Searching \ for 'Re[2]: Technology transfer anyone?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=technology+transfer
Search entire site for: 'Technology transfer anyone?'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Re[2]: Technology transfer anyone?'
1996\11\14@073144 by Scott Walsh

flavicon
face
    You can have a patent on any number of things, most people associate a
    patent with 'unique' products.

    This just is not the case, you can patent anything that is thought to
    be "a novel application of existing techinques".

    Hence you can also patent a product/techinique/algorithm and possibly
    source code that you have developed. But you can also patent possibel
    variations on it as well that you feel people may come up with, but
    you do NOT actually have to have them developed?

    Scott.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Technology transfer anyone?
Author:  pic microcontroller discussion list <spam_OUTPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> at
INTERNET
Date:    13/11/96 08:39


Scott Walsh <.....Scott.WALSHKILLspamspam@spam@PLANTRONICS.COM> wrote:

>     The first thing you should do is patent your work, I cant stress
>     how important this is if you are trying to do something in the
>     comercial world. If your idea is that good, you MUST create as
>     many hurdles as possible to make it difficult for competitors to
>     enter your market.

Is it really necessary to patent a commercial product like a Vario?
I mean, there are numerous models out there that perform the same
function.   I always thought that one can only patent a *unique*
idea, but something like this is not really worth patenting.   Or
maybe I'm unfamiliar with patent laws.  Can one patent a circuit and
the PIC software of the micro, even though it just differs a little
bit from another existing one?   If so, then its a bit pointless to
patent in the first place, because the next guy who wants to copy
your design just makes some minor changes and "Voila!", he's got his
very own patent.

Rgds
Werner

PS: Sorry for the slightly off the PIC topic issue, but I'm sure
there are a few guys on this list who are interested.

--
Werner Terreblanche   Tel +27 21 7102251   Fax +27 21 721278
wterrebspamKILLspamplessey.co.za (work) OR .....wernerKILLspamspam.....aztec.co.za  (home)

1996\11\14@235444 by Matthew Mucker

flavicon
face
At 12:33 PM 11/14/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>     Hence you can also patent a product/techinique/algorithm and possibly
>     source code that you have developed. But you can also patent possibel
>     variations on it as well that you feel people may come up with, but
>     you do NOT actually have to have them developed?
>
>
Nope.  The patent office required you to have a working model to get a
patent.  Thus you can't patent an idea for a widget unless you build the
widget.  You can't patent a process unless you can demonstrate the process
works.

-Matt

1996\11\15@000626 by Tom Messenger

flavicon
face
As regards to patents, Matthew Mucker wrote:

>Nope.  The patent office required you to have a working model to get a
>patent.  Thus you can't patent an idea for a widget unless you build the
>widget.  You can't patent a process unless you can demonstrate the process
>works.
>
>-Matt


Perhaps, but you must be confusing this procedure with the rules and
regulations of some other off world government.  In the USA, patent
applicants  find that they are seldom if ever called on to "demonstrate the
process works"....

1996\11\15@003524 by Todd Peterson

picon face
At 10:54 PM 11/14/96 -0600, you wrote:
>At 12:33 PM 11/14/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>>     Hence you can also patent a product/techinique/algorithm and possibly
>>     source code that you have developed. But you can also patent possibel
>>     variations on it as well that you feel people may come up with, but
>>     you do NOT actually have to have them developed?
>>
>>
>Nope.  The patent office required you to have a working model to get a
>patent.  Thus you can't patent an idea for a widget unless you build the
>widget.  You can't patent a process unless you can demonstrate the process
>works.

Having worked on a prototype for a product which already had a patent in
place, I am sure there are ways around what you just stated.

-todd.

================--------->
Todd Peterson (EraseMEtpetersonspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTnetins.net)
E-LAB Digital Engineering, Inc.
(712) 944-5344

Access our FREE MICROCONTROLLER RESOURCE DIRECTORY at:
http://www.netins.net/showcase/elab
================--------->

1996\11\15@083300 by Mark A. Corio

picon face
In a message dated 96-11-15 00:05:59 EST, you write:

>Nope.  The patent office required you to have a working model to get a
>patent.  Thus you can't patent an idea for a widget unless you build the
>widget.  You can't patent a process unless you can demonstrate the process
>works.

Not true.... I have one patent and one pending where no prototype has been
developed for demonstration (working models of my others exist).  Working
models are only required if new physical technologies, etc. are used and
untried elsewhere.  The patents I mentioned above are application patents
(unique applications of existing technologies).  An example of patents not
requiring working models comes from a PE exam study guide and involves the
design of a novel method of building a many square mile waste dump.  I am
sure there are many other good examples.

Mark A. Corio
Rochester MicroSystems, Inc.
200 Buell Road, Suite 9
Rochester, NY  14624
Tel:  (716) 328-5850 --- Fax:  (716) 328-1144
http://www.frontiernet.net/~rmi/

***** Designing Electronics For Research & Industry *****

1996\11\15@140720 by Chuck McManis

flavicon
face
> Nope.  The patent office required you to have a working model to get a
> patent.  Thus you can't patent an idea for a widget unless you build the
> widget.  You can't patent a process unless you can demonstrate the process
> works.

Bzzzzt! And thanks for playing. The model requirement was dropped some
time ago. (I think it co-incided with running out of storage space at the patent
office)

Folks, Patents are very different than copyright, they are much stronger. They
are however only as strong as your ability to litigate against infringers.So far
no
patent or intellectual property attorneys have shown up on the list, keep that
in
mind. Some of the information is misleading or like the above simply wrong (note
that it was right at one time, it just isn't anymore.) The reference to the Nolo
press
book is a good one, "Patent it yourself" read it if you're interested in
obtaining a
patent.

--Chuck


'Re[2]: Technology transfer anyone?'
1997\01\24@185253 by Kurt Kuhlmann
picon face
    Well made argument, Chuck.  Regarding Don Lancaster and Midnight
    Engineering, Don points out two main reasons not to patent:
    1) The market is too large.  Some big gorilla company will certainly
    find a way to shoot your patent down and/or exhaust you defnding it.

    And 2) The market is too small.  A good patent will cost thousands
    just to get, nevermind enforce.  The vario in question is not likely
    to move more than 1K EAU.  Even at $50 profit per unit, a patent is a
    pricey and very limited insurance policy.

    -Kurt


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Technology transfer anyone?
Author:  Chuck McManis <cmcmanisspamspam_OUTFREEGATE.NET> at Internet_Exchange
Date:    11/12/96 10:47 AM


Tying together Werner's message and the marketing thread, a good idea is
a great thing to have, but more than 90% of the "product value" is in the
production. (You know, the old adage about 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration)

Good ideas are "cheap", you want a good idea I'll give you one for free, (and
I come up with them all the time :-) Using a PIC, build a small circuit that
converts a standard "PC" dual joystick port (ie gameport) with four a/d inputs
and four binary inputs, into a USB (universal serial bus) peripheral.

You see Microsoft and Intel are pushing this new thing called the universal
serial
bus, whose primary goal in life is to break out of the dead end world of
peripherals on the PC (the ISA bus is just too limiting and has to die) So, they
have this USB bus where lots of different things can live, including keyboards,
mice, and you guessed it, joysticks.

The other problem is that for Joysticks a lot of people like ThrustMaster and
CH products, have gone to great (and patented) lengths to create really flexible
controllers with throttles and lots of buttons, which work by injecting
keystrokes
into the keyboard controller. (you plug your keyboard into this controller and
the
controller into your PC). Microsoft and others see that as ultimately limiting
the
appeal of the PC as a games console and that would shut Microsoft out from
a fairly lucrative market. So USB is going to solve that problem too, but there
is
a problem.

There is a tremendous inventory of "old style" controllers around and no one
knows (or wants to ask) what the buying public would say if someone were to
say, "Here's some great new technology on this upgraded PC, but you can't
use your old Joystick with it, sorry." (Some of these joysticks cost $200+ so
we're not talking peanuts here.)

So you've got a market, an opportunity, and I've got this wonderful idea. Only
one small problem, I'm up to my armpits in good ideas, some of which I'm
actually converting into revenue and there is no way I'll get around to building
this thing. Plus I want to use my thrustmaster joystick gear on a new PC I
plan to buy next year (with MMX, AGP, DVD, and USB) so what can I do?

I can give away my idea : "Here you go, the Joystick->USB idea is hereby
contributed to the public domain and I relinguish any and all claims on it
now and in the future." But as good as it is, the idea is *WORTHLESS*
without three things:
       0) The rights to the idea (presumed)
       1) A working prototype.
       2) A manufacturing plan that can meet projected demand and
           a cost that the market will bear. (If this thing costs $100 to
           make it won't sell so it won't be worth building.)
       3) A means to distribute product to the consumers. Either
          relationships with retailers, and OEM relationship, something.

As you can see, there is a lot more work in steps 1, 2, and 3 than there
is in #0. Sure, its my idea, but in that form it is like a Faberge' (sp?) egg
without the decorations, just an ostritch egg, nice but unremarkable.

So as an entrepreneur, if you can get to #1 and show that it can be built for
a price that will make it profitable to sell. (which means that in the
computer business its cost of materials will be about 1/4th the suggested
list price and 1/3 the "street" price. So you can work the equation forward
or backward. If it needs to sell for $50, then the cost had better be $12.50.
If it's going to cost $20 each to make, they had better be saleable at $80
each.  (This part is particularly hard sometimes) If you do have a case however,
then *this* is worth selling for a larger than zero but not too large a price.

Then if you can contract with someone to build a thousand of them. And you
get your local bank or in-laws to loan you the money to have them built, that
is stronger still, now you are an OEM.

If you also have the distirbution channels then you've stopped reading way
before this :-).

If you've got a good idea, and you want to pursue it, build a prototype and
work out the math. If its _really_ clever consider patenting it (this makes
it worth more when you sell it), otherwise shop it around. Don't expect to
make a lot of money on it.

--Chuck

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...