Thanks for your wortwhile comments Pooge!
i wonder how does it affect in these cases talked above, if for instance talking about US, if the inventor ("small guy") is not living in US, also today we have internet which make anything published on internet instantly available almost all over the world.
Cheers Michael
i wonder how does it affect in these cases talked above, if for instance talking about US, if the inventor ("small guy") is not living in US, also today we have internet which make anything published on internet instantly available almost all over the world.
Cheers Michael
The killer thing for the proverbial little guy is the European system, which by its expense and complication, seems designed to discourage him. The US system is no picnic for those without money, but it's a slammin' bargain compared to the EU.
Anyone contemplating patenting an idea has to first ask, "Do I have the resources to enforce that patent? If so, is this invention likely to make enough money to justify that expense?"
Anyone contemplating patenting an idea has to first ask, "Do I have the resources to enforce that patent? If so, is this invention likely to make enough money to justify that expense?"
But how practical is it to actually do that for a normal person? Lets say I, as someone with no money and no lawyers, invents something. I can't afford to patent it, so I publish it instead. After some time I manage to start selling devices using this invention. In the meantime some large corporation patents the idea and tries to sue me. Do I stand a chance? Is it going to bankrupt me just trying to go to court?pooge said:
You don't have to go to court; if you've published, you can ask the PTO for a re-examination. They'll check the date of invention with the patent holder (usually by requesting a witnessed record of invention), and if it's after publication date, bye-bye patent. It costs the little guy almost nothing.
Mr Evil said:
your fact situation is a little unclear as to the timeline. The bottom line is what your are decribing is a defensive publication. By publishing it, you are defending yourself against someone else gaining a patent to use against you, assuming the other didn't invent first. If they did gain a patent and try to sue you for infringement, you can tell them the patent is invalid and show them your publication. This may not prevent them from legally harrassing you, but that is no different than any other legal issue. You can, as Sy said, seek reexamination in the Patent Office to invalidate the patent.
There is one thing missing in our discussion: Invention vs. publication dates.
First, a disclaimer. I am a designer, not a lawyer. The information presented is for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered as a legal opinon. Please consult an attorney for legal advice.
Okay then...
Imagine a scenario in which a large entity (like a chip fab) applies for a patent for something. It is published into the public domain a short time after that by the patent office. In the meantime, someone on diyAudio posts the same thing after independent experiment and proceeds to make some income from it. After a couple of years the patent is granted and the entity makes legal moves against little diy'er. What happens?
As I understand it, the diy'er loses the future ability to commercial the invention, even though his publication date is earlier than the patent office publication date. The invention was first created by the entity and that takes precedence. However, the entity does not have the ability to sue for damages or compensation for the period prior to the patent being granted, because the earlier publication date of the diy'er shows no intent to infringe.
The patent laws themselves neither harm nor benefit entities, large or small. It is the associated fees and legal costs that tip the scales in favour of entities with deep pockets.
🙂ensen.
First, a disclaimer. I am a designer, not a lawyer. The information presented is for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered as a legal opinon. Please consult an attorney for legal advice.
Okay then...
Imagine a scenario in which a large entity (like a chip fab) applies for a patent for something. It is published into the public domain a short time after that by the patent office. In the meantime, someone on diyAudio posts the same thing after independent experiment and proceeds to make some income from it. After a couple of years the patent is granted and the entity makes legal moves against little diy'er. What happens?
As I understand it, the diy'er loses the future ability to commercial the invention, even though his publication date is earlier than the patent office publication date. The invention was first created by the entity and that takes precedence. However, the entity does not have the ability to sue for damages or compensation for the period prior to the patent being granted, because the earlier publication date of the diy'er shows no intent to infringe.
The patent laws themselves neither harm nor benefit entities, large or small. It is the associated fees and legal costs that tip the scales in favour of entities with deep pockets.
🙂ensen.
In a previous career, I used to sell advertising on a group of radio stations. As part of the sale, we would often create the copy for the ad also. Often, an idea that worked for an advertiser in Seattle or Manistee or Chicago would also work for a similar advertiser in another locale.
So, we'd steal the idea. Very, very seldom would the original creator of the idea have a chance to hear his idea on the air in a different market with different names and addresses. If that ever happened, a cease and desist letter would be usually all that was necessary to stop the theft.
By copyright law, the general idea itself, or a concept was not able to be protected. However, words in a certain order were copyrightable. So, if we were to make substitutions of 51 percent of the original words, but the same concept was presented, the rewriting of the ad copy was legally safe.
So, we'd steal the idea. Very, very seldom would the original creator of the idea have a chance to hear his idea on the air in a different market with different names and addresses. If that ever happened, a cease and desist letter would be usually all that was necessary to stop the theft.
By copyright law, the general idea itself, or a concept was not able to be protected. However, words in a certain order were copyrightable. So, if we were to make substitutions of 51 percent of the original words, but the same concept was presented, the rewriting of the ad copy was legally safe.
(to expand on what SY said)
just protects the drawing of the circuit, not the circuit. You could redraw (not copy) the same schematic & it would be yours.
I'm using a copyrght as a way of getting my website recognized for more than info on TLs.
dave
Da Laws
Actually, pretty much any artistic work or literary work (Movie, short story, epic poem, video game, etc) is officialy copyrighted, whether it's registered or marked or whatever the case may be. (by United States law at least, don't ask me about other countries)
Whether you type it on a computer, write it on a napkin, etch it in stone.
Whether you hide it away in a safe deposit in the center of fort knox, or distribute it the world over on the net.
The creator (or the person or entity for which (s)he created the work) has a copyright immediately.
Now, there may be some burden of proof upon the creator (or creators in question) if things go to court, but that's a whole ball of wax I don't wanna get into.
Now, before anybody here decides they wanna start charging everybody here for their ideas on building a conic concave quantum quartz projector generator, remember, there is some fair use to consider.
Even if you own the rights to a work, and say that nobody else can copy it (Leaving you the only person who can legaly redistribute the work), others can still use small portions of it under the fair use guidelines, usually for review purposes. (such as a movie or book reveiw)
In addition to distribution, the copyright laws also give certain other rights, the main one I remember being the right to create derivitive works of the material (Such as a movie based on a book or a sequel to the original material)
Also, very small works, such as a single word or phrase, or a logo are not covered by copyrights, but by trademark laws. (Which, btw, are oddly grouped with patents instead of copyrights)
As to the length of a copyright, I know if it's held by a person, then it lasts until the death of the creator plus 75 years. If it's owned by an entity, such as a company, then it's 95 years.
I'm sure there's more I could share, but I'm too darned tired to write anymore.
Oh yeah, this work is copyright May 11, 2005 by Austyn S Nelson. (Though it's copyright whether I mentioned that or not) The author hereby gives permisson to all to use this article in part or in whole so long as they don't do so in any illegal manner, or to somehow make a fool of said author (unless your reviewing this article and want to point out a mistake I made. Again, that'd be fair use, so I couldn't stop you if I wanted to) This article may be redistributed for free, or for a profit. Hey, if you can get some schmuck to pay cash for this pointles, but to my knowlege accurate, drivel then more power to ya. Although, I would appreciate an email so I too can laugh my *** off at them. I am not a lawyer, but just a guy who enjoys discussion of random varried topics, so if you find yourself in a situation where you need to know copyright, or any other laws to save your own *** or fry somebody elses in court, hire a real lawyer. I accept no responsibility if I or somebody else screwed up. Oh yeah, most of this stuff I already knew when typing this, but I verified some info here. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=copyright
Later, all.
Actually, pretty much any artistic work or literary work (Movie, short story, epic poem, video game, etc) is officialy copyrighted, whether it's registered or marked or whatever the case may be. (by United States law at least, don't ask me about other countries)
Whether you type it on a computer, write it on a napkin, etch it in stone.
Whether you hide it away in a safe deposit in the center of fort knox, or distribute it the world over on the net.
The creator (or the person or entity for which (s)he created the work) has a copyright immediately.
Now, there may be some burden of proof upon the creator (or creators in question) if things go to court, but that's a whole ball of wax I don't wanna get into.
Now, before anybody here decides they wanna start charging everybody here for their ideas on building a conic concave quantum quartz projector generator, remember, there is some fair use to consider.
Even if you own the rights to a work, and say that nobody else can copy it (Leaving you the only person who can legaly redistribute the work), others can still use small portions of it under the fair use guidelines, usually for review purposes. (such as a movie or book reveiw)
In addition to distribution, the copyright laws also give certain other rights, the main one I remember being the right to create derivitive works of the material (Such as a movie based on a book or a sequel to the original material)
Also, very small works, such as a single word or phrase, or a logo are not covered by copyrights, but by trademark laws. (Which, btw, are oddly grouped with patents instead of copyrights)
As to the length of a copyright, I know if it's held by a person, then it lasts until the death of the creator plus 75 years. If it's owned by an entity, such as a company, then it's 95 years.
I'm sure there's more I could share, but I'm too darned tired to write anymore.
Oh yeah, this work is copyright May 11, 2005 by Austyn S Nelson. (Though it's copyright whether I mentioned that or not) The author hereby gives permisson to all to use this article in part or in whole so long as they don't do so in any illegal manner, or to somehow make a fool of said author (unless your reviewing this article and want to point out a mistake I made. Again, that'd be fair use, so I couldn't stop you if I wanted to) This article may be redistributed for free, or for a profit. Hey, if you can get some schmuck to pay cash for this pointles, but to my knowlege accurate, drivel then more power to ya. Although, I would appreciate an email so I too can laugh my *** off at them. I am not a lawyer, but just a guy who enjoys discussion of random varried topics, so if you find yourself in a situation where you need to know copyright, or any other laws to save your own *** or fry somebody elses in court, hire a real lawyer. I accept no responsibility if I or somebody else screwed up. Oh yeah, most of this stuff I already knew when typing this, but I verified some info here. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=copyright
Later, all.
Another thing to remember is that the law is subject to interpretation by the courts and that makes things a moving target. Case in point, recently sampling has been found to be outside of fairuse in many cases no matter how small or how cut up, some lawyers claim this extemds to the collage artist also.
If you are worried that some "big corp" is going to take your idea, patent it, and then sue you to prevent you from further developing or benifitting from it, you have two courses of action:
(1) Publish it as soon as you get the idea
(2) Send a letter of disclosure to the patent office, which they will hold for some period (a year or two I believe) as evidence of date of invention
The second option is useful if the idea will take some time to develop to marketability, and if you want to have that time to work on the development prior to anyone else knowing about the idea. It allows you to announce the "thing" for commercial sale without anyone else having read about it (and therefore developing their own version), giving you at least some short period of monopoly in the market... hopefully long enough to entrench you as a major player even after competition enters.
There may be other options to secure essentially the same thing as sending the disclosure to the USPTO. Disclosure mailed to yourself and unopened, perhaps, or a witnessed and notarized dated disclosure if you are lucky.
(1) Publish it as soon as you get the idea
(2) Send a letter of disclosure to the patent office, which they will hold for some period (a year or two I believe) as evidence of date of invention
The second option is useful if the idea will take some time to develop to marketability, and if you want to have that time to work on the development prior to anyone else knowing about the idea. It allows you to announce the "thing" for commercial sale without anyone else having read about it (and therefore developing their own version), giving you at least some short period of monopoly in the market... hopefully long enough to entrench you as a major player even after competition enters.
There may be other options to secure essentially the same thing as sending the disclosure to the USPTO. Disclosure mailed to yourself and unopened, perhaps, or a witnessed and notarized dated disclosure if you are lucky.
Re: Da Laws
Hi Austin,
Interestingly, I just got a book here and on one of the first pages it states the following:
"The right of [author's name] to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988".
This is a UK publisher.
What is the significance, in legal terms, of such a statement?
Jan Didden
AustynSN said:
Hi Austin,
Interestingly, I just got a book here and on one of the first pages it states the following:
"The right of [author's name] to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988".
This is a UK publisher.
What is the significance, in legal terms, of such a statement?
Jan Didden
An illustrative story I just picked up (Audiocraft Magazine, May 1958):
During WWI radio traffic between the front troops and the barrage-laying artillerie was suffering from interference from the enemy's spark transmitters. Hammond Labs in Mass was tasked to solved the problem. They had been doing some tests based on superheterodyning and IF amplification based on an invention by a guy named Fessenden, who was already sending voices through space when Marconi was still concentrating on dot-dash.
Performance checks on the new system were made at the US Signal Corps Paris labs early 1918 under the direction of a Captain E H Armstrong. This Armstrong guy patented the superhet receiver for broadcasting! He sold the superhet and another feedback patent to Westinghouse in Oct 1920 for US $ 355.000.
Both patents however were harassed with inference proceedings (meaning the patents were challenged) for two decades! Finally his superhet patents for the US were awarded to one L. Levy of France. But his (Armstrongs) claims in France, which were differently worded and concentrated on receiver sensitivity, were upheld! The feedback patent was finally awarded to Dr. Lee de Forest after no less than two Supreme Court decisions in his favor.
Both Armstrong and Lee de Forest are well known names, of course, in engineering and invention history. However, nobody ever heard anything anymore from Mr Fessenden...
The moral? You can patent whatever you want, but ultimately it is the court that decides if it is valid and who it belongs to, especially when the stakes are high enough.
Jan Didden
During WWI radio traffic between the front troops and the barrage-laying artillerie was suffering from interference from the enemy's spark transmitters. Hammond Labs in Mass was tasked to solved the problem. They had been doing some tests based on superheterodyning and IF amplification based on an invention by a guy named Fessenden, who was already sending voices through space when Marconi was still concentrating on dot-dash.
Performance checks on the new system were made at the US Signal Corps Paris labs early 1918 under the direction of a Captain E H Armstrong. This Armstrong guy patented the superhet receiver for broadcasting! He sold the superhet and another feedback patent to Westinghouse in Oct 1920 for US $ 355.000.
Both patents however were harassed with inference proceedings (meaning the patents were challenged) for two decades! Finally his superhet patents for the US were awarded to one L. Levy of France. But his (Armstrongs) claims in France, which were differently worded and concentrated on receiver sensitivity, were upheld! The feedback patent was finally awarded to Dr. Lee de Forest after no less than two Supreme Court decisions in his favor.
Both Armstrong and Lee de Forest are well known names, of course, in engineering and invention history. However, nobody ever heard anything anymore from Mr Fessenden...
The moral? You can patent whatever you want, but ultimately it is the court that decides if it is valid and who it belongs to, especially when the stakes are high enough.
Jan Didden
Hmmm... actually, collage artists should be protected by the same thing that protects satire and parody. Although it uses another artform for it's expression, it is itsself an expression, and thus is exempt.
AustynSN said:
It is a tough question, I would agree in general especially in the 'fine' arts (not to apply any judgement on artisic merit). I have seen Goofy and Donald Duck incorporated into collages hanging at the Guggenheim, for instance. OTOH if all the crafty Martha Stewarts of the world glued Disney ephemora collages on lunch boxes to sell at the craft stores they would probably be served a cease and desist. Scrapbooking and collage are quite popular these days. Did you ever notice it's virtually all public domain clip art or postal stuff (I think stamps are automatically PD)?
Opinions about Patent Examiners? Add to Older Thread
I know that this thread on patenting is old, but its on the topic I've been thinking about a little, so I'll stay with it.
Maybe someone knows or has opinions about this. I'm curious about the people who act as examiners of patent applications for audio-electronics inventions. I'm talking about the key people working in and for a nation's patent agency. In particular the US Patent Office.
What got me thinking: The names of the same principal and assistant examiners appear again and again in patent applications reviewed within a given time period. The dates and the names go together and seem to show that an examiner occupies an agency career position, or has a long-term or sole-source contract. In prior eras, certain examiners' names also pop up again and again in electronics patents. For audio amplifiers, Steven J. Mottola's name often appears in recent approvals. Examples: http://www.patentstorm.us/examiners/Steven_Mottola-1352206.html
1. Can a patent examiner have any material direct impact on the approved design? (require a change as a condition of approval)
2. Has an examiner's personality, any apparent bias, ever seemingly been reflected in the design or final outcome of a patent application that was important to you or someone you know?
3. Has an examiner's personality/bias ever seemingly been reflected in the mechanics or timeline of the review process of a patent application that was important to you or someone you know?
4. If a patent examiner can impact a design, final outcome, or review process, has an examiner of audio-electronics ever been thought to have (even slightly) altered the focus of inventors or steered a trend?
Maybe someone holding a patent or multiple patents can comment.
I'm just curious, I have no financial or professional/career interest in any patent or patent office employees or contractors.
patch
I know that this thread on patenting is old, but its on the topic I've been thinking about a little, so I'll stay with it.
Maybe someone knows or has opinions about this. I'm curious about the people who act as examiners of patent applications for audio-electronics inventions. I'm talking about the key people working in and for a nation's patent agency. In particular the US Patent Office.
What got me thinking: The names of the same principal and assistant examiners appear again and again in patent applications reviewed within a given time period. The dates and the names go together and seem to show that an examiner occupies an agency career position, or has a long-term or sole-source contract. In prior eras, certain examiners' names also pop up again and again in electronics patents. For audio amplifiers, Steven J. Mottola's name often appears in recent approvals. Examples: http://www.patentstorm.us/examiners/Steven_Mottola-1352206.html
1. Can a patent examiner have any material direct impact on the approved design? (require a change as a condition of approval)
2. Has an examiner's personality, any apparent bias, ever seemingly been reflected in the design or final outcome of a patent application that was important to you or someone you know?
3. Has an examiner's personality/bias ever seemingly been reflected in the mechanics or timeline of the review process of a patent application that was important to you or someone you know?
4. If a patent examiner can impact a design, final outcome, or review process, has an examiner of audio-electronics ever been thought to have (even slightly) altered the focus of inventors or steered a trend?
Maybe someone holding a patent or multiple patents can comment.
I'm just curious, I have no financial or professional/career interest in any patent or patent office employees or contractors.
patch
I guess I qualify as a multiple patent holder.
Yes, the luck of the draw for an examiner has a big impact. There are good examiners and bad ones. The bad ones are aggressive and clueless (and do I have stories!). The good ones are tough, but know their stuff, and you'll end up with a more defensible patent.
As might be expected, different examiners have different specialties, so if you're searching a particular subject, you'll see the same names pop up again and again.
The fundamental problem is that no-one takes time to really investigate prior art and interference. It's all about volume. So a lot of very poor patents get issued, with the idea that it can all be sorted out in litigation. Patent lawyers LOVE that. Inventors hate it.
If you want to get an idea of how an examiner will influence the form of a final patent, it's interesting to review the prosecution history (the "file wrapper") for some patents that you're familiar with.
Yes, the luck of the draw for an examiner has a big impact. There are good examiners and bad ones. The bad ones are aggressive and clueless (and do I have stories!). The good ones are tough, but know their stuff, and you'll end up with a more defensible patent.
As might be expected, different examiners have different specialties, so if you're searching a particular subject, you'll see the same names pop up again and again.
The fundamental problem is that no-one takes time to really investigate prior art and interference. It's all about volume. So a lot of very poor patents get issued, with the idea that it can all be sorted out in litigation. Patent lawyers LOVE that. Inventors hate it.
If you want to get an idea of how an examiner will influence the form of a final patent, it's interesting to review the prosecution history (the "file wrapper") for some patents that you're familiar with.
Glad to see that this topic is still important for some.
It is customary for patent applicants to do some prior art research of their own and to cite any existing patents and papers on the application. This accomplishes a few things. First, any good search will determine if the invention infringes on existing patents. Second, the patent examiner can be spared doing the initial research, which will always be appreciated. Third, any application that can hold it's own against a prior art search will be a stronger patent when granted.
@SY. Multiple patent holders are pretty rare, no less because their new work is often based on previous work, which they themselves have patented. Kudos.
🙂ensen.
It is customary for patent applicants to do some prior art research of their own and to cite any existing patents and papers on the application. This accomplishes a few things. First, any good search will determine if the invention infringes on existing patents. Second, the patent examiner can be spared doing the initial research, which will always be appreciated. Third, any application that can hold it's own against a prior art search will be a stronger patent when granted.
@SY. Multiple patent holders are pretty rare, no less because their new work is often based on previous work, which they themselves have patented. Kudos.
🙂ensen.
Oh, interesting, that could be a tedious chore for the reviewer, certainly. I can't think of why submission standards wouldn't be enforced, the part about proof of background research.
But that sure sounds like an old fashioned way to regulate....with the regulator making the regulated parties settle their own disputes - they themselves doing the very work the regulator was put there to handle for them. Nah, it can't be that bad there. The process probably works just fine for everyone. No?
But that sure sounds like an old fashioned way to regulate....with the regulator making the regulated parties settle their own disputes - they themselves doing the very work the regulator was put there to handle for them. Nah, it can't be that bad there. The process probably works just fine for everyone. No?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.