The Role of Patents?
-
Guys, I was pondering one evening and got an interesting idea for a product. (Does not really matter what product.) I thought, wow, this is a great idea. How about I try to get a patent, prototype, build and try to sell it. Next day, I started to browse the www.uspto.gov to see if I am really the first one to have this idea. Of course I’m not the first one. You really thought I’m that smart. However, what surprised me was that exactly the same idea was patented about 5 times, with almost the same description. I can not give you the exact links as I plan to get the 6th patent on the same basic idea . Two of the patents are amazingly close in description and even claims. They were published about 3 month apart back in 2003. The third patent from the list of 5 is basically an improved version of the first two. Read: first two + a bit of sugar. We are now in 2006 and none of these made it on the market. One of the reasons might be that if you try to implement anyone of them you infringe on the other patents. So my first question: Is this logical? My second issue: If someone patents an idea/design, and that someone then does not take the necessary steps to try to produce/market/commercialize that idea isn’t that a lost idea? For 20 years while that patent is valid, no one is able to produce and commercialize that because they don’t own the patent. However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair? So, what are your experiences/ideas/opinions about this subject? Corneliu. http://www.acorns.com.au
AFAIK when it comes to enforcing the patent the one file first will win, if the patents really are that close. regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
Guys, I was pondering one evening and got an interesting idea for a product. (Does not really matter what product.) I thought, wow, this is a great idea. How about I try to get a patent, prototype, build and try to sell it. Next day, I started to browse the www.uspto.gov to see if I am really the first one to have this idea. Of course I’m not the first one. You really thought I’m that smart. However, what surprised me was that exactly the same idea was patented about 5 times, with almost the same description. I can not give you the exact links as I plan to get the 6th patent on the same basic idea . Two of the patents are amazingly close in description and even claims. They were published about 3 month apart back in 2003. The third patent from the list of 5 is basically an improved version of the first two. Read: first two + a bit of sugar. We are now in 2006 and none of these made it on the market. One of the reasons might be that if you try to implement anyone of them you infringe on the other patents. So my first question: Is this logical? My second issue: If someone patents an idea/design, and that someone then does not take the necessary steps to try to produce/market/commercialize that idea isn’t that a lost idea? For 20 years while that patent is valid, no one is able to produce and commercialize that because they don’t own the patent. However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair? So, what are your experiences/ideas/opinions about this subject? Corneliu. http://www.acorns.com.au
Corneliu Tusnea wrote:
Is this fair?
No, it is the law. If thre is a house somewhere that is your dream house, but you can't afford it, I can buy it and destroy it. It is not fair, but it is allowed. [edit] BUT, if you are really ready to patent something and that you have clearance of banks and market studies for selling it, take the advice of an expert attorney who will reformulate your patent so that it is not exactely the same as the other ones, so you will not enforce them (or at least enforce them so slightely that the experts battle if you ever get put on trial would last so long and cost so much that it will never happen). This is actually what most people in the situation will do.[/edit] ~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus -- modified at 7:25 Monday 3rd July, 2006
-
Guys, I was pondering one evening and got an interesting idea for a product. (Does not really matter what product.) I thought, wow, this is a great idea. How about I try to get a patent, prototype, build and try to sell it. Next day, I started to browse the www.uspto.gov to see if I am really the first one to have this idea. Of course I’m not the first one. You really thought I’m that smart. However, what surprised me was that exactly the same idea was patented about 5 times, with almost the same description. I can not give you the exact links as I plan to get the 6th patent on the same basic idea . Two of the patents are amazingly close in description and even claims. They were published about 3 month apart back in 2003. The third patent from the list of 5 is basically an improved version of the first two. Read: first two + a bit of sugar. We are now in 2006 and none of these made it on the market. One of the reasons might be that if you try to implement anyone of them you infringe on the other patents. So my first question: Is this logical? My second issue: If someone patents an idea/design, and that someone then does not take the necessary steps to try to produce/market/commercialize that idea isn’t that a lost idea? For 20 years while that patent is valid, no one is able to produce and commercialize that because they don’t own the patent. However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair? So, what are your experiences/ideas/opinions about this subject? Corneliu. http://www.acorns.com.au
Corneliu Tusnea wrote:
If someone patents an idea/design, and that someone then does not take the necessary steps to try to produce/market/commercialize that idea isn’t that a lost idea? For 20 years while that patent is valid, no one is able to produce and commercialize that because they don’t own the patent. However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair?
Who said things should be 'fair'? There's nothing wrong with getting a patent and then doing nothing with it. One of the uses of a patent is that you can sue a person/company which productizes your IP. Basically, you get the patent, they make the product and profit from it, then you sue them for the profit. Of course, that's not why most people get patents! :) :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
Guys, I was pondering one evening and got an interesting idea for a product. (Does not really matter what product.) I thought, wow, this is a great idea. How about I try to get a patent, prototype, build and try to sell it. Next day, I started to browse the www.uspto.gov to see if I am really the first one to have this idea. Of course I’m not the first one. You really thought I’m that smart. However, what surprised me was that exactly the same idea was patented about 5 times, with almost the same description. I can not give you the exact links as I plan to get the 6th patent on the same basic idea . Two of the patents are amazingly close in description and even claims. They were published about 3 month apart back in 2003. The third patent from the list of 5 is basically an improved version of the first two. Read: first two + a bit of sugar. We are now in 2006 and none of these made it on the market. One of the reasons might be that if you try to implement anyone of them you infringe on the other patents. So my first question: Is this logical? My second issue: If someone patents an idea/design, and that someone then does not take the necessary steps to try to produce/market/commercialize that idea isn’t that a lost idea? For 20 years while that patent is valid, no one is able to produce and commercialize that because they don’t own the patent. However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair? So, what are your experiences/ideas/opinions about this subject? Corneliu. http://www.acorns.com.au
Corneliu Tusnea wrote:
However, what surprised me was that exactly the same idea was patented about 5 times, with almost the same description. I can not give you the exact links as I plan to get the 6th patent on the same basic idea
Well, in many countries it's not interesting weather you have a patent or not, if you don't own the first one. So only the first has the rights, and he can proceed against you, if you start to get the patent or try to produce the product. Before getting the patent, I would try to figure out, if you got the right on your side. In Germany you would fail. You could get the patent, but the other one has the older rights and would win a lawsuit.
Corneliu Tusnea wrote:
However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair?
Perhaps they still try to produce it or the already produce it anywhere else with a very small production so you don't know about it. Fairness and having the right on your side are two totally different cases. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
I would say that yes in each case it is logical. File your patent and protect your idea *FIRST*. Once you have done that take 5 years to save up money, secure financing, negotiate manufacturing etc... Your idea is protected for at least 20. Burn up 5 years doing it *right* then use 15 years to acquire your wealth. It makes sense to me. Now I'm not claiming the entire patent thing is good, bad I'm completely indifferent. I'm just saying that yes, what you explain does make sense and telling you why.
"You have an arrow in your butt!" - Fiona:cool:
Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog [ ^ ] now.People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog[^]CPhog. The act of using CPhog (Firefox)[^] alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog (Firefox)[^] and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)
Except that you end up with companies that have nothing but a portfolio of patents, and no intention to do anything with them, purely as a speculative measure to make money by sueing infringers or selling the patents. This quite clearly stifles innovation.
-
Except that you end up with companies that have nothing but a portfolio of patents, and no intention to do anything with them, purely as a speculative measure to make money by sueing infringers or selling the patents. This quite clearly stifles innovation.
Like I said. I make no claims to it being good or bad. Any system that does things properly will be abused.
"You have an arrow in your butt!" - Fiona:cool:
Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog [ ^ ] now.People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog[^]CPhog. The act of using CPhog (Firefox)[^] alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog (Firefox)[^] and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)
-
Except that you end up with companies that have nothing but a portfolio of patents, and no intention to do anything with them, purely as a speculative measure to make money by sueing infringers or selling the patents. This quite clearly stifles innovation.
Craster wrote:
Except that you end up with companies that have nothing but a portfolio of patents, and no intention to do anything with them, purely as a speculative measure to make money by sueing infringers or selling the patents.
Patents protect the time, money and effort put into developing ideas. Years and millions of dollars can go into developing a patentable idea. Why should that all be lost just because the owner of the patent doesn't want to follow through with prototyping and manufacturing? So there are companies that just hold patents. So what? They payed the original patent holder for the rights to their work. Intellectual property is no different than any other kind of property. They buy, wait for the value to increase (or take steps to market the ideas so the value increases) and sell the rights to use. Most of the money these companies make isn't from litigation, its from licensing the patent rights to third parties. Occassionaly they find someone is using their I.P. rights illegally and sue them (and rightly so). Why is that bad? It's no different than owning a piece of property in Florida, checking up on it and finding someone has decided to build a house on it without paying you for it. Cheers, Drew.
-
Craster wrote:
Except that you end up with companies that have nothing but a portfolio of patents, and no intention to do anything with them, purely as a speculative measure to make money by sueing infringers or selling the patents.
Patents protect the time, money and effort put into developing ideas. Years and millions of dollars can go into developing a patentable idea. Why should that all be lost just because the owner of the patent doesn't want to follow through with prototyping and manufacturing? So there are companies that just hold patents. So what? They payed the original patent holder for the rights to their work. Intellectual property is no different than any other kind of property. They buy, wait for the value to increase (or take steps to market the ideas so the value increases) and sell the rights to use. Most of the money these companies make isn't from litigation, its from licensing the patent rights to third parties. Occassionaly they find someone is using their I.P. rights illegally and sue them (and rightly so). Why is that bad? It's no different than owning a piece of property in Florida, checking up on it and finding someone has decided to build a house on it without paying you for it. Cheers, Drew.
Drew Stainton wrote:
Why is that bad?
I never said it was bad. It has bad aspects - It does undeniably stifle innovation, for example. Also consider the patents that are so vaguely worded that there is actually no way that they could be translated to a working product. They are just vague enough to trap 20-odd sensible, well-thought out patent applications and forbid them from being implemented (or knowingly let them be implemented, then raise an infringement lawsuit once the implementer has sunk vast amounts of money and time into developing the product). Patents aren't bad. They're badly managed and enforced. At least in the UK (IIRC) they only run for 7 years, not 20.
-
Drew Stainton wrote:
Why is that bad?
I never said it was bad. It has bad aspects - It does undeniably stifle innovation, for example. Also consider the patents that are so vaguely worded that there is actually no way that they could be translated to a working product. They are just vague enough to trap 20-odd sensible, well-thought out patent applications and forbid them from being implemented (or knowingly let them be implemented, then raise an infringement lawsuit once the implementer has sunk vast amounts of money and time into developing the product). Patents aren't bad. They're badly managed and enforced. At least in the UK (IIRC) they only run for 7 years, not 20.
Craster wrote:
It does undeniably stifle innovation, for example.
I just don't believe that for a second. On the surface that may seem true, but think about it this way: If no mechanism was in place to protect the investment put into developing ideas, that would stifle innovation. Why would I spend time, money and effort to develop an idea if anyone else could just come along and use it for free?
Craster wrote:
Also consider the patents that are so vaguely worded that there is actually no way that they could be translated to a working product.
That's the whole point of them. They are ideas, not implementations. When you register a patent, you try to make it cover as wide a territory as possible so that the value of your investment is retained. The patent office is very good at rejecting applications that are too vague.
Craster wrote:
They are just vague enough to trap 20-odd sensible, well-thought out patent applications
Again, that's the whole point of patents. Whoever is first gets rights to the idea. If you're too vague in the application, it won't get registered.
Craster wrote:
then raise an infringement lawsuit once the implementer has sunk vast amounts of money and time into developing the product).
It's up to the company developing the product to do a proper search and ensure they aren't infringing on others intellectual property. That's what I.P. lawyers are for. It's not the patent holder's fault when someone starts using their I.P. without licensing it first. Most companies do their due dilligence before hand. Those that don't risk having to pay a hefty price. Unfortunately those are the ones we see in the press, you never hear about the millions of patents that are licenced properly by companies beforehand.
Craster wrote:
They're badly managed and enforced.
I have yet to see that be the case. All I've seen to date is where companies have gone ahead and developed products without doing their due dilligence or they have knowingly used patented ideas with no intention of licensing them. That's got nothing to do with the patent office's management or enforcement policies. Cheers, Drew.
-
Guys, I was pondering one evening and got an interesting idea for a product. (Does not really matter what product.) I thought, wow, this is a great idea. How about I try to get a patent, prototype, build and try to sell it. Next day, I started to browse the www.uspto.gov to see if I am really the first one to have this idea. Of course I’m not the first one. You really thought I’m that smart. However, what surprised me was that exactly the same idea was patented about 5 times, with almost the same description. I can not give you the exact links as I plan to get the 6th patent on the same basic idea . Two of the patents are amazingly close in description and even claims. They were published about 3 month apart back in 2003. The third patent from the list of 5 is basically an improved version of the first two. Read: first two + a bit of sugar. We are now in 2006 and none of these made it on the market. One of the reasons might be that if you try to implement anyone of them you infringe on the other patents. So my first question: Is this logical? My second issue: If someone patents an idea/design, and that someone then does not take the necessary steps to try to produce/market/commercialize that idea isn’t that a lost idea? For 20 years while that patent is valid, no one is able to produce and commercialize that because they don’t own the patent. However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair? So, what are your experiences/ideas/opinions about this subject? Corneliu. http://www.acorns.com.au
Corneliu, It sounds to me like you need to educate yourself about what intellectual property protections a patent actually grants the inventor. For example, even if you have a patent, someone else can come along and manufacture, market and profit from the exact thing described in your patent. There are no patent police. There is no government force working on behalf of patent holders to protect their rights. Patent rights are enforced through the court system. The only way you can stop an infringer is to take them to court. If you have enough money to put up a good legal defense, then your patent potentially has some value. If many people infringe your patent, but you don't (or can't afford to) sue all of them, then you could possibly end up forfeiting your patent rights due to inaction. On top of this, a US patent only provides protection in the US. Someone can manufacture and sell your product in Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. and you are powerless (unless you want to obtain expensive patents in each country and defend your rights in the courts in each country). My advice is that you should not waste your time patenting something you already know is not unique. I say this because I presume your capital is limited. You should use your energy to do something that has a greater chance of payoff. Another consequence of the way this works is that you could just go ahead and manufacture a product someone else has patented if you know for a fact that the other person would not sue you. Of course, once the other person sees you making millions of dollars, they will most likely decide to sue you at that point, and they might find a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency.
-
Guys, I was pondering one evening and got an interesting idea for a product. (Does not really matter what product.) I thought, wow, this is a great idea. How about I try to get a patent, prototype, build and try to sell it. Next day, I started to browse the www.uspto.gov to see if I am really the first one to have this idea. Of course I’m not the first one. You really thought I’m that smart. However, what surprised me was that exactly the same idea was patented about 5 times, with almost the same description. I can not give you the exact links as I plan to get the 6th patent on the same basic idea . Two of the patents are amazingly close in description and even claims. They were published about 3 month apart back in 2003. The third patent from the list of 5 is basically an improved version of the first two. Read: first two + a bit of sugar. We are now in 2006 and none of these made it on the market. One of the reasons might be that if you try to implement anyone of them you infringe on the other patents. So my first question: Is this logical? My second issue: If someone patents an idea/design, and that someone then does not take the necessary steps to try to produce/market/commercialize that idea isn’t that a lost idea? For 20 years while that patent is valid, no one is able to produce and commercialize that because they don’t own the patent. However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair? So, what are your experiences/ideas/opinions about this subject? Corneliu. http://www.acorns.com.au
The most interesting situation is when you patent something that has a lot of work to be done, and that takes a lot of time to learn how to make it, even if it can be seen. Then if you add a patent it will be easier to receive customers that would like to buy your patented idea than some that will want to do the same. As you told, you can patent some things, but if you make the patent too concise, than you have thrown the money because changing one simple thing that is not important for the working of your idea nobody would infringe the patent, but if you make it too global, it is possible to make changes also... In other fields than the IT it's easier to patent something, but always there are the same problems. Patents are useful for a lot of things: - You can show your customer that you have patented something (this means that you make R+D). - You can tell your cometitors (via a certified mail) what you've patented giving them all the information related to that patent (just in order to be able to go for them if they make a copy for the first time). - When you patent something, its easier to receive economic helps from the government. - You avoid a possible competitor to be a competitor because you improve a way of doing something and the competitor "should" not be able to do it. If somebody don't want to make something, but it gets patented, I believe that the only reason is to avoid the competitor to make it. In fact, patenting anything is something expensive, in our comapny we have patented some projects and when you talk about the whole world it's incredible... and it becomes more incredible when your patents office tells you that in some countries is a stupidity to patent something because even the government don't make anything on that.
-
The most interesting situation is when you patent something that has a lot of work to be done, and that takes a lot of time to learn how to make it, even if it can be seen. Then if you add a patent it will be easier to receive customers that would like to buy your patented idea than some that will want to do the same. As you told, you can patent some things, but if you make the patent too concise, than you have thrown the money because changing one simple thing that is not important for the working of your idea nobody would infringe the patent, but if you make it too global, it is possible to make changes also... In other fields than the IT it's easier to patent something, but always there are the same problems. Patents are useful for a lot of things: - You can show your customer that you have patented something (this means that you make R+D). - You can tell your cometitors (via a certified mail) what you've patented giving them all the information related to that patent (just in order to be able to go for them if they make a copy for the first time). - When you patent something, its easier to receive economic helps from the government. - You avoid a possible competitor to be a competitor because you improve a way of doing something and the competitor "should" not be able to do it. If somebody don't want to make something, but it gets patented, I believe that the only reason is to avoid the competitor to make it. In fact, patenting anything is something expensive, in our comapny we have patented some projects and when you talk about the whole world it's incredible... and it becomes more incredible when your patents office tells you that in some countries is a stupidity to patent something because even the government don't make anything on that.
I wonder if Chinese manufacturers recognise worldwide patents? How difficult would it be to litigate a huge foreign industry over a slightly ambiguous patent infringement? Its possibly better to get to market fast, and make your money early rather than try for the long term gain. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that someone WILL copy it sometime, even with a patent protecting it. It boils down to a choice of where the battle will be fought: in the law courts or in the marketplace.
-
Guys, I was pondering one evening and got an interesting idea for a product. (Does not really matter what product.) I thought, wow, this is a great idea. How about I try to get a patent, prototype, build and try to sell it. Next day, I started to browse the www.uspto.gov to see if I am really the first one to have this idea. Of course I’m not the first one. You really thought I’m that smart. However, what surprised me was that exactly the same idea was patented about 5 times, with almost the same description. I can not give you the exact links as I plan to get the 6th patent on the same basic idea . Two of the patents are amazingly close in description and even claims. They were published about 3 month apart back in 2003. The third patent from the list of 5 is basically an improved version of the first two. Read: first two + a bit of sugar. We are now in 2006 and none of these made it on the market. One of the reasons might be that if you try to implement anyone of them you infringe on the other patents. So my first question: Is this logical? My second issue: If someone patents an idea/design, and that someone then does not take the necessary steps to try to produce/market/commercialize that idea isn’t that a lost idea? For 20 years while that patent is valid, no one is able to produce and commercialize that because they don’t own the patent. However the owner is unwilling to sell their patent. Is this fair? So, what are your experiences/ideas/opinions about this subject? Corneliu. http://www.acorns.com.au
The only thing I see wrong with this scenario is the similarities of the patents. Theoretically, a patent is issued based on the idea or application of the idea being totally novel. If patents are overlapping, the PTO is probably struggling with definitions. As for "broadness", anyone with an overly-broad patent has an enforceability issue. Even if the PTO issues the patent, the judiciary gets to interpret it. Many patents have become worthless just because they tried to cover everything. Here's an example: I write a new sort algorithm that implements part of QuickSort in a very new way. Does that prohibit others from altering the QuickSort algorithm for their own purposes? Absolutely not! What if I tried to get a patent that covered string sorting in general? Unenforceable (and it probably wouldn't even be issued.) You have to be able to demonstrate to both the PTO and the Judicial system that your patent covers something unique and improves the current state-of-the-art. In some cases, proof of prior inventorship set up as a trade secret is all you need. Patenting intellectual property is a relatively new area of law. There are bound to be some issues. We're still pioneering this stuff. I think it is very valuable to challenge these things and bring this to light so we can press past the frontiers.
-
Craster wrote:
It does undeniably stifle innovation, for example.
I just don't believe that for a second. On the surface that may seem true, but think about it this way: If no mechanism was in place to protect the investment put into developing ideas, that would stifle innovation. Why would I spend time, money and effort to develop an idea if anyone else could just come along and use it for free?
Craster wrote:
Also consider the patents that are so vaguely worded that there is actually no way that they could be translated to a working product.
That's the whole point of them. They are ideas, not implementations. When you register a patent, you try to make it cover as wide a territory as possible so that the value of your investment is retained. The patent office is very good at rejecting applications that are too vague.
Craster wrote:
They are just vague enough to trap 20-odd sensible, well-thought out patent applications
Again, that's the whole point of patents. Whoever is first gets rights to the idea. If you're too vague in the application, it won't get registered.
Craster wrote:
then raise an infringement lawsuit once the implementer has sunk vast amounts of money and time into developing the product).
It's up to the company developing the product to do a proper search and ensure they aren't infringing on others intellectual property. That's what I.P. lawyers are for. It's not the patent holder's fault when someone starts using their I.P. without licensing it first. Most companies do their due dilligence before hand. Those that don't risk having to pay a hefty price. Unfortunately those are the ones we see in the press, you never hear about the millions of patents that are licenced properly by companies beforehand.
Craster wrote:
They're badly managed and enforced.
I have yet to see that be the case. All I've seen to date is where companies have gone ahead and developed products without doing their due dilligence or they have knowingly used patented ideas with no intention of licensing them. That's got nothing to do with the patent office's management or enforcement policies. Cheers, Drew.
Drew Stainton wrote:
Craster wrote: It does undeniably stifle innovation, for example. I just don't believe that for a second. On the surface that may seem true, but think about it this way: If no mechanism was in place to protect the investment put into developing ideas, that would stifle innovation. Why would I spend time, money and effort to develop an idea if anyone else could just come along and use it for free?
Why would I spend time, money and effort to develop an idea when I can just take the easy route of creating a submarine patent for minimum time and cost? I then go about my normal life waiting for someone else to put in a whole lot of work and put out a product which produces just enough money for them to settle with me for tripping up on my patent.