Multi-period patent

[ivconic]

"...I started this thread to discuss the merits of Minelab's multi-period patents in light of significant prior art, not to bash Minelab or people who use their detectors...."

If you were employed at Minelab instead White's; would you start it also?

[Carl-NC]

"...I started this thread to discuss the merits of Minelab's multi-period patents in light of significant prior art, not to bash Minelab or people who use their detectors...."

If you were employed at Minelab instead White's; would you start it also?

Probably not, but if I were not employed at White's I still would have started it. There are a lot of independent PI developments going on right now, so this could be critically important to a successful design.

- Carl

[ivconic]

I like your answer. Fair and honest!

[WM6]

Cost £1 at the patent office in London many years ago.

I can not imagine that this (mean £1) can be true? If this is true UK is the best place on Earth to protect intellectual properties.

I wish you all success with your Good ideas 4 and 5.

[digger barns]

many years ago

I did say many years ago. About 1980. Its about £200 now for a DIY

[WM6]

I did say many years ago. About 1980. Its about £200 now for a DIY

Still acceptable. Thank you.

[WM6]

USA Patent Law Reform

The patent laws in the United States are about to change and the proposed changes could destroy the small independent inventor.

The current American patent system is based on first-to-invent as opposed to first-to-file as in most other countries. What this means is in the United States, as long as the small inventor:

• has idea(s) that are new, i.e., unique
• idea(s) that are not obvious
• properly records their idea(s)
• has their idea(s) properly witnessed and signed
• practices due-diligence in pursuing their ideas

They, and they alone, are the owner of an idea that is worthy of a patent.

The small inventor can have many ideas that meet the above criteria, but many do not have the financial resources to file a non-provisional patent application (about $10,000 to $15,000) to properly claim their ownership for the idea and turn it into an issued patent. Currently, one of the main ways they can practice due-diligence on their invention is to file a Provisional Application for Patent, which only cost $100 to file. This application, although it must be thorough enough for someone familiar with the area of the idea to produce it, it does not have the rigorous criteria of a non-provisional patent application and therefore cost much less to have it prepared.
On the other hand, large corporations have the staff and financial resources to file non-provisional patent applications at will.
Now, if Senate Bill S 1145 (Patent Reform Act of 2007 ) is passed into law, the U.S. will have a first-to-file patent system as most other countries are today. This means that the Provisional Application for Patent will no longer exist. As a result, the small inventor with limited financial resources will no longer have an appropriate mechanism to practice due-diligence without substantial expense. Then, time will pass without the small inventor being able to prove they are practicing due-diligence. Sooner or later, the large corporations will stumble across the idea (even a blind hog roots an acorn every now and then) and end up patenting it before the small inventor. Under this system, the small inventor will likely remain a small POOR inventor.
Small companies and small independent inventors are the heart and soul of this country. Do we want to relinquish innovation to the large corporations. I don't think so! Please help stop this pending legislation.

(copy from: http://inventorspot.com/articles/sma..._about_be_9759)

[Carl-NC]

I'm not sure the first-to-file isn't a better idea. The current first-to-invent is highly subjective and probably more easily benefits large corporations that individuals. It boils down to who has the better lawyers.

Also don't see why provisionals would go away. They may require more detail, but there is no reason they cannot be used in a first-to-file system.

As I've mentioned before, you can get a patent in the US for ~$5,000 using a patent attorney. Much much less if you have the guts to DIY.

[simonbaker]

Referring to my previous posts about the "IAL method": First-to-file would make it very difficult to license your ideas to companies without first obtaining a patent, since you would not have "first-to-invent" protection and it would be easier for them to steal your idea.

First-to-file would be Ok if you have one brilliant idea in your life that really is good and it is definitely worth the risk of buying a patent. But if you are a creative type with many ideas that you want to "fly by" some company executives for possible licensing, I think you may be badly hindered. But I'm not clear on the law change -- maybe there will still be some protection for the little guy somehow.

First-to-invent always sounded like a very egalitarian policy, but I can see Carl's point that lawyers and money could manipulate the system. But I think I'm still a first-to-invent fan because if you learn how, you can make a very credible R&D record on a shoestring budget that should stand up.

-SB

[Carl-NC]

Referring to my previous posts about the "IAL method": First-to-file would make it very difficult to license your ideas to companies without first obtaining a patent, since you would not have "first-to-invent" protection and it would be easier for them to steal your idea.

This gets back to ideas of functionality vs ideas of implementation. The latter is easy to hide, the former not so much. A provisional can still be used to give the inventor a year in which to shop the idea.

But I think I'm still a first-to-invent fan because if you learn how, you can make a very credible R&D record on a shoestring budget that should stand up.

I still have strong doubts that anything short of a patent, or at least a provisional, offers the kind of real protection needed to shop an idea (of the functional kind). First-to-invent won't help, it only (maybe) prevents someone else from getting a patent.

- Carl

[Muntari]

Provisional patents establish some protection at least until the ducks are all lined up in a row. Having said this, one would still have to be pretty sure that any claims made will hold water or it would be a waste of money and time.

I still wonder though Carl, as there are many claims made across PI methods that appear to be similar, why they are granted. It all seems a little bit hit and miss to the layman and at times, perhaps bemusing to those folk trained in the art

For instance, if I were to use a portion of a patented method for something that was an 'obvious' extention , I could reasonably be jousted for patent infringement. We should know what the term 'obvious' means in this context but the grey areas can cloud the judgments too. Unfortuneatley, those grey areas usually make money for the legal beagles and little for anyone else.

Patents are like song writing, so many out there and some of them are bound to sound the same...

On the good side, patents should offer protection for those who invest hard work and money and allow/force lateral thinkers and inventors to seek out new ways of doing things and that can't be all bad.

cheers

Brian K

[Aziz]

There is a simple solution in making a good protection without filing patents.
1. Keep the method secret. Don't say it to your wife, friends, dog and cat.
2. Do it in software. The firmware code should be locked within the microcontroller.
3. Tell a wrong story of method, to mislead the competitors. File a misleading patent (optional).

Aziz

[WM6]

3. Tell a wrong story of method, to mislead the competitors.

Are you already doing this?

[Aziz]

Are you already doing this?

You can't trust in my answer! So it is totally trivial.

Aziz

[Carl-NC]

I still wonder though Carl, as there are many claims made across PI methods that appear to be similar, why they are granted. It all seems a little bit hit and miss to the layman and at times, perhaps bemusing to those folk trained in the art

As I've said before, the patent office is so overwhelmed and understaffed that you can get a patent on just about anything. Including scam ideas!

Patents are like song writing, so many out there and some of them are bound to sound the same...

Great analogy!

- Carl