Just a question ,I don't know if this is OT or not. If I invented a new type of loud speaker( say a 6" woofer because that's the size I decided to make it.) would the patent apply to all sizes of woofers mids and tweets that the technology was applicable to? Or would I have to have working models for all imaginable sizes? As well since my day job sucks balls and I am just the little guy, I once heard that you could mail the invention back to yourself ( thru registered mail) and that would qualify as proir art)???? Maybe?
I actually read the whole thread before I posted (being sick in bed) so I was trying to pre-excuse myself just in case. What better place to inquire than where the experts are?
Last edited:
I guess a patent is only worth something if someone else really want to buy it from you, at your price
if you want to use it yourself, maybe best to just keep shut about it, and not tell anyone
product ought to sell well because of superior quality, due to your invention
and not because you tell your customers about your patent
but sure, we know how it works
we buy dreams, promisses, and patents
if you want to use it yourself, maybe best to just keep shut about it, and not tell anyone
product ought to sell well because of superior quality, due to your invention
and not because you tell your customers about your patent
but sure, we know how it works
we buy dreams, promisses, and patents
there seems some strong opinion against patent usefulness until you've got the money to defend
if nevertheless you do have a "valuable" idea then there is the ~ $100 "provisional" route that gives you a defendable priority date and a year to find someone wanting to license the tech to front you the full patent application costs/fees
Process for Obtaining a Utility Patent
if nevertheless you do have a "valuable" idea then there is the ~ $100 "provisional" route that gives you a defendable priority date and a year to find someone wanting to license the tech to front you the full patent application costs/fees
Process for Obtaining a Utility Patent
If written properly you can cover any speaker size you want. For example you could say.
Claim 1: A loudspeaker comprised of blah blah blah (you could insert the size by saying "A loudspeaker comprised of ... having a radial diameter of 0.25-100").
Claim 2: A loudspeaker as discussed in claim 1 with part 1 of your invention
Claim 3: A loudspeaker as discussed in claim 2 with part 2 of your invention
and so on.
Or you could include it in the definitions:
A loudspeaker is an electromechanical device which converts an AC voltage into sound. The device is comprised of a cone, coil, blah blah blah and has a radial diameter of 0.25-100".
If you do patent the design, don't forget to include things like cone depth (flat versus well cone like), dust cap design, cone shape (square, oval, round, etc.)
Stop Congress' raid on Patent Office and innovation
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/06/stop-congress-raid-patent-office-and-innovation
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/06/stop-congress-raid-patent-office-and-innovation
Last edited:
dunno is it mentioned already , or not ;
one of possibilities is making sort of Diyaudio GPL ( as Linux boyz are using) ;
I'm lazy to type everything , but meaning of GPL is easy to find on line
one of possibilities is making sort of Diyaudio GPL ( as Linux boyz are using) ;
I'm lazy to type everything , but meaning of GPL is easy to find on line
The GPL would be here:
The GNU General Public License v3.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
Also, along similar lines is Creative Commons:
Creative Commons
The GNU General Public License v3.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
Also, along similar lines is Creative Commons:
Creative Commons
I don't know why they're so specific with "digital creativity" (actually this is just me being a pedant), as I have some analog circuitry I might want to release under such a license, as no doubt others here do too.
And if it's worth enough for them to buy/license a patent, they may run a credit check on you to see if you've got a few extra millions to spend in defending an infringement, and if not they'll go ahead and use your patent and not worry about being sued, or know they'll end up paying less in attorney fees than they would for a license.
But then getting a patent on something brings attention to it as something you think is valuable, and that you want to protect. Perhaps you should then NOT patent THAT thing, but rather something ELSE in your device that you don't really care of others infringe on, sort of as a red herring.* Let OTHERS figure out what is the actual unique and valuable part of your device...
"Claim 1: An amplifier consisting of an Operational Amplifier and two resistors, featuring a non-inverting characteristic, fixed gain and a high input impedance ..."
* This is my second DIYaudio post today mentioning red herring. I must like the phrase.
Bumping this thread - here's an interesting new StackExchange site for discussing new patent applications. Maybe it will cut down on frivolous and useless (except to the patentee) patents granted:
Open Season on Patents Starts Thursday, Thanks to Crowdsourced Platform | Threat Level | Wired.com
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stack-exchange-to-prevent-bad-patents/
Open Season on Patents Starts Thursday, Thanks to Crowdsourced Platform | Threat Level | Wired.com
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stack-exchange-to-prevent-bad-patents/
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Ranks #1 in Best Places to Work in the Federal Government
Press Release, 13-40
Press Release, 13-40
Must be because they party all day rather than actually READ the submissions. I am amazed bu the number of patents issued that cover prior art or how they award a patent on a vague twist of application, not really unique.
The iPhone had a patent on "sleek design"
A consumer product with sleek design! I think Raymond Loewy would be spinning in his grave.
The iPhone had a patent on "sleek design"
A consumer product with sleek design! I think Raymond Loewy would be spinning in his grave.
But that one is (cough) enforceable, mostly because it's a Big Company, and the Big Company is willing to spend Big Bucks to defend it.
You have to understand how the law works. "Right and wrong" and the law are two different things. This also applies to other areas of law.
Well, they shouldn't be complete strangers.
Otherwise, what's the point?
Perhaps better to say, "You have to understand that the law and how the law(yers) work(s) are two different things."
Otherwise, what's the point?
Perhaps better to say, "You have to understand that the law and how the law(yers) work(s) are two different things."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.