John, for future reference, here's how you search for patent applications:
US Published Application Full-Text Database Boolean Search
Well, you have to know the exact name as well. This I did not give.
For the record, it seems generally better for smaller players not to expose their patents any more than necessary, until they have THEIR ducks in a row. That means: Actually getting the patent, and successfully utilizing it in some way. This is to keep larger companies from rolling over on you, changing the design slightly, even within your obvious understanding, and then saying that it is not your idea, anymore. Trust me, it has happened to me. For a small company, exposure is dangerous, unless you already have good lawyers and lots of money to DEFEND your patent. Even complaining in writing to people you have worked with in the past, at these larger companies, will do you no good. Taught me a lesson, that's for sure.
Many 'seasoned' people know this from their own personal experience, and they tell ME not to give out THEIR patent numbers, or their names, if possible. I personally haven't tried to patent anything for decades.
For the record, it seems generally better for smaller players not to expose their patents any more than necessary, until they have THEIR ducks in a row. That means: Actually getting the patent, and successfully utilizing it in some way. This is to keep larger companies from rolling over on you, changing the design slightly, even within your obvious understanding, and then saying that it is not your idea, anymore. Trust me, it has happened to me. For a small company, exposure is dangerous, unless you already have good lawyers and lots of money to DEFEND your patent. Even complaining in writing to people you have worked with in the past, at these larger companies, will do you no good. Taught me a lesson, that's for sure.
Many 'seasoned' people know this from their own personal experience, and they tell ME not to give out THEIR patent numbers, or their names, if possible. I personally haven't tried to patent anything for decades.
I don't get it. Suppose you successfully patent an idea, and nobody has found out about it.
What is that good for?
jd
Usually, with a small company, you make the first product, yourself, as Mark Levinson did with the JC-1, which was patented. Attempts to license it to others, for a royalty, you would think, would be easier if a patent is issued, and therefore, some 3'rd party has claimed it 'original', but if you don't have the money to fight them in court, the 'big boys' will take it and run with it.
I'll never forget being at a blackboard at Ortofon in 1976, showing mathematically why MY patented design was better than it first appeared.
Then in 1978, seeing MY patented idea displayed by Ortofon as a new engineering breakthrough at the Tokyo Audio Show. So much, for patent protection, exposure, and professional 'good-will'. I complained in writing, and got a lawyer's response.
Think about it everyone, when you share your ideas, patented or not.
I'll never forget being at a blackboard at Ortofon in 1976, showing mathematically why MY patented design was better than it first appeared.
Then in 1978, seeing MY patented idea displayed by Ortofon as a new engineering breakthrough at the Tokyo Audio Show. So much, for patent protection, exposure, and professional 'good-will'. I complained in writing, and got a lawyer's response.
Think about it everyone, when you share your ideas, patented or not.
If you patent an idea, or even just apply for one, it's out there in public. No ifs, ands, or buts, it's available to EVERYONE to read. If there's actually some money involved, there really is infringement, and the big guy has pockets, there's no end of lawyers who will be happy to take a case on contingency. I have personal experience with a VERY large company paying out several million bucks to an independent inventor for something that wasn't even infringing; he was a nuisance and they wanted him to go away. Happens all the time.
In high end audio, there's rarely much money involved. It's a niche within a niche.
In high end audio, there's rarely much money involved. It's a niche within a niche.
A patent search is, of course, complete, when you have a patent number. However, many here will search with just a name. For example, if you put in John Curl, you would ultimately get 1 patent with its corresponding patent number. However, if you don't know the NAME or the number accurately, you have a much harder time finding what you are looking for.
I understand; van den Hul had some stories about that too. But then I say, why patent it at all? Why not just try to sell and license the product or process, without giving away the details? Or am I too naive here?
jd
Yes.
Without a patent in place, licensing of IP is not impossible, but is certainly a boatload harder.
Things have changed a LOT since then. In the 1930s, you probably couldn't have sued McDonalds for coffee burns when you stuck the coffee cup between your legs and drove off.
Things have changed a LOT since then. In the 1930s, you probably couldn't have sued McDonalds for coffee burns when you stuck the coffee cup between your legs and drove off.
Actually that is the public perception. You know about that case because of all the money the insurance companies public relations firms spent getting it out there. She originally asked for $30,000 to pay her medical bills, the jury found McDonalds was just plain nasty and granted the million dollars. She ended up with much less, but of course the PR never seemed to want to get that out. The insurance companies used to get taken as juries felt they had deep pockets and they were helping the little guy. Great PR work and now the little guy is trying to bilk the insurance companies or rewards are just out of control.
Patents are most useful when they are in your regular line of business. I have royalty agreements in place that are not honored. The decision to sue depends on expected legal costs (typically $200,000) versus the amount due.
In one case had I known better I could have gone to the local District Attorney as they were skimming money from my and other's revenue stream, but I did not know that at the time.
I published an algorithm once because I had done the test setup to get it working in my basement, but did not have the resources to produce the final product at that time. After it was published, Bell Labs filed a patent application for the exact algorithm. They did not cite the publication. They also never developed a product. Now that the patent has run out someone else is using it in a product recently launched.
I don't mind when I publish something and someone uses part of it in a patent and gives my cite. That has happened and is fine with me.
I do know folks with money and resources who have gotten patents, but without the ability to market the product. Just doesn't pay.
Patents work best when they are in your field, know the players and have the muscle to enforce them.
Then there is the issue of patents that should not have been issued and are enforced in court. The best audio example comes to mind is Bose patented an exponential flare of the bass port to reduce "chuffing" noises in small plastic box speakers. JBL paid a few million and no longer makes ports anywhere near that design. Of course Bruce Howze at Community was the first to offer lots of plastic (Fiberglass) speakers and all of his ports would probably violate the Bose patent as much as the JBL ones did. Bose has great patent lawyers, is in the field and has the resources to enforce them.
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1054.html
Last edited:
Well, after looking through at least 50 journals, I found an example of what I promised about 'discovery' and 'accidents' in an IEEE publication: SSCS Spring 2007
'A Prehistory of the Integrated Circuit: A Random Walk' Thomas H Lee
For example: There was a debate at Bell Labs in the late 1930's whether a doped silicon ingot was n-type or p-type. Two researchers when sawing through the material smelled something that they remembered in their youth coming from acetylene lamps. This was a characteristic smell of phosphorous and then they realized that this silicon sample was N-type. Not exactly out of the textbook, but a prepared mind could conjure this.
The first PN junction was found in an ingot that, by chance, had been processed that left it n type on one end and p type on the other. 'Somewhere near the middle was a PN junction' and it goes on how Russel Ohl went from there to find the PN junction, equally erratically and yet with knowledge of what he was looking for.
In another example, Gordon Teal of Bell Labs was actively opposed by Shockley who thought that monocrystalline materials were really not necessary. Teal went forward, anyway, thank goodness. Yes, he went forward to do what seemed to be 'overkill' just for the challenge.
This is how progress often occurs. In audio, especially so.
'A Prehistory of the Integrated Circuit: A Random Walk' Thomas H Lee
For example: There was a debate at Bell Labs in the late 1930's whether a doped silicon ingot was n-type or p-type. Two researchers when sawing through the material smelled something that they remembered in their youth coming from acetylene lamps. This was a characteristic smell of phosphorous and then they realized that this silicon sample was N-type. Not exactly out of the textbook, but a prepared mind could conjure this.
The first PN junction was found in an ingot that, by chance, had been processed that left it n type on one end and p type on the other. 'Somewhere near the middle was a PN junction' and it goes on how Russel Ohl went from there to find the PN junction, equally erratically and yet with knowledge of what he was looking for.
In another example, Gordon Teal of Bell Labs was actively opposed by Shockley who thought that monocrystalline materials were really not necessary. Teal went forward, anyway, thank goodness. Yes, he went forward to do what seemed to be 'overkill' just for the challenge.
This is how progress often occurs. In audio, especially so.
Last edited:
Well, I used the McDonald's example because it had gotten a lot of publicity.
Two cases in which I was involved were specifically the abuse of the patent system to shake down a company. Both contingency cases, too. One was as I mentioned before, an independent inventor getting a multimillion dollar "go away" settlement. Even after contingency fees, he cleared over $2MM for a case where his patent had TONS of prior art. The other was a company that saw one of my products at a trade show, then actually modified the claims in a patent application to cover it. When the patent issued, they sued. That cost us over $500k for a case with absolutely no merit.
One other case I was involved in was REAL infringement, in that case by Toshiba. Our little start-up company went after them and was awarded royalties and our legal costs. That kept us alive for several years.
Don't get me started on the company that swiped one of my ideas and got an identical patent to mine! Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to fix that duplicate patent situation without spending a bunch of money that can't be recovered.
Two cases in which I was involved were specifically the abuse of the patent system to shake down a company. Both contingency cases, too. One was as I mentioned before, an independent inventor getting a multimillion dollar "go away" settlement. Even after contingency fees, he cleared over $2MM for a case where his patent had TONS of prior art. The other was a company that saw one of my products at a trade show, then actually modified the claims in a patent application to cover it. When the patent issued, they sued. That cost us over $500k for a case with absolutely no merit.
One other case I was involved in was REAL infringement, in that case by Toshiba. Our little start-up company went after them and was awarded royalties and our legal costs. That kept us alive for several years.
Don't get me started on the company that swiped one of my ideas and got an identical patent to mine! Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to fix that duplicate patent situation without spending a bunch of money that can't be recovered.
That was known as a submarine patent. You would file, and then modify the filing. That started the secrecy period over again. So you could keep a patent hidden, alive and up to current technology even if it didn't exist when you started.
That happened to the bar code. A working group though it would be fair and open to all published standards, got lots of involvement and them wham a patent claim. Ruled valid!
There may still be some lurking, but the rules have changed.
Every so often someone collects on their patents and keeps the dream alive, but muscle helps.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.