I heard there are new patent laws in place, recently voted in by congress and signed by Obama. The first individual or company to file for a patent gets the rights to the work--speeding up the patent process and avoiding costly court hearings.
Does this mean a greedy corporation can come into this forum and steal many wonderful designs and patent them as their own, if the genius individual didn't patent it first before sharing it? These seems like a HORRIBLE law!
Does this mean a greedy corporation can come into this forum and steal many wonderful designs and patent them as their own, if the genius individual didn't patent it first before sharing it? These seems like a HORRIBLE law!
Yes, no, and no. "First to file" is customary in nearly every country- this law harmonizes the US with customary patent law. It will NOT reduce costly court hearings in the slightest. You can always count on the lawyers who make up the political class to ensure that there's plenty of costly legal work to be done.
Changes in the law do not affect questions of prior art. If "greedy" corporations "steal" wonderful ideas and patent them, the patents are invalid. In fact, the very best scenario for an independent inventor is to have his idea "stolen" by a "greedy" corporation- the worst case is having his idea stolen by small-to-medium size entities.
I believe it has always been 'first to patent' in Europe. However, we don't allow so many silly patents and any prior public disclosure by anyone renders something nonpatentable. So here, you just publish your idea and that stops anyone, including the inventor, from patenting it.
I'm not sure what legal force this has, but I believe what some people do is post a copy of their idea to themselves but when it arrives leave it unopened. Then if there is a dispute about originality, the copy with postmark shows who thought of it first. This would only be relevant if two people apply for a patent at the same time.
I'm not sure what legal force this has, but I believe what some people do is post a copy of their idea to themselves but when it arrives leave it unopened. Then if there is a dispute about originality, the copy with postmark shows who thought of it first. This would only be relevant if two people apply for a patent at the same time.
In the US, the inventor has one year from the date of disclosure to file. You're correct, disclosure prevents patenting in Europe.
The mail-to-oneself thing has zero legal validity.
In the event of a dispute it could count as evidence. It is certainly evidence that at a particular date you were in possession of an idea, but it doesn't show how you came by that idea - you might have stolen it.
In my view the real issue with patents is the scope of them, and what is so obvious it ought not to be patentable. This is really down to the quality and diligence of patent examiners. If I invent a new way to tie shoelaces, I should not be granted a patent on any form of foot covering or any form of knot for fastening something to something else.
In my view the real issue with patents is the scope of them, and what is so obvious it ought not to be patentable. This is really down to the quality and diligence of patent examiners. If I invent a new way to tie shoelaces, I should not be granted a patent on any form of foot covering or any form of knot for fastening something to something else.
Also invalid. Way too easy to fake. The proper way to do it is to have witnesses sign the page in your lab notebook.
Invention FAQ: Will mailing myself a registered letter establish my intellectual property rights?
A provisional application is far and away the best method to establish priority.
Fish & Associates
These steps for priority of invention should no longer be a concern since first to file has been made law. These procedures should only establish that you are a true inventor, if that comes up as an issue.
Haven't read the new law completely, but I assume you still have to be the inventor. In other words, you shouldn't be able to steal it from someone who truly invented it. A VERY small percentage of patent applications actually have interference issues come up in the application.
What I don't understand is how someone can allege this new law will speed up the patent process. I haven't heard anything different about the process once it has been filed.
Haven't read the new law completely, but I assume you still have to be the inventor. In other words, you shouldn't be able to steal it from someone who truly invented it. A VERY small percentage of patent applications actually have interference issues come up in the application.
What I don't understand is how someone can allege this new law will speed up the patent process. I haven't heard anything different about the process once it has been filed.
That's why you won't see my circuits on this forum.
I believe that TMC was recently patented (again!) by someone who got the idea from this forum!
while it may not have been tested in court yet this is a public forum, the appearance of a circuit here should count as "publication" and prevent others from receiving a patent based on a filling date after its appearance
someone could succeed in getting a patent, examiners seldom look beyond previous patents for “prior art”, but it would be indefensible – there is a cottage industry of contract researchers looking for prior art publication in trade journals, University working group publications that didn’t make it into peer reviewed Journals to invalidate valuable patents
someone could succeed in getting a patent, examiners seldom look beyond previous patents for “prior art”, but it would be indefensible – there is a cottage industry of contract researchers looking for prior art publication in trade journals, University working group publications that didn’t make it into peer reviewed Journals to invalidate valuable patents
Nonsense. The IP law system is a great boon to an individual inventor who has been ripped off by a big company. Deep pockets mean eager lawyers.
Provisional applications cost $100. That's not a lot of money.
Exactly. A 301 declaration will blow it out of the water.
Which is a pity. It ought to happen a lot more. I remember one of my competitors getting a patent on an idea identical to mine ("coincidentally" their application was filed shortly after the idea was disclosed to them under NDA). Both were granted, there's no way there shouldn't have been an interference.
I was not expecting such a BIASED point of view from you SY, it sounds like what an executive of some big company would say.
According to a 2005 study the cost of a sample European patent was 32.000 euro, about US$50,000
http://www.3pod.cz/download/cost_analysis_2005_en[1].pdf
EPO - European (EPC) fees
http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj010/03_10/03_sup10.pdf
According to a 2005 study the cost of a sample European patent was 32.000 euro, about US$50,000
http://www.3pod.cz/download/cost_analysis_2005_en[1].pdf
EPO - European (EPC) fees
http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj010/03_10/03_sup10.pdf
Attachments
The European system makes it expensive for independent inventors. But (and I say this having some experience), an independent inventor can get a US patent for under $2000 and an EU patent for under $10k. There's no rule that you have to pay top dollar for a law firm, most of it can be done yourself and/or by a patent agent (much cheaper than an attorney). Strategically, that's not the path to take, you'll do much better filing a provisional ($100), then spend the year of breathing room that it gives you trying to find a licensee.
If you go the patent route, all that money doesn't have to be spent at once, it's cumulative over 4-5 years or so. If a big company starts infringing in the meantime, it's very easy to get investment or representation on contingency since there's $$$ at the end. I would LOVE to have someone like Microsoft rip me off, that's money in the bank.
If you go the patent route, all that money doesn't have to be spent at once, it's cumulative over 4-5 years or so. If a big company starts infringing in the meantime, it's very easy to get investment or representation on contingency since there's $$$ at the end. I would LOVE to have someone like Microsoft rip me off, that's money in the bank.
The filing of an invention and description through a patent lawyer/agent..is not so expensive...I have done this several times, The expensive part is to have the patent granted and disclosed in every region...The filing is good enough to prevent others in taking out the identical patent and to defend your design/pattern from copyright issues. But to be honest the best way to protect yourself is to be in a constant development process to keep you that little step ahead...
IMO, patents are little more than big company "poker chips" that they can use to wage war against each other. A large number of patents probably shouldn't have been granted because they're too broad or based on prior art and obvious to those familiar with it. The patent office gets credit for the number of patents they grant, not the number they reject. IMO, backwards to the way it should be. The little guy is mostly out of the patent business now, but the myth about getting a patent and getting rich from it is just that, a myth. Companies will do almost anything to work around claims and spend almost anything to avoid paying a small royalty on a patented idea. Makes no sense, just is. The market for patented ideas is smaller than everybody thinks; nobody's beating down the door for most of those ideas. As for stealing ideas, the best protection for your new idea is to plaster it all over the 'net in the broadest possible implementation so nobody else can patent it, then be sure you're faster at making a buck off it then the next guy. Most ideas today have a very short shelf life, so you need to be on to the next big thing while everybody else is messing with the last one. Did you ever notice that the companies that developed a given technology are the ones least likely to benefit from it? Think Kodak and digital cameras. Xerox and the mouse.
Not been my experience. I'm not little (six foot, 210 lb), but I've seen lots of independent inventors rake in money from large companies. The cost of litigating against infringement claims is much higher than paying some royalty or "go away" money. In one case I was involved with, an independent inventor with a totally bogus patent raked in $3.5MM from a megacorp (rhymes with "dicroloft") after spending about a year running up their litigation tab. Now admittedly, his attorneys got 40% for contingency, but $2.1MM net for a year plus perhaps $4k in patent costs is a nice ROI.
The basic message is correct: what a patent is, fundamentally, is a license to sue.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.