Why filinig for a patent?

After reading a lot of sources on US Patenting process I came to a conclusion that a patent will not protect your in any way from infringement. (Unless you have a bunch of lawyers on salary, of course) Meanwhile patenting costs you big bucks.

My question is why to even bother with it?

Reply to
Alex
Loading thread data ...

Because your ego demands a plaque on the wall?

For a small guy a patent may not make a lot of sense.

As you have learned, a patent gives you the legal right to exclusive use. But you must defend that right. If you really have a million or 10 million dollar idea, it might be worth pursuing otherwise, get your product to market as fast as possible and do something else when the copycats hit the market.

Erich

Reply to
Kathy and Erich Coiner

I'm reminded of the cartoon posted by a p1rate friend...

formatting link
Tim

-- In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!" Website @

formatting link

Reply to
Tim Williams

What makes me really mad that big guys can legally steal your idea that took you years and lot's efforts and money. On the other side they can send you to jail and reposes your property over a matter of downloading some songs.

Damn!!!

Reply to
Alex

Alex wrote: (clip) My question is why to even bother with it? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you have an invention that you can't market on your own, and you wish to show it to some large company, chances are they won't even talk to you unless you have a patent. You could show them something they are already thinking about, and they don't want to be open to a lawsuit, if they go ahead and use it.

I have been told that having "Patent Pending" on a product actually gives you more protection than the patent itself. In the patent, you have to disclose your claims, which allows the world to start figuring ways around it. With only a patent pending, no one knows what your claims are going to be, and the clock does not start running until the patent is granted. So a common strategy is to apply for a patent, and then deliberately keep the application bouncing back and forth as long as possible.

Reply to
Leo Lichtman

With only a patent pending, no one knows what your claims are going to be, and the clock does not start running until the patent is granted.

Applications are published.

Reply to
Peter H.

Alex wrote: > What makes me really mad that big guys can legally steal your idea > that took you years and lot's efforts and money. On the other side > they can send you to jail and reposes your property over a matter of > downloading some songs. >

Having worked for a major rock group and then for a record company I can tell you that the artists are not the ones being hurt by downloading. Record royalties are peanuts. The real money comes from live performances. While the artists should get paid for the music that you download, the internet is going to change the distribution and promotion methods.

What will eventually happen is that the roll of record companies will be changed from production and distribution to purely marketing. A great deal of their revenue will be eliminated. They know it and are are fighting a delaying battle.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

Speaking of inventions does anybody here have knowledge or done business with this outfit?

formatting link
Seems to be legit but.... Regards. Ken.

Reply to
Ken Davey

A patent is a right to sue and you are correct that, without a swimming pool filled with sharks, it won't provide you much protection against people stealing your ideas.

However, if you have a good idea and want to get funding to turn it into a commercial success then having a valid patent will make investors feel much happier about lending you their money.

But another, less impressive aspect of patent law is the growing tendency for people to file patents for inventions or processes that might not actually qualify for protection, or which might be invalidated by prior art. These people then demand royalty payments from companies who allegedly infringe the patent.

Unfortunately, it's often cheaper for a company to cave in and pay a few thousand dollars a year than it is to hire an IP lawyer and challenge the validity of the patent involved.

All these patent-holding hucksters then have to do is find a few hundred such businesses who each pay him $5K a year or so and they're suddenly very rich, even though their patent may actually be completely worthless if it were challenged.

-- you can contact me via

formatting link

Reply to
Bruce Simpson

Are you sure? Is there a web site where you could access then? DL

Reply to
Gunluvver2

Are you sure? Is there a web site where you could access then?

Sure I'm sure.

formatting link

Reply to
Peter H.

It takes money to make money. The cost of the patent is usually a small fraction of what other investment costs are to bring a new product into production and sales. Find out what it takes to build a factory these days, and the cost of the patent may seem more in line.

Just because you have a patent does not mean you can WIN an infringement case, either. The patent office does not do a very thorough job deciding if invention is truly NOVEL. They leave this up to courts to decide. You may find that a patent can be overthrown by courts as not novel, or being pre-anticipated, even though patent office issues a patent.

So there is a risk with bringing a patented invention to market - but then, there is always a risk in bringing ANY new product to market.

We techies sometimes get the idea that designing or inventing a product is all it takes to be a success in market place. Lots of years in working for big companies finally made me see how wrong this is.

A tip. If your idea gets far enough to form a company to produce product, do NOT >

Reply to
Don Stauffer

Reply to
Don Stauffer

There is a guy in Maryland who filed a patent back in the 1960s. He contacted a number of manufacturers to license their use of his patent and they declined.

By 1975 his patent was being used globally without one cent in royalties. At this point he contacted one of the major law firms in Washington who took it on contingency. After a decade of litigation he brought all the infringers to their knees.

The patent: the electronic intermittent windshield wiper. The infringers: GM, Ford, Chrysler and Volvo.

Personally, I think infringers of intellectual property rights are a pretty low form of life. They are the first to scream when someone inadvertently bumps them or if their kid's bicycle gets stolen; but feel no reason to hesitate when stealing the fruits of someone else's efforts.

The strongest defense I have seen of those who steal music and movies off the Internet is " Well it was just lying around, I wanted it but I felt the price was too high". So when I walk into their family owned store, if I find a tool I like and think the price is too high, I am justified in putting it under my jacket?

They are thieves and hypocrites.

Reply to
dddd

Wasn't part of his problem that WWII came along and he was unable to use rationed resources to develop his patent; and then the patent times did not get extended?

Radar was a direct result of his patents and no matter what, he did get royally screwed. And he thought the whole damned thing up while plowing his fields with the tractor when he was a teenager.

Truly one of the intellectual geniuses of the 20th century.

Reply to
dddd

Especially with software patents. You write some software, trying to avoid the obvious 'well known' software patents, and then in ten years time, when you've made a couple million, got a reasonable house, ... someone notices that you infringed their patent, and wants all your profits. You never knew of the patent, but you'r still screwed.

There is no way that a single person can find all possibly relevant patents in software they may write.

This is especially bad as the patent offices are generally rather bad at finding prior art, and it can be very expensive to prove, especially against a large company that there was prior art.

Reply to
Ian Stirling

You forgot Toyota, Honda and all the others. I think it took him a decade or more to collect but he did eventually get 60? million. Don't forget about the guy who sued Sears Craftsman Tools about the push button socket release they have on their ratchets. I think he got at least 30 million but again it took a decade of court battles.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

Reply to
John Flanagan

John Flanagan wrote: (snip)Don't forget about the guy who sued Sears Craftsman Tools about the push button socket release they have on their ratchets. I think he got at least 30 million but again it took a decade of court battles. ^^^^^^^^^^^ If memory serves, that was not a patent case. He was a Sears employee, and offered the idea to them. They pretended they did not think much of the idea, and gave him a token payment, and then ran with the idea. I believe his victory was based on their deceit.

Reply to
Leo Lichtman

Not the first time. Sarnoff was a well-known skunk, the

*real* classic story if of course about Edwin H. Armstrong:

You can see his entire story starting with:

He was skunked out of the offical credit for inventing FM technology, and also for inventing the regenerative receiver. Sarnoff figured heavily in the first, the US supreme court in the second.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

I believe this has been far UNDERSTATED

Recently the patent office seems to allow the utterly ridiculous to be patented. I have seen competitors of mine patenting items where the actual patent was on "adjusting the size for thermal expansion". This would be common engineering practice so should not be patentable...yet.....there they lie.

The point is, if you see a patent it doesn't mean it is valid by any means. Dont let an existing patent stop you from pursuing your product until you take a second look.

As to tak>

Reply to
Koz

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.