, Leo Bernier made a go of his concept and started Curvilinear Gear, Inc. (CGI)

I think he may have already had a patent when he came here asking for input. There was nothing outrageous about his device.

.

Yeah, but to wave a NDA around to nothing more than strangers....... I feel is rediculous. How do you keep track of that? People spend more time protecting their idea, more than what the idea is worth. And it's usually someone with no technical background with an revolutionary idea that claim it to be obvious. And the more they are questioned the more questionable the idea is.

I can't tell you how many people I have heard this story from.....I invented this thing, I got a patent, I started a company, somebody else started producing my product without my approval, I found out, took them to court, and went broke trying to protect my idea....They now are producing my product, along with many others, and have underpriced and outsized me to the point I am out of business....You have to have deep pockets, or somebody with deep pockets backing you, and the ability to do a nationwide launch to capture the market and build a brand name that will be associated with that product....If it's not worth stealing, it probably isn't worth the time and money you would put into trying to build a company around it....

Getting a patent puts your idea in the public domain, if it's any good somebody will try to take it....You have to have the resources to build a working model, a proof of concept....then expert opinion on viability.....market research....manufacturing tooling costs and production costs.....materials availability and costs....then you need to contact a company willing launch the product, and at what cost...everybody will want a piece of the pie, which you will share, just to manage the risk.....

It's much easier to get minimal protection and sell the idea to some venture capital investment firm that does this sort of thing everyday, and has all resources already in place....

Now there are exceptions to the rule, but the odds don't favor the novice.....and a person alone almost never succeeds....

I have found its better to manage your resources to it's maximum.... And an idea that could be patented, instead of patenting, get it to market ASAP, and get as much market share as you can, while this is happening, work on the next project.

Back in the 80's and 90's, I made more money, helping others get their patent, drawings, write up describing their artwork then the inventors did....... And I told them that's was going to happen before I agreed to anything with them.

I'm still hoping to be an exception, but outside of curiosity, I really don't care what anyone has come up with, and I have no interest in helping them with my time or money.

I'll always like cool ideas. That's about as far as it goes.

Here's a thought. Tie your product to Common Core somehow.

As much as I hate to ever admit that you're right I have to admit that after visiting my 4th grader's school to be "taught" Common Core math, I can find no redeeming qualities to the concept.

But, it's coming, and it may just be a hook you could use.

I'd prefer to make less money, and have my product used to prove that common core is wrong. The website is coming right along. I hope to have it up and running in Jan.

I saw the director from Emily's, (last year's), school, the other day. She thinks they are the most awesome idea she's seen, and they are fully implemented, and used every day.

The kids love them.

Now there are exceptions to the rule, but the odds don't favor the novice.....and a person alone almost never succeeds....

Well said. If it's a money making idea, a company with more resources will likely produce it more cheaply and the lone inventor will soon go broke trying to defend it. Probably the only thing it's good for is looking good on a resume.

Fredski-

Agree! Wish I could give you a GA but not possible.

A patent will most likely not make you rich either, especially if you are working for someone else or a medium to big size corporation. Case in hand-

My father had two of them for avionics. Was paid $1.00 for each.

Another- Father-in-Law had the patent for the zip top for wide mouth beer bottles that Rheingold, Piels, Schaefer and others used (that dates me). He got $0.50 for it.

No, getting patents wasn't passed on to the next generation!

Good Luck, Old Salt

Under the new patent laws I believe those with the best espionage technology and fastest lawyers get the patent rights.

One theme running through patent law, not apparently mentioned yet, is 'prior knowledge'. A patent will not be granted if prior knowledge is known to exists. If prior knowledge exists, then you can't claim to have invented something.

Prior knowledge, ie, knowledge of the invention in the public domain prior to the date of application during the enquiry stage, if absent, allows a patent to be granted. The patent officer makes a search of official records, which in my opinion is shallow and cursory, but supported a great deal by feed-back when the application is published.

A patent that has been granted can always be challenged later by production of evidence of prior knowledge. However, a challenge to the patent itself is not usually made. What happens, is that you try to use your patent to stop someone copying you, and they respond with prior knowledge, which if valid, means your patent provides you with no protection.

The main purpose of this post, is to warn anybody seriously exploring the idea for an invention, to make sure that the application is lodged and dated with the patent office before discussing that matter with anyone. Especially here on CR4.

Professional advisors can be consulted because that knowledge is considered to be confidential. But please beware of commercially oriented discussions with potential backers or manufacturers, because this knowledge is not secure. Information here, although 'private' can always be made to appear in the public domain and look like 'prior knowledge' to be used against you at a later date.

All the advise by others is valid for various reasons, but in my own case I took out patents for a special industrial product. Not, as is the usual case, to protect against competitors in the field who would exploit my invention for commercial means, but to protect me from my customers.

In this respect most customers like to deal with their pet suppliers, and the less scrupulous ones, being unethical, or just lazy, send copies of drawings (and quotes) to their mates hoping to get a better deal. I think the modern word for this is 'networking'.

That was 30 years ago. Our design and development costs have been recovered to a great extent and our basic product is as competitive as anybodies. More so in fact. Our patents have expired, but as our market is small the big boys, who could gear us and beat us on price, are not interested in trivial amounts, and they come to us and we supply at a discount, as do the small boys - if they are interested.

here it's called "prior art". no they don't overlap patents if someones "claim" covers your application.

Horace, I'm glad you made this point. Having gone far enough down the patent road before realizing I was about to spend a whole bunch of money only to be releasing the idea to the world, I know where you are coming from. A patent in the US, or the UK or wherever only protects you in THAT country and then only if you can sucessfully defend it. And for the patent to remain valid you MUST prosecute EVERY potential infringement you become aware of. But there is NOTHING to prevent someone from China or Russia, or India from taking your US or UK patent and building an exact clone using labor paid in pennies an hour to undercut you. There is not a court on the planet than you can go to that has the wherewithal to prosecute such an infringement.

I'd like to make a point. Apple computer (now just Apple) had a library of patents, some born within their company, many others purchased along with entire smaller companies. they took all these and wound up developing a handheld computer/phone we all know as the IPhone. Samsung came along and wanted a piece of Apple's market share. they made a strategic business decision and ripped off many of the unique features of the

Apple phone and incorporated into their line of smart phones. they knew they'd wind up in court (in Calif) and after the layers all got fed Apple won...of course Samsung appealed. once the dust settled Samsung basically had stolen market share from Apple and Apple lost sales it would have had if it had been the only player with such desirable features to offer the market of smartphone shoppers.cry about it all you want but this is how the game is played when millions of dollars are up for grabs it isn't about fairness or who actually holds a patent if the monies involved are this big.

Wasn't Samsung also a contractor to Apple where it build some components also?

But you touch off on a subject I mentioned earlier, and that is market share and getting the largest piece.

not only was but still is. Samsung makes most of the chips for the iPhones.

Which brings up a legal Utopia for attorneys....... the bigger the money involved, the nastier the Web and the happier the attorneys are.

Fredski, I would like to point out that Samsung has brought a number of unique features of their own to the table as well. The didn't simply rip Apple off and go no further, they took many of those features and extended them far beyond what Apple did and brought other completely new features to the table as well (NFS and S-Beam among them)

Now the question here is, does or did Apple have a monopoly.

To a certain degree, competition improve the product.

the screen I'm reading your message on is Samsung, I have many of their products. my point was about the way business is conducted these days.

So would something like this be patentable ?

I believe a bicycle would be the most elegant application of "The Three Fundamental Efficiencies of Hybrid Technology."

Initial design would focus on urban use.

It integrates these capabilities:

Power Averaging - Allowing power input at very low variability if desired. This allows the operator to pedal input power at near the AVERAGE POWER of the trip displacement; eliminating the need for hard effort during acceleration or climbing small hills. (the word displacement was put in there to avoid one of you really astute fellars from pointing out it would be near impossible to do without automated stabilization when stopped.)

Regenerative Braking - Recovering braking energy at high efficiency.

Peaking Power - Accessing stored energy for the purpose of meeting peak demand - acceleration and climbing hills.

Although the first bicycle would be very expensive to build; China has a very large population, and a very large hip consumer market. There is a HUGE potential market there - in scaled production the cost of making a really cool Human Powered Electric Hybrid Bicycle would make it affordable to some number of millions of consumers and would see very favorable economy of scale.

This is what I envision in the first generation -

The bicycle will be a Human Powered Electric Hybrid Bicycle that uses a generator that is directly couple to the crank as the source of power.

The regenerative capable drive motor would be mounted at the rear axle

OR

The regenerative capable drive motor would consist of numerous very strong magnets inlaid in the rim of the rear wheel, in optimal configuration. The rim would be the rotor of the motor/regenerator.

The stator would be mounted across the rear fork or on the seat post. The stator coils would envelop the magnets on the rim much like a caliper brake envelopes the rim.

It is claimed that because the permanent magnets are mounted on the rim it would optimize the amount of torque per ampere flowing in the stator. It is envisioned that the rim would be designed so that it would also make it possible to easily change out the magnets.

Human control input would be integral with the brake levers in the handlebars with initial compression of the brake levers initiating circuit switching, with further compression incrementally manipulating the control signal, until the mechanical linkage would begin to initiate conventional friction braking.

Power capability of the prime mover generator:

300 watts.

Power and storage requirements of the drive motor/regenerator:

300 to 600 watts depending on storage capacity.

Storage medium - Maxwell Boostcaps - modules operating in 12 or 24 volt configuration. Total energy storage approximately .7 to 1.4Whr.

Storage Mass - .5 to 1.25 KG

Control methodology - Frequency modulation of fixed resonant power circuits.

Control methodology allows for infinite variability of circuit acceptance in source, power, and braking circuits. This translates to infinitly variable power in prime mover input, drive motor output, and regeneration within the limits of generator and motor/regenerator ratings.

Now if somebody were to run out and beat the Chinese Engineers (who will have this in about 5 minutes) to the patent office, could the Chinese Engineers be prevented under international IP agreements from applying it in the Chinese cities without paying a tribute to patent trolls?

If five years down the road I decide to build these things for myself could it not be considered a "Free Speech" issue instead of an IP issue?

they have those in Europe already

Very cool Frediski; got a link to a Power Averaged Regenerative Capable Hybrid Bicycle?

In a word, no.

If there is some aspect that is unique, that part MIGHT be.

Remember, you'll have to describe the invention so that "anyone schooled in the art" could understand it.

The trick is to word the description so that the real secrets are not detailed too much.

This is where the attorney earns his money.

You might find this interestinghttp://www.gizmag.com/flykly-smart-wheel/29751/

If you disclose without NDA or any confidentiality agreement, your patentable idea will vapourise immediately , the patentability is lost !