No, your curves only show a 90 degree phase shift amplifier.
You should talk to a patent office to clear out this issues and to learn how you can avoid invalidation.
You should talk to a patent office to clear out this issues and to learn how you can avoid invalidation.
Snickers-is said:
If you look at those curves, read what he said, and say to yourself "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... I wonder...."
I don't think it would take you very long to come up with "something".
What do you think the patent offices next move would be? I'll tell you what, they'll patent his version, they'll patent your version, and they'll place personal bets on who will win in court, providing you can both afford to go that far with it.
In the meantime, some guy in China who doesn't give a damn about patents will be going into full production.
Yep, it's a hard life.
Filing a patent doesn't cost an arm and a leg at least in my home-country.
It has the advantage that it is at least an official proof that you are the first one with a certain idea.
If someone is really challenging your patent you can still decide if it is worth to be enforced or if you want to give it up. If you give it up then at least what is claimed in your patent will become public domain.
Regards
Charles
It has the advantage that it is at least an official proof that you are the first one with a certain idea.
If someone is really challenging your patent you can still decide if it is worth to be enforced or if you want to give it up. If you give it up then at least what is claimed in your patent will become public domain.
Regards
Charles
Hi,
I tripped over this just yesterday.
An ebook called "the case against patents"
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Here's a few highlights to peak your interest:
"Fact–Your patent does not in any manner prevent others
from stealing or using your ideas.
Should you go patent something, anyone is totally free to
market your product, rip off all your ideas, or tell others
about your work. And there is nothing immediate you can
do to stop this from happening."
"Fact–Not one patent in one hundred will ever show any
positive cash flow."
"Fact–There is not one patent in one thousand which
cannot be invalidated or severely minimized by a diligent
enough search for obscure enough prior art.
...All it takes is
some provable prior art anywhere, and your patent is
patently useless."
"Fact–Prior art is not needed to bust any patent.
All you really have to do is show that the claims would
have been reasonably obvious to any "practitioner in the
field." That’s all it takes."
"Fact–Big industry does NOT buy ideas or patents.
Change of any kind is anathema to any large Fortune 500
corporation. The only reason a new or improved product is
ever released is in response to the clear threat of losing
market share."
"Fact–Nobody voluntarily pays any patent royalties.
Nearly any company would much prefer to give their legal
department $100,000 to bust your patent before they would
ever stoop to paying you $10,000 in royalties. Outside
patents are something to be ignored, avoided, worked
around, or outright busted in court.
But never to be honored"
and from the section on alternatives to patenting:
"Third, publish all your key secrets and ideas in a major
magazine, leaving out no detail, and omitting no insider
secrets. This immediately can generate positive cash flow
for you and safely tucks all your ideas away in the public
domain, preventing most others from attempting to patent
them. This also will expose your new ideas to the widest
possible audience."
Few other papers on the same topic here:
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
I tripped over this just yesterday.
An ebook called "the case against patents"
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Here's a few highlights to peak your interest:
"Fact–Your patent does not in any manner prevent others
from stealing or using your ideas.
Should you go patent something, anyone is totally free to
market your product, rip off all your ideas, or tell others
about your work. And there is nothing immediate you can
do to stop this from happening."
"Fact–Not one patent in one hundred will ever show any
positive cash flow."
"Fact–There is not one patent in one thousand which
cannot be invalidated or severely minimized by a diligent
enough search for obscure enough prior art.
...All it takes is
some provable prior art anywhere, and your patent is
patently useless."
"Fact–Prior art is not needed to bust any patent.
All you really have to do is show that the claims would
have been reasonably obvious to any "practitioner in the
field." That’s all it takes."
"Fact–Big industry does NOT buy ideas or patents.
Change of any kind is anathema to any large Fortune 500
corporation. The only reason a new or improved product is
ever released is in response to the clear threat of losing
market share."
"Fact–Nobody voluntarily pays any patent royalties.
Nearly any company would much prefer to give their legal
department $100,000 to bust your patent before they would
ever stoop to paying you $10,000 in royalties. Outside
patents are something to be ignored, avoided, worked
around, or outright busted in court.
But never to be honored"
and from the section on alternatives to patenting:
"Third, publish all your key secrets and ideas in a major
magazine, leaving out no detail, and omitting no insider
secrets. This immediately can generate positive cash flow
for you and safely tucks all your ideas away in the public
domain, preventing most others from attempting to patent
them. This also will expose your new ideas to the widest
possible audience."
Few other papers on the same topic here:
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
The first couple facts are indeed true.
The one in a thousand figure is greatly exaggerated. One in ten is more realistic.
"Obviousness" is DAMN difficult to prove after a patent issues (and is presumed valid by courts and appeals boards) and attempts to do so are overwhelmingly fruitless.
Since I've made a living from companies buying patents and paying royalties, I can't take the next couple claims very seriously.
Publishing indeed gets your ideas into the public domain. It also guarantees that you'll never get paid for them, other than the pittance that technical magazines pay.
The one in a thousand figure is greatly exaggerated. One in ten is more realistic.
"Obviousness" is DAMN difficult to prove after a patent issues (and is presumed valid by courts and appeals boards) and attempts to do so are overwhelmingly fruitless.
Since I've made a living from companies buying patents and paying royalties, I can't take the next couple claims very seriously.
Publishing indeed gets your ideas into the public domain. It also guarantees that you'll never get paid for them, other than the pittance that technical magazines pay.
Yeap, it's a highly debatable issue. I should have perhaps included that the article was geared towards the "midnight inventor".
I've known people who sunk their life savings into dumb ideas and never made a dime off it. They got their patent, similar products were already being sold in the shelves across the world.
I dont' know what I'd do if I were faced with that issue, sleep on it I guess.
I've known people who sunk their life savings into dumb ideas and never made a dime off it. They got their patent, similar products were already being sold in the shelves across the world.
I dont' know what I'd do if I were faced with that issue, sleep on it I guess.
The problem with most inventors is unrealistic expectations (greed) and ignorance. They compound this by trying to pretend they are businessmen... that's usually their downfall. They are after the killer one-time buyout. Royalties, despite requiring some policing, present a low-risk entrance barrier for a prospective licensee. And royalties, no matter how piddly ROCK.
😉
😉
I think it is important to add in that one may protect a technology by patents covering only essential parts of the technology. The patents may be written in a way that does not show the full functioning circuit. Then the circuit is not patented, but a very small part of it might be.
If someone files a patent on a technology already existing in the market it is also prior art even if the secrets have never been documented officially. This is easy to document, and one may actually continue the manufacturing until the owner of the invalidated patent takes action. Then it will be easy to officially invalidate the patent without any delay in the manufacturing. In the meantime you may, with a little luck, experience that they fight someone else in court to protect the technology you have been using for some years.
I think the key is to stay away from too clear patents, and patents covering complete turnkey products. The secret of good performance is usually hidden several places in a circuit, and some parts may be kept secret while others may be presented in official documents.
It is even possible to file 2-3 patents that looks like a part of the actual circuit, trigging competing companies to try to copy you knowing that they really are on the wrong track.
Do not make the complete product too obvious in a patent!
If someone files a patent on a technology already existing in the market it is also prior art even if the secrets have never been documented officially. This is easy to document, and one may actually continue the manufacturing until the owner of the invalidated patent takes action. Then it will be easy to officially invalidate the patent without any delay in the manufacturing. In the meantime you may, with a little luck, experience that they fight someone else in court to protect the technology you have been using for some years.
I think the key is to stay away from too clear patents, and patents covering complete turnkey products. The secret of good performance is usually hidden several places in a circuit, and some parts may be kept secret while others may be presented in official documents.
It is even possible to file 2-3 patents that looks like a part of the actual circuit, trigging competing companies to try to copy you knowing that they really are on the wrong track.
Do not make the complete product too obvious in a patent!
Snickers... you are very right.
The most powerful patents are formuli and processes.
Circuitry can almost always be beaten. Topology is a different story.
🙂
The most powerful patents are formuli and processes.
Circuitry can almost always be beaten. Topology is a different story.
🙂
"The Deal" with the patent office is that you provide an enabling disclosure in exchange for limited rights to the invention
Not providing enabling disclosure is grounds for invalidation of any patent rights
any sale of a physical device is considered a "publication" of its design - certainly of its circuit in the case of electronic devices
reverse engineering is allowed and if your patent "cleverly" didn't reveal the critical ip, then you cannot protect that part from copying
Not providing enabling disclosure is grounds for invalidation of any patent rights
any sale of a physical device is considered a "publication" of its design - certainly of its circuit in the case of electronic devices
reverse engineering is allowed and if your patent "cleverly" didn't reveal the critical ip, then you cannot protect that part from copying
Yes, what JCX said!
Often there are certain aspects crucial to performance that are left out, but it is a workable solution towards implementation of the idea, an invention, that you have to disclose non the less, and those "skilled in the art" would be able to reproduce it, since you can't patent an idea alone.
Formulai and processes alone would give you nothing at all. Most patents worth anything make it a point to try and be as broad as possible by including a mention of every possible option towards implementation that would allow one to skirt the invention, and sometimes even towards the different possible uses of the invention. Class-D amps in particular are often referenced with possible uses in motor control for example.
Often there are certain aspects crucial to performance that are left out, but it is a workable solution towards implementation of the idea, an invention, that you have to disclose non the less, and those "skilled in the art" would be able to reproduce it, since you can't patent an idea alone.
Formulai and processes alone would give you nothing at all. Most patents worth anything make it a point to try and be as broad as possible by including a mention of every possible option towards implementation that would allow one to skirt the invention, and sometimes even towards the different possible uses of the invention. Class-D amps in particular are often referenced with possible uses in motor control for example.
But that would at least make it prior art automatically and therefore unpatentable by others.
Regards
Charles
To draw a simple example of what I mean:
Let's say you had invented the petrol engine. There are several critical parts to make it work. You could for example patent the spark plug as a chemical/electrical device. You would not need to mention camshafts, crankshafts, valves, pistons, lubrication, compression, distributor, fuel pump, carburetor, coil, oil pump, fuel or anything like that. It may be a little hard to imagine it, but if we did not know anything about the petrol engine it would also be hard to imagine how it worked i detail. If we did not have any kind of cumbustion or steam engine at all it would even be hard to imagine the crankshaft and pistons.
Such a patent could be presented in general, focusing on controlling the point of expanding energy resulting from the ignition in any type of chemical or mechanical process. This would actually cover the petrol engine, but not the steam or diesel engine. The complete solution would also be very hard to imagine. But if the diesel engine were already invented, patenting the spark plug would be a very obvious step, and really easy to implement in the existing engine design.
An important part of this is the ability to hide secrets in the finished product.
I think a very importent conclusion of this thread is:
The money does not come from the patent, it comes from the manufacturing and selling of the product based on the patent.
Let's say you had invented the petrol engine. There are several critical parts to make it work. You could for example patent the spark plug as a chemical/electrical device. You would not need to mention camshafts, crankshafts, valves, pistons, lubrication, compression, distributor, fuel pump, carburetor, coil, oil pump, fuel or anything like that. It may be a little hard to imagine it, but if we did not know anything about the petrol engine it would also be hard to imagine how it worked i detail. If we did not have any kind of cumbustion or steam engine at all it would even be hard to imagine the crankshaft and pistons.
Such a patent could be presented in general, focusing on controlling the point of expanding energy resulting from the ignition in any type of chemical or mechanical process. This would actually cover the petrol engine, but not the steam or diesel engine. The complete solution would also be very hard to imagine. But if the diesel engine were already invented, patenting the spark plug would be a very obvious step, and really easy to implement in the existing engine design.
An important part of this is the ability to hide secrets in the finished product.
I think a very importent conclusion of this thread is:
The money does not come from the patent, it comes from the manufacturing and selling of the product based on the patent.
Hm. I find that to be a very poor analogy.
I'd think you really would have to describe such things as the crankshaft connecting rods camshaft/valvetrain etc. Otherwise all you have is the equivalent of a blue angel, with no means of harnessing the power. You have to include enough to demonstrate that the invention is able to do what the claims promise, or what you have is sweet nothing.
Now if at the time the only common materials to work with were say lead and a very brittle iron, and you so happen to be gifted with a unique alloy that allows for great strentgh and weight reduction of the rotating mass, you "might" leave some of that out, like exactly what the alloy consists of, but you'd most likely still want to give it a mention before someone else can "discover" and patent the same thing which takes your own rights to use it away should he decide to sue you later on.
On a side note, the money can in fact come from the patent. You just have to sit on it long enough and hope that others dont' do their research and start using what you've patented, and they make a good fortune off it while you sit on the beach looking at naked girls. 20 years later you show up on their door with a lawyer and a hell of a bill for them.
I was told whoever invented delayed windshield wipers did exactly that.
I think the only real conclusion of this discussion so far is that the odds are, you stand a good chance of getting screwed no matter what you do, and you better have the kind of financial backing required to take on the very biggest dogs for years at a time, or seek an alternative solution.
I'd think you really would have to describe such things as the crankshaft connecting rods camshaft/valvetrain etc. Otherwise all you have is the equivalent of a blue angel, with no means of harnessing the power. You have to include enough to demonstrate that the invention is able to do what the claims promise, or what you have is sweet nothing.
Now if at the time the only common materials to work with were say lead and a very brittle iron, and you so happen to be gifted with a unique alloy that allows for great strentgh and weight reduction of the rotating mass, you "might" leave some of that out, like exactly what the alloy consists of, but you'd most likely still want to give it a mention before someone else can "discover" and patent the same thing which takes your own rights to use it away should he decide to sue you later on.
On a side note, the money can in fact come from the patent. You just have to sit on it long enough and hope that others dont' do their research and start using what you've patented, and they make a good fortune off it while you sit on the beach looking at naked girls. 20 years later you show up on their door with a lawyer and a hell of a bill for them.
I was told whoever invented delayed windshield wipers did exactly that.
I think the only real conclusion of this discussion so far is that the odds are, you stand a good chance of getting screwed no matter what you do, and you better have the kind of financial backing required to take on the very biggest dogs for years at a time, or seek an alternative solution.
You can demonstrate what the claims promise without showing a revolving motion, or without showing an optimum engine. Performance limitations are really not an issue in a patent.
If you use another alloy in the rotating system with some benefits ahead of your patent, and someone patents your optimum alloy their patent is invalidated since you are already building products based on that alloy.
If you use another alloy in the rotating system with some benefits ahead of your patent, and someone patents your optimum alloy their patent is invalidated since you are already building products based on that alloy.
Snickers analogy is actually good,
A well written patent should block the work-arounds. This is often where patents fail.
In the case of wiper delay: you would describe the: wiper delay by operator adjustable means. You would define what delay and adjustment meant. You might demonstrate "one embodiment", an implementation, and leave it alone. You might go on at length describing the "claims". But you leave the implementation out of it. You are limited in this regard by prior art... you explain just enough to avoid it.
Circuitry is often a stupid thing to patent... cuz there' always a work around. The algorithm that circuit produces might be the better patent.
It might an interesting exercise to do the research. But, which patent would you rather own; the priniciple of FM transmission and reception, or the silly little circuits that make it happen? Might be a poor example, but you get the drift.
😉
A well written patent should block the work-arounds. This is often where patents fail.
In the case of wiper delay: you would describe the: wiper delay by operator adjustable means. You would define what delay and adjustment meant. You might demonstrate "one embodiment", an implementation, and leave it alone. You might go on at length describing the "claims". But you leave the implementation out of it. You are limited in this regard by prior art... you explain just enough to avoid it.
Circuitry is often a stupid thing to patent... cuz there' always a work around. The algorithm that circuit produces might be the better patent.
It might an interesting exercise to do the research. But, which patent would you rather own; the priniciple of FM transmission and reception, or the silly little circuits that make it happen? Might be a poor example, but you get the drift.
😉
Wow, I just can't agree with that. We'll have to agree to disagree.
His analogy was firstly limited to keeping critical to operation secrets in order to prevent someone from reproducing the work. He was not at all referring to little tweaks that give it a competitive edge.
I do agree that not every minor detail gets included, but such things are considered obvious to those skilled in the art, so that they may reproduce it!
You have to patent an invention, you can not patent an idea, or we'd already be seeing wormhole and time travel patents.
If you willfully leave out some critical design aspect, which would mean the difference of it working or not, then you failed to prove a working invention.
Snickers specified the invention of a "petrol engine" as an example of the "trick".
It was also stated:
"Such a patent could be presented in general, focusing on controlling the point of expanding energy resulting from the ignition in any type of chemical or mechanical process"
Again, all you have there is a blueangel.
If the point of expanding energy to which was being referred is combustion (a defined chemical/petrol reaction within his specified engine, not just any type), and you're focusing on the control of it (a defined electro-mechanical process (timing, valves, points..etc.. ) You really can't begin to describe that simply by saying "spark go boom".
Further to which since you have to prove it is actually a useful invention, you also are forced to describe the harnessing of said power in order to do work, and therefore the means in which you do so.
Anything less than that, and you're immediatly back to just having an idea, which happens to be useless.
Your claims and your description of said claims, along with preferred embodiments are how you attempt to block work-arounds. Usually you just see a quick mention of alternative methods to the same means.
As per radio... there you just brought up the ideal example of how and why patents are so useless.
Let's see, Tesla Vs Marconi??
From wikipedia:
"In 1909, Marconi and Karl Ferdinand Braun were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for "contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy". Later, though, Tesla's patent (number 645576) was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court (1943), shortly after Tesla's death. This decision was based on the fact that prior art existed before the establishment of Marconi's patent. The decision may have enabled the U.S. government to avoid having to pay damages that were being claimed by the Marconi Company for use of its patents during World War I (though, these people ignore Tesla's prior art)."
Since you mentioned FM in particular, how about RCA Vs Armstrong, who jumped out a thirteenth floor window because of it. Read the whole thing here, it's the perfect horror story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Armstrong
All things considered, I guess I'd rather be the lawyer.
I'd think software to be a far more rediculous thing to patent over circuitry any day, after 1 and 0 it's all prior art. Yet, there's the Ipod interface fiasco thing, linux Vs winsco so on aaaand so on. Take away the transistor though or the silly little circuits they use them for and what happens to them?
So yeah it's looking like patents are pretty well useless from my perspective. It's just an invitation to a legal playground where nobody can really win, and where the size of the corporate patent portfolia is often likely to be worth more than the whole of its contents combined. It sure as hell is not made for the little guys, and no trick will save them.
His analogy was firstly limited to keeping critical to operation secrets in order to prevent someone from reproducing the work. He was not at all referring to little tweaks that give it a competitive edge.
I do agree that not every minor detail gets included, but such things are considered obvious to those skilled in the art, so that they may reproduce it!
You have to patent an invention, you can not patent an idea, or we'd already be seeing wormhole and time travel patents.
If you willfully leave out some critical design aspect, which would mean the difference of it working or not, then you failed to prove a working invention.
Snickers specified the invention of a "petrol engine" as an example of the "trick".
It was also stated:
"Such a patent could be presented in general, focusing on controlling the point of expanding energy resulting from the ignition in any type of chemical or mechanical process"
Again, all you have there is a blueangel.
If the point of expanding energy to which was being referred is combustion (a defined chemical/petrol reaction within his specified engine, not just any type), and you're focusing on the control of it (a defined electro-mechanical process (timing, valves, points..etc.. ) You really can't begin to describe that simply by saying "spark go boom".
Further to which since you have to prove it is actually a useful invention, you also are forced to describe the harnessing of said power in order to do work, and therefore the means in which you do so.
Anything less than that, and you're immediatly back to just having an idea, which happens to be useless.
Your claims and your description of said claims, along with preferred embodiments are how you attempt to block work-arounds. Usually you just see a quick mention of alternative methods to the same means.
As per radio... there you just brought up the ideal example of how and why patents are so useless.
Let's see, Tesla Vs Marconi??
From wikipedia:
"In 1909, Marconi and Karl Ferdinand Braun were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for "contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy". Later, though, Tesla's patent (number 645576) was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court (1943), shortly after Tesla's death. This decision was based on the fact that prior art existed before the establishment of Marconi's patent. The decision may have enabled the U.S. government to avoid having to pay damages that were being claimed by the Marconi Company for use of its patents during World War I (though, these people ignore Tesla's prior art)."
Since you mentioned FM in particular, how about RCA Vs Armstrong, who jumped out a thirteenth floor window because of it. Read the whole thing here, it's the perfect horror story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Armstrong
All things considered, I guess I'd rather be the lawyer.
I'd think software to be a far more rediculous thing to patent over circuitry any day, after 1 and 0 it's all prior art. Yet, there's the Ipod interface fiasco thing, linux Vs winsco so on aaaand so on. Take away the transistor though or the silly little circuits they use them for and what happens to them?
So yeah it's looking like patents are pretty well useless from my perspective. It's just an invitation to a legal playground where nobody can really win, and where the size of the corporate patent portfolia is often likely to be worth more than the whole of its contents combined. It sure as hell is not made for the little guys, and no trick will save them.
Hey,
I don't go for patents either... now if I was a chemist...
BTW, patents don't have to work, a prototype is not required. People don't patent worms holes because they know they won't get there in 17 years. Expanding gas thing was prior art... called cannon.
We both agree... it is a mess... have you seen the patent "swinging on a swing"?
Geeze!
I don't go for patents either... now if I was a chemist...
BTW, patents don't have to work, a prototype is not required. People don't patent worms holes because they know they won't get there in 17 years. Expanding gas thing was prior art... called cannon.
We both agree... it is a mess... have you seen the patent "swinging on a swing"?
Geeze!
Haven't seen it, am not so shocked though 🙂
I've been getting a bit of a kick recently after having seen most of the "american inventor" episodes.
I'd seen or heard alot of those inventions before, and more recently even mini informercials on the same crazy products. They weren't the ones that won, I guess some people thought heeeey there's an idea...
I agree with you too, royalties would be killer.
I still wonder what the best option of the little guy would be. Life, one big gamble huh? Should have been a lawyer.
I've been getting a bit of a kick recently after having seen most of the "american inventor" episodes.
I'd seen or heard alot of those inventions before, and more recently even mini informercials on the same crazy products. They weren't the ones that won, I guess some people thought heeeey there's an idea...
I agree with you too, royalties would be killer.
I still wonder what the best option of the little guy would be. Life, one big gamble huh? Should have been a lawyer.
A person's attitude toward the conspiracy changes once they become a member... it's all you can do.
😉
Someone said here, manufacturing makes the money. The little guy just has to stay out of the big guys path... therein lies your safety. When the little guy becomes a medium guy... be prepared to sell. And above all... don't use a run-of-the-mill patent lawyer as your ultimate business advisor.
😉
Someone said here, manufacturing makes the money. The little guy just has to stay out of the big guys path... therein lies your safety. When the little guy becomes a medium guy... be prepared to sell. And above all... don't use a run-of-the-mill patent lawyer as your ultimate business advisor.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.