Post by thread:[OT]: Patents (was removing numbers from chips)

Dear people, Since I am in the process myself, I can give one ppiece of advice...DO NOT PUBLISH ! IF you publish it is public. This means it cannot be patented. No-one else will be able to patent it either, but without the protection of the patent language, they have only to modify their description of it to patent it.... To patent something it must have 1) Novelty 2) Utility 3) Uniqueness It cannot be deduced or anticipated from esiting art and it cannot have been publicly disclosed. At least, this is what I have been led to believe by our attorneys, whom , of course, I trust implicitly........... M At 09:53 AM 7/16/01 -0400, you wrote: {Quote hidden}> > In summary, a 'sealed envelope' is now next to useless for getting > > or challenging a patent in the USA. > > >How about getting your work published, does that still prove "prior >art". If so how does web publishing apply? I am mostly interested in >"defensive patenting" so someone else can't patent my work out from >under me. > >Sherpa Doug > >-- >http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: >[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on T.V., but from what I've been told by people who are lawyers, any material that has a verifiable date on it is valid for both defending a patent, and challenging a patent. If you have a design and have documents with a verifiable date, and some one comes along at a later date and patents what you designed, you should be able to challenge that patent. This does not me that you can get the patent yourself or stop them from using your design, but it does mean that they cannot stop you, or anybody else from using your design. -Mike {Original Message removed}

In the USA, you have one year from the date of FIRST 'public disclosure' in which to file your patent. Unfortunately, 'prior art' is often patented by resourceful lawyers who find an examiner who misses the p-a (since it hasn't been patented of course). I remember hearing of a number of ongoing lawsuits over some of these, but can't remember the details. Check out http://www.uspto.gov/ www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/utility/utility.htm www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/faq.htm for lots of helpful information. www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/patrules03222001.pdf 1.292 Public Use proceedings... " ...on reference to the examiner, to make a prima facie showing that the invention claimed in an application believed to be on file had been in public use or on sale more than one year before the filing of the application, a hearing may be had before the Commissioner to determine whether a public use proceeding should be instituted." Which basically says that if someone finds that you've got a patent, AND you made 'public use' of it more than a year before you applied for said patent, they can apply to have your patent deleted. Don Lancaster, of Radio Electronics/Electronics Now fame, says that patents are basically useless unless you have the money to defend them. http://www.tinaja.com/ http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.html " For most individuals and small scale startups, patents are virtually certain to result in a net loss of time, energy, money, and sanity. One reason for this is the outrageously wrong urban lore involving patents and patenting. A second involves the outright scams which inevitably surround "inventions" and "inventing". A third is that the economic breakeven needed to recover patent costs is something between $12,000,000.00 and $40,000,000 in gross sales. It is ludicrously absurd to try and patent a million dollar idea. " Douglas Butler wrote: > > > In summary, a 'sealed envelope' is now next to useless for getting > > or challenging a patent in the USA. > > > How about getting your work published, does that still prove "prior > art". If so how does web publishing apply? I am mostly interested in Probably, although it would be hard to prove the DATE of publication, which is the point of publishing. > "defensive patenting" so someone else can't patent my work out from > under me. As long as you can prove that it was in "public" use -prior- to their filing a patent application, you're -probably- ok. Dislaimer: I am NOT a patent lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I have had some exposure to the patent process because of my work, but if any serious money is involved GET THE ADVICE OF AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROFESSIONAL. And be sure to read Don Lancasters warning about NOT patenting. Robert -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

At 09:09 AM 7/16/01 -0700, you wrote: >I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on T.V., but from what I've been told >by people who are lawyers, any material that has a verifiable date on it is >valid for both defending a patent, and challenging a patent. > >If you have a design and have documents with a verifiable date, and some one >comes along at a later date and patents what you designed, you should be >able to >challenge that patent. > >This does not me that you can get the patent yourself or stop them from using >your design, but it does mean that they cannot stop you, or anybody else from >using your design. The one thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is about the actual value of a patent or registered design (available in some more enlightened countries ;-]) You can get a patent but depending on how good the lawyer was who did the original work was it can make the difference between a good patent and one that is easily challenged or gets ignored as its too vague. You can easily spend a minimum of $35,000 just to get a crappy patent for electronics. $100,000+ isn't uncommon. The thing about this is just because you have a patent does not guarantee you have control of things. There are two rather important factors you need to consider on patents. One is that I (well someone can ) can get copies of your abstract and other docs and maybe even look at one of your wonder widgits and reverse engineer the whole thing. Then if they are in a nasty mood they can file for a new patent citing improvements and that your claims were too broad and vague. The other part of patents is YOU as the patent owner are the only one that can go after a company that violates your patent. That means lawyers, court and of course money. Until you go after and legally stop the violators nothing happens. And to make things real interesting, if you wait too long it becomes harder and harder to stop them or recover damages. After a certain they can argue fair use and have your patent voided or declared non enforceable. The thing to really consider is if it is worth going through the process or if the product has a fairly short life span you should just get out there first in a big way. If the money you spend on getting a patent is the amount you need to be in business then you should consider just getting it out to the market. If you spend the money and run out getting the patent, all you wind up with is 10-20 sheets of paper from the patent office. Which you'll probably have had to pay to get a copy of that as well. Remember lawyers are great at giving advice and separating you from your money but they don't know all the answers. If they did I would have been rich 20+ years ago , hired Bill Gates as my pool boy and saved the world....... Dave -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads