Alternatives to Patents?

Go online and do some research on Whammo...makers of the Frisbee.

I don't think they own a single patent, and have everything covered up with trademarks, which is fairly inexpensive. They have won multiple lawsuits against others that have copied their trademarked color patterns, etc.

It may help. At the very least, the history of the company is interesting reading.

You could also look into a provisional, or just getting a US patent. World patents are expensive, and if it's good, the Chinese will steal it regardless.

Don't forget, as cool as a world patent sounds, it's still you that will have to go protect your patent if someone steals/copies it...wherever that may be. There are no patent police, even in the US.

Patents are only good if you can afford the $300.00 USD per hour for a lawyer to defend them.

I'm with kramarat. Go for a provisional or copyright.

Document everything you do, date it, have a witness sign it and get it notarized.

Keep a notebook dedicated to this. Enter everything you do every day and date it.

Pictures, notes, e-mails, keep it all in the book.

Start today if you don't have this.

I don't know where he is, but in the US, it's now first to patent, not first to invent, that gets the credit. So if he doesn't go for a patent, his documentation will be useless.

$300per hour?? We have recently paid a barrister the equivalent of US$5000 per day for 15 days in court to successfully defend a copyright. And his assistant did all the donkey work (and there was a lot of that) at around $300 per hour.

Hey, I use a $300.00/hour lawyer, you use a $5,000.00/day barrister.

What can I say.

Your point is well taken. Most of the grunt work is done by legal assistants for peanuts.

My legal work was done 12 years ago, too.

do you really feel you need the protection? unless you plan on major ,market share you might want to re-think this

Just a warning -- companies like Apple, Honeywell, Samsung, and others have lots of engineers writing up every thought they have and filing patents on those ideas. Those companies are willing to prosecute if they think one of their patents has been infringed. If you actually want to make money off your idea - i.e., you're not just doing this for your own satisfaction or your own personal use - then you ought to file a provisional patent to get some protection and hire a patent attorney to check through issued patents to make sure you're in the clear.

Even if you decide not to pay the yearly fee to keep the patent in force, you will at least have reduced your risk of undergoing costly litigation.

By the way, if there is any software or firmware utilized within your device, be sure to get it copyrighted.

Get into partnership with a manufacturer let them do all the work of production, marketting etc, you take a one off fee plus a small royalty, so if they sell million of 'em you reap the reward. Obviously you need to take care when showing the product initially, but you can get a confidentiality agreement or some such and make sure you don't show vital info until you are in partnership.
IMO Patents are pretty worthless, unless you have a big corporation behind you.

Del

I think Kram should begin a tutorial page for reference that cab be used for future "Patent" questions. include stuff like like online patent searches. attorney fees, filing fees, court costs, royalty negotiation. partnerships, etc. I know I'd have several tips and stories to embellish to a thread like that

That could be a blog.

it could, or a book. I just know patent questions will continue to asked...just trying to save some redundancy

Gee whiz....

That would almost be like writing a repair manual for the Chevy Cavalier.

take it slow, begin with a chapter on starting a Cavalier....then a tutorial on patents

I remember you saying that your patent application was rejected.

It's common for an application to be rejected several times before it is approved. Mine was rejected 3 times, and it's where the patent attorneys really get the opportunity to screw you.

The responses have to be written in the legalese that we don't know how to write, even though the concept is simple.

When my patent application was rejected, I looked at the reason for rejection, explained to the patent attorney, (in a couple of sentences), what needed to be changed...and he turned that into a half day's work, and an $1800 bill for services rendered.

Have I mentioned that I think lawyers are slime?

My attorney ended up getting fired, because he didn't think I was smart enough to access the PTO website....which I did, and I presented him with clear evidence that he was padding my bill...to the extreme.

I used a seasoned attorney, that wasn't an issue, he did a quality search before we proceeded with the application. the issue was that between those two things a separate patent had been issued on a different thing.....the new one's claim covered the heart of mine, hence the rejection.note: to this day his has never hit the market, nor will it ever. mine was hot dog but and should it ever become widespread all I can do is smile

Ah...

That sucks.

funny anecdote. when I was 17 I invented a paint can adapter. this started my quest to understand patents back in 1977. about 10 years ago as I was walking through Home Depot I did a major double take! hanging on a post was my invention!! I was stunned, jotted down the patent and went right home to see who had stolen my idea!!. no one had, 2 guys in NY I never heard of basically had the same idea and proceded ahead. I doubt they made money but it was a trip

Where would I stand if I started producing my keypad design without a patent and somebody else took out patents at a later date which covered my design?

You would have no legal claims to the design.

Your design would become the property of the people that were awarded the patent. First to file, as per US law.

Well......................................

Nothing's written in stone, but, it might cost you to market "your" invention.

Check this out:Patent troll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, surely you would! If you could prove you had it in production (in the US) it would be 'prior art' and it would mean the patent attornies and or applicant had not done a thorough search.
Of course the law in the US could well ignore production in every other country in the world as is its wont
Del

A patent search covers the whole world, but if something isn't patented, it's open game.

But the "examples" here, make it even more complicated, since we we have moved to "first to file". Lyn was right about keeping documentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

Unfortunately, for us little guys, this is all just a mental exercise, since most of us lack the funds to go sue someone in court...which can get really expensive, and take years to get settled.

I don't believe that's true.
My understanding is as follows.
There are examples of things that have been made open source or put into the public domain to stop people patenting them.
Unless your submission has some unique and novel feature over and above that which is prior art or in the public domain it can't be patented.

I can't patent one of my primitive bows just because Neolithic man didn't patent it!
But If I came up with a unique configuration, say of hinged and pivoted limbs then that could be patented. (e.g. The compound bow with pulleys and cables, patented in 1969)

Once you have a product in the public domain, you can stop (in theory) exact copies under copyright law, but you can't stop someone using the principals to make their own version unless you have those principals patented. However although they can use the principals they can't patent them.

Of course proving you have prior art is tricky, the old mail the plans to yourself doesn't hold good, but publishing in a journal or actually manufacturing the item would be irrefutable evidence.
Del

We've got a new CR4 glitch.

Unless your submission has some unique and novel feature over and above that which is prior art or in the public domain it can't be patented.

In the thread, that is the last line, but in the reply box, I see the rest of it.

...............

True, but if you came up with a unique bow design (patentable) and sat on it, and someone else filed for the same design 5 years later, they could get the patent.

Yes, you could manufacture an item, and nobody else would likely go try to patent it, because you had already put prior art in the public domain, however, you would have no protection against anyone else going into manufacturing and selling your concept, either.

In fact, in the US, if you publicly disclose your idea before filing for patent protection, you can be disqualified for a patent, if you don't file within a year.

http://www.galvanilegal.com/public-disclosure-and-filing-a-patent-application

Edit: Now that I'm back out on the thread, I can see the rest of your post. Strange.

Yes I agree with that.
My point was that by going to market early, you can reap the rewards and it effectively stops anyone else patenting the device, even though you haven't patented it yourself.

E.G. Going into a production partnership can be a no cost quick reward situation. In fact if the partner is beig enough, they may pay for a patent.
This situation is vastly better than paying for patent you can't afford to enforce and making no money at all.
Del

Depending on the product, and market, "first to market" may be more valuable than any patent.

Good point...even for the OP.

Make em, sell em, and get rich before anybody even realizes that you're around.

I haven't made a dime from my patent, but hopefully soon.

It's a tiring and frustrating process, that I probably wouldn't get myself into again. The royalty thing doesn't usually work as advertised either. Companies don't talk to outsiders, and if they do, they don't feel like investing in something without a proven track record.

Then there's keeping the government happy.

if you're broke your only viable choice is to partner up and accept royalties

If you could prove that your design was in the market before they filed their patent, then the design would be 'prior art' and the patent would be invalidated.

It's basically a rule that you cannot patent something that is already 'publicly known.'

I have an interesting story about this. I have a friend we'll call him Dr. K for anonymity, who was working in a pharmaceutical company. Dr. K had been working on a treatment for 'ickyitis' and the time came for his team to file the patent paperwork. The patent application was submitted, then his company withdrew the application and re-filed it, with Dr. K's name off the list and adding two people who had never worked on the project. This itself was an unusual procedure that could get the patent application thrown out by the USPTO, but it's not a guaranteed 'deal-breaker' with the Patent Office. Dr K. and his superiors had strong words over several weeks about the 'improprieties' with the patent application, and when it was clear his bosses were trying to steal the credit for the patent from him and were not going to back down, Dr. K did the one thing they couldn't stop.

He published his work on the ickyitis treatment in a medical journal, thus making the treatment 'prior art' and un-patentable. There is a treatment for ickyitis out there, ready to be developed, but no pharmaceutical company will touch it, since after they spend the money to develop it into a pill or shot or whatever, the other pharmaceuticals can make generic versions right away, so the company who puts the money into finishing it cannot make a profit on their effort.

Actually, all that means is that they could still produce that product, they just might have to share the marketplace with competitors. In-fact if they sunk tons of money into developing this product, then they are motivated by nothing but greed, as they are blind to the fact, that they probably have a patentable process in making it as well. Even sharing the market place they could still make a reasonable profit; but, they are not content to be reasonable! That process patent COULD be just as effective in deterring others from trying to copy it to a great degree. The other competitors will have to reverse engineer the manufacturing process, and most likely make them more expensive, and the first to market with good marketing, could succeed in drowning out the competition. But, that is not the box we all live in.

However, this is in Pharmaceuticals, and the patents are often one step away from being 'recipes,' 10mg flubber, 58mg acetacalacilic acid, 18mg compound 'x,' 98 grams cornstarch (to make the dose a large enough pill to see and handle).

Recipes themselves are not patentable, nor are they available for copyright protection on their own (a book of recipes can be copyrighted, but not individual recipes). Once PharmaCorp determines the proper delivery method, then any other pharma company can make their version, with just a minor change, say from 98 grams cornstarch to 40 grams cornstarch, 50 grams talc, and 8 grams sugar.

Pharma patents are a strange breed, since they're doing bizarre things like trying to patent natural substances that just happen to work at treating symptoms of thisitis or thatitis. The 'patent profit' from the treatment for ickyitis is gone, so no pharma company sees 'enough profit' in finishing the work.

Interesting, but...........................I don't understand.

Every company I've ever worked for that was engaged in intellectual properties, research and development, manufacturing high tech products, etc. all required that employees assign all rights of intellectual property (inventions) discovered "on company time" to the employer.

The most I ever got for my inventions, technological discoveries and publications was $500.00 and an "atta boy". The companies reaped the benefits. I got the glory and one of those "expensive wall plaques" kramarat mentioned.

Maybe pharma is different.

Ah, but the story I related about Dr, K was dealing with the company trying to steal the glory from him and give it to two schlubs who didn't deserve it. It wasn't about the money, either on Dr. K's side or on Management's side. If Management cared about the money over inflating the resumes of two clowns, they would have caved at the mere THREAT of publishing before the patent was issued. But someone there felt that it was worth more to deny Dr. K the glory of having a third patent to his name than to provide an effective treatment for Ickyitis. (Which, by the way, is one of those diseases that once you get it, you've got it for life. Can't donate blood, have to inform potential intimate partners beforehand, you are almost literally a walking plaguebearer.)

Ouch!!!!!!!!

That explains it, and I don't blame the doc at all.

Hopefully, he went somewhere he was appreciated?

Interesting point. In the normal course of events a patent is only granted to protect an invention - and that means a novel idea with claims that no one else had thought of.

Prior art, usually in the form of documentary evidence, would be searched for. If none was found then a patent might be granted.

A patent can be challenged with adequate time dated evidence of 'prior art'. But popping into the Patent Office with some sketches on an old post-marked envelope will not do. You need to show you made and sold the product before the patent was granted, then with independent dated evidence such as invoices, cheques, contract drawings etc, you would have a good case.

In fact you would not have to challenge anything. You can make and sell as many as you like regardless of some future patent. Where in all probability the patent (if granted) would be useless because any one could by-pass it by claiming to have copied you. Which they can do because you have no patent protection for yourself.

On the other hand, if you really believe in your product, you could attempt a DIY patent using a patent agent to do the 'legal' bit. And when you do the search you might be disappointed to find 'prior art' in which case you haven't invented anything....

.....but it is better to know at the outset before taking out a mortgage on you property to pay for it...

I believe that I am no longer qualified to have a meaningful opinion on the art of patenting an idea or product.

While I want to believe that "prior art" trumps patent applicants who want to poach others inventions, I don't know.

There's this: Prior Art Finder - Google for those more curious than I.

My patent was granted (on my birthday) in 2001. Things have changed mightily since then, with lawyers and patent greed overtaking inventiveness and discovery.

Mark's experience is newer than mine.

Thanks for all of your very useful replies guys. :) It seems that I have two main options.

Option 1. Approach some existing keyboard/gamepad manufactures and show them my design after getting them to sign a non-disclosure agreement to see if they would be interested in manufacturing it in return for some royalties/one off payment.

Option 2. Put my design in the public domain and try and get funding to manufacture it without a patent. The Kickstarter website would be ideal for this. https://www.kickstarter.com

just what type of royalty do you think you might get, expressed as a % of a sales price they receive?

There is nothing stopping you from doing a KickStarter project, while you are still in the 'Patent Pending' stage of your provisional patent. In-fact, be up-front with your investors about the status of your patent, and tell them that part of the funds received will be used for finalizing the patent. This will be very helpful in many ways as it will give you a fantastic way to prove to a major company just how much interest the public has in your device. And, you will eventually have the finished patent to show them once it has issued.

I don't know. Probably less than 5% if somebody else is paying to manufacture it and take the financial risk. I'm not greedy though.

This is just an interesting and enjoyable side project for me really. I don't have any previous experience as a product designer or manufacturer. It's being developed on a shoe string budget (hopefully with the help of a small grant soon) but it's an original idea and based of the feedback that the prototype has had from play testers it's a very good one. It would be nice if I could earn a bit of money from it.

The timing for the release of it will be important though because it's been designed for use with the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset which will be available soon.

I would think that 5% would be dreaming...but I had negotiated 5% in the past myself. But I had a heck of product. I wasn't getting the 5% btw, I was getting the 95% and the artists get 5%. five per cent is considered to be VERY generous on my part, which is why I get "resident artists". You can see some of my stuff on my web site. You would have to go to "fantasy armour" to find the artist stuff.

Even 0.5% can be lucrative if your product is as good as you believe.
I once worked with this old guy who made a fortune from a tiny royalty on a medical device.

My boss was once complaining about a £500 tooling charge for a sheet metal part I'd designed.
I said, "Fine, I'll pay for it!... if you give me a penny for every part we use".
He paid for the tooling

Del

I always start off with an Industrial Design about $ 400.00 CDN, that establishes the time of invention and you give as much detail as you can with out giving away everything. They are good for 6 years and if you wish add some copyright for the appearance. I have used both over the years with success. Then if you make some big money consider the patent. I was told that the patent description can give too much information putting you at risk and it was suggested to put ( Patent Pending) on all your documents even though you have not filed it seems to slow them down for a while if not scare them off.

for awhile I was enjoying this thread........was. as with most backyard inventors you're displaying a typical form of paranoia. you're guarding details very closely, too closely for someone seeking advice. this isn't really a legal forum but it still is a fantastic source of knowledge and experience. many here including myself have coddled you to this point and attempted to advise you on a mystery product with a vague description.teasing people with a "million dollar idea" will only hold attention so long. personally without seeing a working prototype I'm skeptical if you have anything more than general concept for a narrow market that will be a mere flash in the pan if anything at all. others may continue to rack their brain attempting to guide your next move, I think that's a waste of my time. forget protection at this point of infancy of product development and develop a working model. come back after that.

I almost forgot...

The single most important starting place, is a patent search.

You can do it yourself, and a thorough search will take at least a couple of days. The USPTO is the place to do it.

99 times out of 100 999 times out of 1000, somebody will have your idea covered.

While searching, look at the "claims" within various previous patents.

On something like a keypad device, don't be surprised if one of the big players has a broadly written patent that covers your idea, even if you haven't seen it in use.

Try to get on "Sharktank" A program on the travel channel. If the idea is good

they will help You monetarily.

oilcan13

Making money off an idea is not the way to do it. Ideas by their very nature cannot be "owned" or "protectected" by anything except secrecy.

The answer is to manufacture, perhaps with full plans, and a GPL public licence. That way you make money from your tangible product.

You should read "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella

Oh yeah?

Tell that to Apple, Sony, Google, etc.etc.

Intellectual property does not have to be tangible.

Intelectual property is NEVER tangible. Only the device manufactured is tangible. The big guys you mensioned don't make intelectual property for sale. They obtain patents to beat each other with as they go to market with the tangible goods!

The Dragons on the "Dragon's Den" demand patents before they invest in your product. The usual question they ask is "can I get that widget somewhere else and go into business against you?" If so, they keep their money.

They are also very wary of "like minded items". If you come up with, say, a different chemical to do spay tanning, they won't invest because the market is already saturated with spray tanners. The new chemical means nothing to the market.

I imagine that to be true UNLESS the new chemical is more environmentally friendly, AND cheaper than the status quo. It is all about making more money.

Lots of "ifs" in that statement. Almost nobody will invest in a "what if" product...thats all I'm saying.

Be first on the market. China does not care about you piddly little patent.

Make your money and move on. China will counterfeit it within a year if it is good.

The patent is a 'weapon' in the armoury of a manufacturer to protect against copies. The cost of buying the weapon, and the need to use it, will depend on the potential value of the market. You must asses that first.

From which you will derive the cost of labour and materials to make the product, and regardless of patents and other overheads, the cost of sales and distribution, and after-sales service.

I invented a product. I took out a patent because I anticipated the market to grow, but at the time the risk of copying my product was near zero because demand was near zero as well. I was selling them one at a time, but very profitable in terms of mark-up, that was necessary to absorb the disproportionate overheads, making the business as a whole just viable.The product was hand made from readily available components, that anybody could obtain, and with my drawings, easy to copy, but without the associated cost of design, development and testing, thus so easy to undercut my selling price.

Even then the risk was not that my competitors would be proactive and try to break into my market, but more like my customers sending my drawings to them or favourite suppliers seeking competitive quotes.

Nothin happened. The market did not expand much. The patents expired, and we are still making products one at a time. The difference is that we know the near size of our market and we bulk buy materials and have our own special components made that reduces manufacturing costs so we can under-cut direct competition - if necessary.

But usually not, because we make a safety related protection device, where in reality our competition comes from 'doing nothing' a policy largely promoted by Apathy & Co, headed up by Noddy Timbs. 'he is also the leader of the Flat Earth Brigade.

From my experience, all this means you have to decide what the patent is meant to do. Taking out worldwide patents based on a 'guessed' worldwide market when today you are only making your product one at a time for a few 'mates' cannot be viable

I agree with horace40. You need to just build it. Patents are not a protection device for the small guy. They are a leverage device for the big guy. If you are already giving away the idea, but manufacturing and selling the tangible product, you have the protection you need from the big guys, who, don't want anything unless it has a patent!

I've gone round and round with this over the years, and for a small startup, patents are a problem not a solution. They don't protect anything. They are a big gun with no ammo.....unless you can afford the ammo. You can swing them around and look menacing, but the first big guy to come along with loaded lawyer will own you in no time.

Trademark is much much better. It is easy to setup and provable in court without any great expense, BUT, you have to have a history of manufacturing and sales.

Use a name for you product that is not using everyday terms or words. Like what was suggested earlier with the Whammo business. Whammo and Frisbee did not exist as words until the company started useing them as brands. That is a solid trademark.

There's more to it than that; just the color yellow can be powerful.

http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2008/03/dba_color_trademarks_los_angeles_toys_lawsuit_whamo_tradedress_design.html

its all a moot argument, this guy doesn't even have a working prototype, he wants a big company to do all the math, engineering, design ,manufacturing, marketing, distribution etc. and hand him an armored car. he's not going anywhere, he doesn't need a patent or trademark.

Patents are not a protection device for the small guy.

I don't necessarily agree with that; not only does a loudmouth like me, have the ability to nail the big guys in the court of public opinion, but there's a good chance that a lawyer can be found, that will take on a solid case on contingency.

No lawyer will take it on contigency UNLESS there is already a market and market share at stake. Otherwise, you are on your own. You have to have a market, and a manufactured product, and revenue, before you have any contingency.

Right.

I made my statement under the assumption that an idea had been stolen by a big player, and that they were profiting from it...in which case, a patent DOES offer protection to the little guy.

If an idea can't generate revenue from anywhere, then even if it is unique, the entire exercise is pointless...unless someone just wants a really expensive plaque to put on the wall.

After much consideration of the patent situation I've come to the conclusion that intellectual property protection has more to do with lining the pockets of lawyers, patent middle men and large corporations than helping designers. It seem that it often does more to hold back genuine innovators than help them.

I'm not doing this for the money (although it would be nice). I designed the keypad because it's a good idea which will be genuinely useful for people who play 'first person' style computer games using a keyboard and mouse. It will be of particular use for people using the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset.

After careful consideration I've decided not to get funding to put it into production myself even though it may prove to be lucrative for anyone who is "first to market" when the Oculus Rift is released. I doubt that going into business will be a path that leads to happiness. Instead I will put details of the concept into the public domain and make it free for anyone to use. Also the knowledge that it's in the public domain and therefore cannot be patented will be an added bonus because it means that lawyer's won't be able to earn any money from it.

The aim with this project is only to get this design into production. It has been an enjoyable and educational development process and the sense of satisfaction if anyone uses the design will be more than enough for me. I'll be very happy for it just to exist and wish anyone the best of luck if they want to put it into production.

I have no regrets for taking out a patent. It was a form of insurance that gave me peace of mind at the time. Although with hindsight it seems I didn't need it.

But then I could say that about my house fire insurance - I didn't need that either.

There is an alternative course of action for you. If you are not going to make it yourself then lodge the invention with the Patent Office to get a prior date. Then go to manufacturers to see if they are interested. If they are interested then proceed with the patent application, and if not interested then abandon the application because you don't need one anyway.

If they have lied when telling you they are not interested, your prior date will stop them getting one. It wont stop them making it though.

You do what you are happy with.

Good luck.

Very wise. I put a lot of stuff out and people copy it all the time.

They an sue. I have Guataman insurance. If you want to serve me papers I will be in Guatamala.

Apologies to SWB123 post 53.

In terms of 'patents' as we are discussing here, it now looks as though I have 'copied' the idea from 53. Sorry.

I wrote my reply (now 62) much earlier but it did not get sent because of the damned CR4 time-out fault. I left it for a while and missed the boat.

I have had some communication with a gentleman that also feels that a patent is only as good as your ability to defend it in court.($$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

This gentleman developed some substantial improvements to an item used in dust collection. He arranged to have a small mom and pop company produce them and sell them. Enter a large manufacturer of the unimproved product. They copied the design, and sued the small company, who was not financially capable of defending their product. They even have the nerve to give credit for the improved design to the gentleman that improved the design. So what good is a patent?

Improved or not, if the original device still had active patents when these folks were selling their version including including the original patents, then the big company was very much in the right, by defending their patents. IF that was the case, then the premise behind your question is mute.

There are about six companies that are already manufacturing the device in sizes that cost thousands of dollars. The only model that was made by the small company was a small size that retailed for under $200. The move was just aimed at taking over the improvement in design.

Unless you can afford to pay lawyers and patent attorneys to get your patent and the lawyers down-the-line needed to sue someone for patent infringemant, I feel it a waste of time to get a patent. Whatever you come up with, someone will steal it and copy it, often without you being aware of it until it's too late. It will be a constant battle to protect your idea and that costs big bucks. I hate to discourage you or anyone for their inventions, but the laws that protect ideas just aren't working as they should. How do you sue someone who is 8000 miles away in China copying your idea. He will make a lot of money before you can catch up with him and then he will say Sorry, I didn't know you had a patent on this.

Your statement is true only if you don't plan on selling the device you have invented; and, you are just going to let your invention lie fallow. You can't even get an investor interested, if you don't have a patent. Part of your negotiations with ANY Investing angel, would be that they cover the legal costs, to protect your mutual rights. At least that is what I would do.

Otherwise, IF you do want to pursue your own invention, you had better be prepared to just give it to the big boys once they have gone to the trouble to patent it, and then they sue you (Because, it is now first to file, not first to invent!). You have absolutely NO rights to your own invention, if you don't at least file.

IF you do have a patent you CAN get an injunction against the person here in the US, who is selling, or distributing your patented product. Most people don't even think about that. But, you are very right in one sense, you have no business even being in business here in today's America, if you don't have the financial resources to defend yourself, from even the the most piddly little nuisance suit.

It would be easy to blame the lawyers here, but it is really the average, greedy, litigious idiot who hires the lawyers in the first place who are to blame. Supply, and demand!

As a PS to my previous posts, apart from the problems and cost of litigation if infringement occurs, there is a basic annual cost of maintaining the patent.

Mine expired long ago, but during it's life the annual cost of renewal went up in leaps and bounds. "....the initial fees are kept low to assist development of the market and are increased over time to recover the cost when the market has matured...." said the Patent Office in the UK. --- What a load of sanctimonious claptrap! it's just a trick to get money for nothing.

Another trick they had was a penalty for late renewal that applied if payment was made 30 days after the expiry date.

A normal ethical business would send out annual notices early in month 12 for renewal with a warning that penalties would apply for late payment. But not the UK Patent Office. No!. They sent out reminders late in month 13 - thus making it impossible to avoid the penalty. They were stopped from doing that by public protest. The penalties still apply but at least the notice gives you time to pay up to avoid the penalty.

I hit a bad patch (nearly went bankrupt in 1990) so to save money I decided we could dispense with the patent. That's when I found out about a complex time consuming routine to cancel/revoke a patent, involving fees for everybody - agents and lawyers. You had to notify and gain approval of customers, suppliers, licensees, users etc who had a commercial interest in, or relied on the patent. Which made sense I suppose for really successful patents.

I asked what would happen if I did nothing and just ignored the renewal notice? "..the patent will lapse...." they said. Amazing!

PPS. Sod the time-out.