I might be wrong, but isn't it better , if you have a new product , just to make as many copies you can sell while making your project public from day one?Nobody can argue that they did it before you if you have proof of making it public.You're also making a service to the world wide community.You can also make small modifications to your project too 
The situation with an inventor and an idea but insufficient money to pursue patent protection is typical. As already stated by many others, obtaining a solid patent and in particular using that patent can be very expensive.
One possible approach for a private inventor may be (without accepting any liability for the outcome on my part):
One possible approach for a private inventor may be (without accepting any liability for the outcome on my part):
- Think very thoroughly about which features that are essential for the inventive advantage to work.
- Think realistically about if these advantages (the idea) will leave a better chance of selling a product of that nature, thus often with a higher price than for seemingly competitive products.
- Make working models if possible to prove to yourself that it will also function in practice.
- Enter the site of the US Patent Office and search in their patent database for anything that is similar. There will be disclosures you have not imagined.
- Print-out the 10 most relevant patent disclosures.
- Study if your idea is as novel as you hope when you compare with these disclosures. Far the majority of “exceptional ideas” have actually been proposed before, are not commercially attractive or will actually not work as well as assumed in practice.
- Study the structure of a patent application, in particular how the claims are formed and structured in a hierarchy.
- Draft a patent application and review it many times to make sure you cannot do better. This is the speciality of a patent attorney but when they are involved cost increase rapidly.
- When the patent application is ready in the best shape you can think of, prepare a disclosure article. Such a disclosure article has to be phrased in a manner that ordinary technicians working within that technical field understand the idea and the perspectives without using legal terminology. The disclosure article should cover all aspect of the invention as described in the patent application. Mention in the disclosure article that a patent application has been filed.
- Find about four companies you consider are the most likely to take over your invention. Rank them in order of attractiveness for you. Prepare a letter offering the company to take over your invention against a one-time economical compensation (percentage of any future turnover, profit etc. is difficult to handle) and make it clear in the letter that the company will for the future hold any and all cost relating to this patent application and eventual patent. You “are out” with that deal. Make it clear that the company has 2.5 months to consider your offer of taking over the right of your patent application including the agreement to be finalized in a contract. After the 2.5 months you will abandon all negotiations with that company and continue to the next company on your list.
- File the patent application. This filing will act as a priority for future filings. I believe a priority is valid for one year. Make sure you have proof of your exact filing and keep the proof safely.
- With the proof of filing of the patent application, but earliest a day after filing of the application and the date of proof, forward the disclosure article to well reputed disclosure sites. I doubt this forum will appreciate extensive disclosures.
Without ever having tried a Non Disclosure Agreement myself, I believe they can be difficult for an individual to handle against an economically much stronger company. The disclosure article serves to put the content of the patent application into the public domain unless the (prior) patent application is carried on by a company. At that moment no NDA is needed. The “danger” of such a publishing article is that anyone else will know the idea and may start working on improvements or alternatives to that idea. The advantage of the article is that it may bring forward other companies being interested and that filing on the same idea by someone else becomes futile. - After having sent the disclosure articles, send the first letter with a copy of the patent application and a copy of the disclosure article (for management) to the first company on the list. In case you have no response within a month, send them a kind reminder explaining that without a response in the next two weeks they are considered uninterested and you will proceed to other companies. Be aware that for the company the trick is to drag time such that you are approaching further costs and have no time to go to anyone else. Stay cool and be firm on deadlines.
- If you manage to find a company that is interested, let a professional lawyer draft the contract with the company. Recovery of the filing costs is hardly the problem but how much you get on top of that can vary enormously. You very rarely become rich but something is better than nothing.
- If nobody is interested you let the patent application fade out by not continuing the patenting process. Then, due to the disclosure article, the idea becomes a public domain idea. It has only cost you the filing costs and perhaps a bit in disclosure and correspondence.
Last edited:
Most "patent trolls" have a very good idea what it costs a large company to defend against a lawsuit. They price their settlement demand just below this. The big company just makes a business decision.
My initial plan was to build up pre-orders and go hard and sell fast via massdrop or kickstarter or some such and make as much as I could before getting ripped off.
It's starting to look like that's still the plan whether or not I get a patent.
If I made 1M I'd be happy. I'm at the bottom threshold of poverty so 1M would last me the rest of my life at this rate.
As long as I file the patent first I should be able to continue selling even after getting ripped off right?
It's starting to look like that's still the plan whether or not I get a patent.
If I made 1M I'd be happy. I'm at the bottom threshold of poverty so 1M would last me the rest of my life at this rate.
As long as I file the patent first I should be able to continue selling even after getting ripped off right?
Last edited:
The whole trick is evidently to avoid "getting ripped off". "Getting ripped off" as explained in more postings means spending a lot of money with little benefit. That serves no purpose. After having filed a patent application you may try to sell the rights but with a free license for yourself if possible. Then you can still produce while the new owner will try to keep the "sharks" away. Evidently, the new owner will only buy if a huge gain is expected for him.
Be aware, when you file a patent application you do not right away get a patent. That lasts more than a year and cost considerably more than just the filing fees. The "sharks" know that many applications will not be granted as filed and they will give you no rest before you have the patent granted. Even after the grant you may be attacked in various costly ways.
Last edited:
They can always file a patent, you need to be careful to cover all the useful claims as broadly as possible in your public disclosure. You haven't even said what you are talking about, speakers, amps, power supplies?
Sounds like a good plan, and if you forget about a patent you've already made your first $ 100k! ;-)
Just make that $ M fast before the copycats realize what's going on.
Jan
Also, take heed of what Scott says. Spell it out. He's been there, lots of times.
Anybody can patent pretty much anything. The patent office is not telling you whether it is good or bad, or whether it is useless. The ONLY thing a patent gives you is the right to sue.
So if someone makes your thing, it is your decision whether you want to sue or not. Your decision whether you have deep enough pockets to hire top lawyers, hire experts witnesses to go before the court, and do that for months or years on a row.
I don't think you want to go there.
Jan
Anybody can patent pretty much anything. The patent office is not telling you whether it is good or bad, or whether it is useless. The ONLY thing a patent gives you is the right to sue.
So if someone makes your thing, it is your decision whether you want to sue or not. Your decision whether you have deep enough pockets to hire top lawyers, hire experts witnesses to go before the court, and do that for months or years on a row.
I don't think you want to go there.
Jan
Some of what goes on is so stupid you would accuse me of making it up. Actually I don't know what to say here, do you really think you have something to change the whole direction of a large part of the audio business? Then get professional advice.
Last edited:
As Scott says, a disclosure in public to an audience of a certain size. I guess this forum should be sufficient.
Anybody can always file a patent application but if the matter sought for patenting has already been disclosed in public it will lack novelty which is the first ground for refusal of a patent.
You can never prevent people from making copies and there are normally no really efficient institutions preventing sale. But, you can take people infringing on your patent rights to court and be granted generous compensations and stop of the illegal activities.
As you will notice, most activities after grant of a patent require involvement of a court. This is why patent activities tend to become very expensive.
This discussion is very familiar, I remember you started a similarly murky, mysterious and non-revelatory thread here several years ago. I don't remember exactly what I told you at the time.
These comments come from a massively failed and underfunded entrepreneur who once upon a long time ago thought he could make great audio equipment and people would just come knocking at my door seeking what I perceived as superior offerings. Scott and others here who know me can attest it didn't quite work out that way. (not even close)
Basically patents are a waste of time unless you have the resources to defend that patent if you actually succeed in getting your idea patented. I do remember mentioning trade secrets to you in the past. (since you are already so secretive already) The money is better spent trying to get prototypes into the hands of people who might be interested in helping you.
Go out and build a few, show them to the local audiophile community, if it is good enough they will tell you so. Go find someone in that community with money who believes in you and your idea. (not very easy) Talk to your local SBA office about how to start a business.
Your secretive behavior seriously undermines the usefulness of discussion here; you don't need to disclose the inner working of the idea, but some hint as to what we are discussing would be helpful.
Examples:
"A new audio processing technique that derives three channel sound from a two channel source"
"A phase steering methodology for controlling LF driver directivity in a residential environment."
"A novel technique for controlling transconductance modulation in class AB output stages"
"A stereo matrix for improved sound field projection in headphones"
None of these say anything that would give someone a competitive edge in competing with you, but might give us an idea whether or not you are wasting your time (and by corollary ours..)
These comments come from a massively failed and underfunded entrepreneur who once upon a long time ago thought he could make great audio equipment and people would just come knocking at my door seeking what I perceived as superior offerings. Scott and others here who know me can attest it didn't quite work out that way. (not even close)
Basically patents are a waste of time unless you have the resources to defend that patent if you actually succeed in getting your idea patented. I do remember mentioning trade secrets to you in the past. (since you are already so secretive already) The money is better spent trying to get prototypes into the hands of people who might be interested in helping you.
Go out and build a few, show them to the local audiophile community, if it is good enough they will tell you so. Go find someone in that community with money who believes in you and your idea. (not very easy) Talk to your local SBA office about how to start a business.
Your secretive behavior seriously undermines the usefulness of discussion here; you don't need to disclose the inner working of the idea, but some hint as to what we are discussing would be helpful.
Examples:
"A new audio processing technique that derives three channel sound from a two channel source"
"A phase steering methodology for controlling LF driver directivity in a residential environment."
"A novel technique for controlling transconductance modulation in class AB output stages"
"A stereo matrix for improved sound field projection in headphones"
None of these say anything that would give someone a competitive edge in competing with you, but might give us an idea whether or not you are wasting your time (and by corollary ours..)
I agree, this has been my goal for the last couple years. I should have a completely finished prototype by the summer finally.
Then I'm going to go around talking to people and seeing if I can find an angel investor before I go the kickstarter/massdrop route.
I know sorry about that. I'm in sort of a do or die situation. My life situation sucks so much that I essentially dumped my future into this project.
Gladly so because holy crap do I need a way out. But I am afraid to say anything more than I need to due to the stakes.
Maybe in P.M. if you want.
It seems to me based on the advice given here that the safest course of action would be to go hard for a year under a provisional patent then produce a public disclosure after the year is up to allow me to keep selling.
Am I allowed to make it public after applying for a provisional?
Last edited:
Once you put in an application and it gets published - it is then in the public domain.
If you choose not to pursue it to completion (you can just drop it) then that is fine - the published application is in the public domain and no one else can then apply for a patent on the same 'thing'
Many , many patents never get beyond simple publication of the A phase.
If you choose not to pursue it to completion (you can just drop it) then that is fine - the published application is in the public domain and no one else can then apply for a patent on the same 'thing'
Many , many patents never get beyond simple publication of the A phase.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.