Searching \ for '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
'Technology transfer anyone?'
1996\11\11@060042 by Werner Terreblanche

flavicon
face
Dear fellow Piclist members

  All this talk about Code Protection etc made me think...  Many people here on
the
Piclist are designing all sorts of weird and wonderfull products all
the time.  Many of which could become very profitable products if
manufactured and marketed proffesionally on a global market.  Unfortunately
success
stories are far less frequent than one would like, purely because
most engineers and designers simply don't have the marketing skills
and drive required to make money out of their ideas.

Now, I'm sure somewhere in the world there must be companies in
existance that "buys" good ideas and actually make money out of them.
The advantage of PIC based products is that the designer can actually
ensure that he continiues to receive his royalties by just supplying
the manufacturing firm with the code protected pre-programmed  chips.
This option is particulary attractive to people like myself sitting
here in relative low technology parts of the world.

Now, my question is this.   Do anybody know of companies that would
consider such technology transfers?    Maybe there are even a few
people here on this Piclist that owns such companies or works for
one?   I myself have just finished a 16C71 based Variometer (measures
rate of climb and descent) for Paragliding and Handgliding and I
think if this gets marketed correctly, it could become quite a
profitable product.  However, here in South Africa, I could consider
myself lucky if I get to sell ten or twenty per year.  So if I could
get hold of an overseas company that would like to consider a
tecnology transfer, then it would suit me just great!

It would be interesting to hear about other Piclist members
experience or comments in this regard.

Cheers
Werner

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

1996\11\11@155340 by Walter Banks

picon face
> All this talk about Code Protection etc made me think...  Many people
> here on the Piclist are designing all sorts of weird and wonderfull
> products all the time.  Many of which could become very profitable
> products if manufactured and marketed proffesionally on a global market.
> Unfortunately success stories are far less frequent than one would like,
> purely because most engineers and designers simply don't have the marketing
> skills  and drive required to make money out of their ideas.
>

It's a mere mattter of marketing. This statement is similar to it's a mere
matter of code to translate a $2.00 micro into a $200.00 product.

Part of the problem is the low value that an engineer puts into market efforts.
The engineer sees a product with a $1 worth of materials being sold for
$5 and sees ripoff.  In fact only a small number of products ever make enough
money pay for development.

Good marketing people are like good engineers they can work magic. Marketing
takes a lot of work. Marketing takes a lot of effort and is view as someone
else taking advantage of the original work.

There are many companies that buy designs, produce and market them. These
deals exist.  Most of the commodity products are sold that way. Modems are
a good example. The design is sold to companies that contract out
the packaging. The modem "fax" or "com" software that comes with them is
packaged under licence. The whole lot is then sold either directly or in
bulk.

CD players have similar business arrangements.

It eventually comes back to marketing for the engineer. Only the
market objective will change from consumer to producer.

In your example of a variometer (your product idea). The first question
asked will be what is the potential market. The best firm to
produce a new idea is someone already familliar with the market. They
will also be the hardest sell.


Walter Banks
http://www.bytecraft.com




licenceand then market them

1996\11\12@044704 by Scott Walsh

flavicon
face
    Werner,

    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.

    Scott.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Technology transfer anyone?
Author:  pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> at
INTERNET
Date:    11/11/96 01:18


Dear fellow Piclist members

  All this talk about Code Protection etc made me think...  Many people here on
the
Piclist are designing all sorts of weird and wonderfull products all
the time.  Many of which could become very profitable products if
manufactured and marketed proffesionally on a global market.  Unfortunately
success
stories are far less frequent than one would like, purely because
most engineers and designers simply don't have the marketing skills
and drive required to make money out of their ideas.

Now, I'm sure somewhere in the world there must be companies in
existance that "buys" good ideas and actually make money out of them.
The advantage of PIC based products is that the designer can actually
ensure that he continiues to receive his royalties by just supplying
the manufacturing firm with the code protected pre-programmed  chips.
This option is particulary attractive to people like myself sitting
here in relative low technology parts of the world.

Now, my question is this.   Do anybody know of companies that would
consider such technology transfers?    Maybe there are even a few
people here on this Piclist that owns such companies or works for
one?   I myself have just finished a 16C71 based Variometer (measures
rate of climb and descent) for Paragliding and Handgliding and I
think if this gets marketed correctly, it could become quite a
profitable product.  However, here in South Africa, I could consider
myself lucky if I get to sell ten or twenty per year.  So if I could
get hold of an overseas company that would like to consider a
tecnology transfer, then it would suit me just great!

It would be interesting to hear about other Piclist members
experience or comments in this regard.

Cheers
Werner

--
Werner Terreblanche   Tel +27 21 7102251   Fax +27 21 721278
.....wterrebKILLspamspam.....plessey.co.za (work) OR EraseMEwernerspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTaztec.co.za  (home)

1996\11\12@051401 by Peter Grey

picon face
I must agree wholeheartedly with you both. I am an engineer involved in
marketing technology and one of the most difficult jobs is to convince an
engineer that no matter how good his product is, it will require marketing.
Because of this I find a lot of engineers do not wish to get help from this
source and have the novel idea that "products will sell themselves". On the
other hand a lot of bad products are sold solely through marketing. It can
be very frustrating to an engineer with good ideas and inventions to see
such things going on.

The value of a product is directly related to what a buyer will pay. This
may sound trite but it is a fact. It does not matter what the inventor
thinks it is worth! This is irrelevent. Some years ago I approached a number
a people here with a view to marketing their products that they had
invented. My most difficult task was to get them to "let go" of the
invention so that it could be commercialised. They each wanted it to be "in
their own image" and according to their marketing strategies(?).

If there are products around that technical persons want to have marketed
then I agree with Walter in getting out there and selling it to a marketing
organisations. It is very unlikely that someone will beat your door down to
purchase it without some action on the inventor's behalf.

With a mailing list such as this and the advantages of the Internet it
should be a lot easier to sell products into a much larger market than was
possible some years ago. The first step must come from the inventor.

I hope I have helped some thinking in this area.




Peter Grey
Australia
At 12:09 PM 11/11/96 -0800, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1996\11\12@112203 by Matthew Mucker
flavicon
face
>     Werner,
>
>     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.
>
>     Scott.

I disagree.  While a patent does, in theory, protect the inventor from
others copying the invention, there are significant hurdles to this in the
real world.  Firstly, it can be quite expensive to patent an invention, and
usually requires the retainer of a patent lawyer.  Second, it can be quite
a long process.  Thirdly, and this is the biggie for me, if you patent a
product, you MUST be so explicit in the detail of your description that
'any person skilled in the craft can reconstruct the invention from the
description' (or some similar language).  That means you must include
schematics, and probably code.  This information is accessible to anyone
once it's part of a patent.  Anyone can go to the patent office, look up a
patent, and find out exactly what makes it tick.  It then becomes trivial
to make photocopies, go home, and build one yourself.

Now, this is all fine and dandy as long as the patent protection is in
place.  But let me ask you: how many of you on this list have the finances
to fight a lawsuit, possibly against a large corporation, should someone
rip off your idea? If someone does rip off your idea, how, other than a
lawsuit, are you going to protect yourself?

If you don't patent it, they can't discover what makes it tick.  Keep it
secret! (IMHO)

There are several books on the subject and the subject has seen quite a bit
of debate.  If you're serious about this avenue, check out as many
resources for inventors as you can.  Do your homework to protect yourself.

-Matt


 "DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and
millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million
machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that
cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do
not denote a higher life form."

1996\11\12@130737 by Reginald Neale

flavicon
face
>     Werner,
>
>     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.
>
>     Scott.
>
>

OTOH, not everyone considers that protection to be worth the effort
involved. See, for instance, Don Lancaster's trenchant observations on the
value of patents. Writing in MIDNIGHT ENGINEERING and in THE INCREDIBLE
SECRET MONEY MACHINE II, he makes the case that patents are a money sink
that only benefits attorneys, and that patents offer zero protection for
the small entrepreneur. If your idea has any commercial value, somebody
bigger than you will steal it. They can outspend you in court and justice
will not be done.






.....................Reg Neale.....................
Complete text of the winning entry in a recent good-government essay contest:
"Good Government.  Gooooood Government.   Sit.    Stay."

1996\11\12@135734 by Chuck McManis

flavicon
face
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

1996\11\12@174019 by wfdavis

flavicon
face
Matthew Mucker wrote:

> If you don't patent it, they can't discover what makes it tick.  Keep it
> secret! (IMHO)

On the other hand, if you don't protect your product by patent, your
only remaining protection (other than copyright) is via trade secret
law.  Here, unlike the patent, trade secrets are good forever -- or
until someone reverse engineers your product and discovers how it
works.  This (at least in the U.S.) is perfectly legal no matter how
difficult you make it for the reverse engineer.  Your only protection
against reverse engineering is to sell your product encumbered by a
non-disclosure agreement with teeth in it that must be completed as a
condition of sale.  So, if you didn't sign a non-disclosure agreement
when you bought your last bottle of Coke, you are free (at least in
the U.S.) to reverse engineer it and hit the market with your copy.
Just don't call it "Coke"!!!

Also, I would not dismiss so quickly the possibility of patenting
your device yourself.  I have already done one from start to finish entirely
without an attorney (see my web site) and have another that will
probably issue soon.  If you do it yourself (i.e., don't use an
attorney), the fees are all cut in half.  Also, the patent office is
obliged to assist you in ways they are not if an attorney is involved.

For those interested in rolling their own patents, I VERY highly
recommend the book: "Patent it Yourself," by David Pressman, Nolo
Press  ISBN 0-87337-167-4.  If you've got an idea/device that passes
muster (is novel and unobvious as defined by patent law) and can
express yourself reasonably well in writing, I assure you that the
step-by-step process in Pressman's book will get you your patent and
it will cost you only a few hundred dollars.

(Note: All of the above applies to U.S. patent and trademark law).

--- Warren F. Davis
================================================
Davis Associates, Inc.
43 Holden Road
West Newton, MA 02165  U.S.A.

Tel: 617-244-1450        FAX: 617-964-4917
Visit our web site at:  http://www.davis-inc.com
================================================

1996\11\12@182546 by Steve Hardy

flavicon
face
> From: "wfdavisspamspam_OUTdavis-inc.com" <@spam@wfdavisKILLspamspamdavis-inc.com>
> [cut]
> I assure you that the
> step-by-step process in Pressman's book will get you your patent and
> it will cost you only a few hundred dollars.
>
> (Note: All of the above applies to U.S. patent and trademark law).
>
> --- Warren F. Davis

You lucky Americans!  Here in Oz it will cost about $1500 for starters
then several hundred per year for a DIY patent.  And that's for an
Oz-only patent: international will be stacks more and probably require
a patent attorney no matter how smart you are.

Personally, I am inclined to apply for a provisional patent ($80) which
will be valid for 1 year and gives you the earliest 'priority'.  If
the invention turns out to be a go-er then you can let someone else
complete the patent application.  If not (the usual case) then you've
only thrown away the cost of a few slabs of beer.

Regards,
SJH
Canberra, Australia

1996\11\12@182554 by fastfwd

face
flavicon
face
wfdavis@davis-inc.com <KILLspamwfdavisKILLspamspamdavis-inc.com> wrote:

> if you don't protect your product by patent, your only remaining
> protection (other than copyright) is via trade secret law.  Here,
> unlike the patent, trade secrets are good forever -- or until
> someone reverse engineers your product and discovers how it works.
> This (at least in the U.S.) is perfectly legal no matter how
> difficult you make it for the reverse engineer.  Your only
> protection against reverse engineering is to sell your product
> encumbered by a non-disclosure agreement with teeth in it that
> must be completed as a condition of sale.  So, if you didn't sign a
> non-disclosure agreement when you bought your last bottle of Coke,
> you are free (at least in the U.S.) to reverse engineer it and hit
> the market with your copy. Just don't call it "Coke"!!!

Sigh...

I REALLY didn't want to get involved in this pointless thread, but
now I feel obliged to.

Your example DISPROVES your contention that "your only protection
against reverse engineering is to sell your product [with] a
non-disclosure agreement".  Coca-Cola, Inc., makes a HUGE amount of
money... If the secrecy of the formula were the only obstacle to
taking Coke's market share away, don't you think someone would've
done it by now?

Please.

-Andy

Andrew Warren - RemoveMEfastfwdTakeThisOuTspamix.netcom.com
Fast Forward Engineering, Vista, California
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1996\11\12@184237 by wfdavis

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Andy,

You've entirely missed my point!!

The point is that advocacy of a policy of no-patenting simply because the
big boys are too big is extremely poor advice.  What I intended to
make clear was that the only alternative (save copyright), namely
protection under trade secret law, amounts to no protection at all.
First of all, this is true because this is the way the law works (hence my
illustration that it is as true for Coke as it is for the little
guy).  And second, it is especially true for the little guy, as
opposed to Coke, precisely because the little guy does not have the
resources that would otherwise protect against reverse engineering as
in the case of Coke.

--- Warren
================================================
Davis Associates, Inc.
43 Holden Road
West Newton, MA 02165  U.S.A.

Tel: 617-244-1450        FAX: 617-964-4917
Visit our web site at:  http://www.davis-inc.com
================================================

1996\11\12@185524 by Martin J. Maney

flavicon
face
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Andrew Warren wrote:

> Your example DISPROVES your contention that "your only protection
> against reverse engineering is to sell your product [with] a
> non-disclosure agreement".  Coca-Cola, Inc., makes a HUGE amount of
> money... If the secrecy of the formula were the only obstacle to
> taking Coke's market share away, don't you think someone would've
> done it by now?

Uhm, the formula - actually, several of the formulas - were published some
years ago.  Cally can't recall the name of the author or the book, and her
source was a radio interview by Ian Punnet.  I think the author's response
to "isn't Coke pissed at you?" (paraphrased, of course) is relevant to
this issue whether or not what he published was in fact the One True Coke
Formula.

He says he went to Coke-Cola and asked them what their reaction would be
(this was before the book was published).  Their answer was,
approximately, "Why would we care?"  Suppose he intended to use the
formula.  He'd have to line up production facilities, arrange for
distribution, get shelf space, get people to buy - or even try - the
product... and as Andy points out, he might use the formula but he
couldn't call it "Coke".

OTOH, Andy, I don't know that this example is very relevant to products
that aren't incredibly high volume, almost-commodity products like Coke
and Pepsi and etc.

1996\11\12@192811 by Dave Mullenix

flavicon
face
>OTOH, not everyone considers that protection to be worth the effort
>involved. See, for instance, Don Lancaster's trenchant observations on the
>value of patents. Writing in MIDNIGHT ENGINEERING and in THE INCREDIBLE
>SECRET MONEY MACHINE II, he makes the case that patents are a money sink
>that only benefits attorneys, and that patents offer zero protection for
>the small entrepreneur. If your idea has any commercial value, somebody
>bigger than you will steal it. They can outspend you in court and justice
>will not be done.

Check out Phil Karn's home page and see what he has to say about patents.
(Nothing good.)  Karn is the guy who, among other things, has been twitting
the powers that be regarding exporting crypto software.  So far, he has a
ruling that a book containing crypto software may be exported, but a floppy
disk containing the same software is munitions and can't be exported.  In
his spare time, he writes operating systems.

http://www.qualcomm.com/people/pkarn/

1996\11\13@012758 by Werner Terreblanche

flavicon
face
Scott Walsh <Scott.WALSHEraseMEspam.....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
EraseMEwterrebspamplessey.co.za (work) OR RemoveMEwernerEraseMEspamEraseMEaztec.co.za  (home)

1996\11\13@092557 by Ray Gardiner

flavicon
face
<lots of stuff snipped>

To protect intellectual property, I am advised that a simple
copyright notice affords **very** strong protection for zero cost.

Patent implies disclosure, and is expensive, copyright can be
applied to the circuit design, the pcb layout, the code itself.
and best of all costs nothing. [This idea...(c) ray gardiner 1996]

Back to how, Werner should market his para glider vario/altimeter,
I think you can get a lot of milage out of a good web site if you
promote it to the right market.

Second avenue would be to locate and contact those firms who are
already supplying products to the hang gliding fraternity, and see
if your gizmo wil fit into their product range.

good luck with it, marketting is a bit like writing code you need
a bit of imagination and lots of persistence.



Ray Gardiner, Shepparton, Victoria 3630,  Australia,   RemoveMErayspam_OUTspamKILLspamnetspace.net.au

1996\11\13@104926 by Martin J. Maney

flavicon
face
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Ray Gardiner wrote:
> Patent implies disclosure, and is expensive, copyright can be
> applied to the circuit design, the pcb layout, the code itself.
> and best of all costs nothing. [This idea...(c) ray gardiner 1996]

I'm sure you meant that tongue in cheek, but it's probably safe to assume
that at least some of those reading this could be misled, so... Copyright
protects a specific expression of an idea, but absolutely does not protect
the underlying concepts.  So the PCB layout can't just be copied, but one
that differs only in layout probably wouldn't be protected.  So if you
have something truly novel, copyright offers no protection at all for the
idea itself.

1996\11\13@134538 by Mark A. Corio

picon face
In a message dated 96-11-13 10:16:09 EST, you write:

>Patent implies disclosure, and is expensive, copyright can be
>applied to the circuit design, the pcb layout, the code itself.
>and best of all costs nothing. [This idea...(c) ray gardiner 1996]

Copyright can only protect the single expression of an idea...not the idea.
For example you can copyright a pcb layout but anyone can move the traces
around, keeping the same electrical connections and will not violate your
copyright.  Patents protect ideas but are subject to the issues raised
earlier on this list (i.e. you must have deep pockets to protect your
patents, etc.).  Also, having a patent does not give you ownership of the
idea, only the right to go to court.  And if you have a patent issued but
years later someone proves prior art, etc. you have NOTHING but a big lawyers
bill.

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\13@160558 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
Ray Gardiner <RemoveMErayTakeThisOuTspamspamNETSPACE.NET.AU> wrote:
> To protect intellectual property, I am advised that a simple
> copyright notice affords **very** strong protection for zero cost.
>
> Patent implies disclosure, and is expensive, copyright can be
> applied to the circuit design, the pcb layout, the code itself.
> and best of all costs nothing. [This idea...(c) ray gardiner 1996]

Ray's absolutely right, and copyrights have one more advantage that he
didn't mention.  Since the Berne convention, everything you write
*automatically* is copyrighted, whether you write an explicit copyright
notice or not.  Of course, it is best to have a notice.

Also, the letter "c" between two parenthesis is *not* considered to be an
acceptable substitute for the copyright symbol (a "c" in a circle).  Make
sure that you speel out the word "copyright".

Copyright law can be used to protect yourself from "cloning" of your work,
which is in most cases the biggest threat.  However, copyright does not
prevent someone from examining your work then creating an equivalent work
from scratch.  Copyright protects the specific expression of an idea; only
patents protect the underlying idea.

Cheers,
Eric

1996\11\13@172800 by Robert Lunn

flavicon
face
>To protect intellectual property, I am advised that a simple
>copyright notice affords **very** strong protection for zero cost.
>
>Patent implies disclosure, and is expensive, copyright can be
>applied to the circuit design, the pcb layout, the code itself.
>and best of all costs nothing. [This idea...(c) ray gardiner 1996]
                                ^^^^^^^^^

       Copyright protects only the form of expression of
       an idea, not the idea itself.

       Indeed, the 'work' being copyrighted doesn't need
       to contain any ideas at all.  Thus, a train time-
       table can be protected by copyright.

       By appending a copyright message you have not
       protected the idea embodied in the above text.

___Bob

1996\11\14@224542 by Tony Matthews

flavicon
face
Werner Terreblanche wrote:
>
<snip>
> --
> Werner Terreblanche   Tel +27 21 7102251   Fax +27 21 721278
> EraseMEwterrebspamspamspamBeGoneplessey.co.za (work) OR RemoveMEwernerKILLspamspamaztec.co.za  (home)
By all means patent the device if you can meet the criteria and cough up
the 3 to 5 grand for the local pat. attorney.It's not that difficult and
the patent makes a good marketing tool.But do not believe for a second
that the patent will protect you from infringement no_way. The trick is
to be the firstest with the mostest.Ride for all she's worth.And then if
you've established a name you may draggle on despite the inevitable
competition (stolen or not).Or take what you got and run like hell.
Do'nt give it to the lawyers.(been there) Tony M.

1996\11\15@055200 by efoc

flavicon
face
Matthew Mucker 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.
>
> -Matt
hmmm im sorry Matt but this is NOT true (I Work for the UK patent
office) and you can patent an idea without having a working copy in just
the same way as the japs will file for perferal patents. IE you patent a
new process for somthing and they in order to stop any further
development of the idea will file for as many patents using that process
as they can think of thereby preventing any further development of it
while they continue to develop thier own version of it. (it's a funny
old world) but there you have it.

Peter .......
--
==================================
= New Ideas come from those who  =
= didn't know it wasn't possible =
==================================

1996\11\15@120050 by Walter Banks

picon face
> By all means patent the device if you can meet the criteria and cough up
> the 3 to 5 grand for the local pat. attorney.It's not that difficult and
> the patent makes a good marketing tool.But do not believe for a second
> that the patent will protect you from infringement no_way. The trick is
> to be the firstest with the mostest.Ride for all she's worth.And then if
> you've established a name you may draggle on despite the inevitable
> competition (stolen or not).Or take what you got and run like hell.
>  Do'nt give it to the lawyers.

The issue isn't lawyers it is objectives. If the objective is to get a
patent then talk to a lawyer. If the objective is to make money from an
idea then budget your personal resources to best achieve that objective.
Patent's may be part of the plan. The rariest resource most people have is
their time. When you hire a lawyer to file a patent it is your stated
objective to get a patent. It may be your wish to exploit an idea but
it more likely that you will achieve your objective not your wish.

Walter Banks

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1996 , 1997 only
- Today
- New search...