questions about patents

[panos]

1) Is it acceptable to patent ideas based on knowledge you get by reading this forum? Should this practice be allowed or it should be discouraged?

2) Would a patented idea prevent other members from profiting from it? If so, why would members be willing to discuss with a person who is channeling his knowledge towards his patents?

3) Considering that a forum lurker (someone who reads the forum but never participates in discussions) would not be able to participate in discussion and ask questions and therefore not be able to get the most out of the forum, should it not be that a member who abuses such a privilege -- by patenting ideas based on knowledge gained from the forum -- not be allowed on the forum at all?

 

[pebe]

If information is published in this forum it must be considered to be in the public domain.
In the circumstances, I doubt that the Patents Office would allow anyone to take out a patent based on that information.

 

[websnail]

If someone else has the idea and there's prior art then it's a non issue...

Is this at all related to the discussion of vaccum refilling by any chance?

 

[canonfodder]

Patent law is quite complex.
Pebe is fundamentally correct.
If a proper description of a new truly new and unique idea for a thing is presented to the public, especially in a textual or printable fashion, that idea/thing already belongs to the person presenting the idea. By presenting the idea in public, the person has started a clock ticking which gives a limited amount of time for that person to file a patent application. Should the apparent inventor not make a patent filing in the time allotted, he may lose the right to file, forever, and the idea/thing goes to "public domain", and may not be patented by anyone, ever.

Should someone else file for a patent on the previously presented idea/thing, that person will have to swear that the idea/thing is truly original, not coming from some other person, and not being aided by another. If the one filing must admit to being aided by another, the other becomes a co-inventor at the least, to give the patent any legal strength. Should a person file on the idea/thing previously presented by another, he may actually receive a patent, and then a patent lawyer, with the information of the previous presentation, (like here on a forum thread), will have little difficulty in destroying the patent, obtaining patent court orders to that effect.

Don't waste your money filing for a patent that belongs to another unless you wish to never use the patent or never reveal its existence by making claims to its privilege. The greater the commercial value there is in a patent, the greater the efforts and expenditure will be brought to bear by those who will profit by its destruction.

Now, all that was said before is modified in various, and sometimes non intuitive, manners if we move the discussion to some country other than the USA. A patent well worth time and money must be filed in many countries, each with its own unique rules and laws of patent.

 

[Grandad35]

What canonfodder said.

As I understand it, the originator of an idea has 1 year from the date that the concept is disclosed publicly (told to anyone not covered by a non-disclosure agreement) to file for a US patent. I have also been told that in Europe that the patent application must be filed before any public disclosure. Failure to adhere to these time limits will invalidate a patent in that country. If this is incorrect, please correct my information.

 

[WhiteDog]

Most "rational" solutions in most technologies have already been isolated. Thus big companies are closing product development departments and buying-in innovations. Generally patents are used by big companies to beat up small ones, not the other way around.

It is quite likely that "inventors" will retrace the steps of another inventor who does have a patent, and arrive at a solution which is a transgression of existing rights. This is only logical. We have the same brains and eduction, mostly. Patent lawyers make a lot of money on negative searches.

If you twig about with components for which the intellectual property is not owned by yourself, and especially if your objective is profit, you can end up in a heap of trouble. You are allowed to make a unique functional collection of off-the-rack parts, some of which may be patented, but you cannot change them without permission or manufacture them yourself. Even one copy is an infringment in most cases. You can modify and customize, which is a different concept, because when you sell the improved version the oriiginal sale is embedded in the value added and nobody loses.

Sometimes the patent on your wonderful idea is in some field remote from the commerical applications of your own but with similar demands for a solution. Most inket technology comes from the industrial sign painting progenitors and the commercial printing end, which is a mammoth business with multinationals like 3M as the main vendors.

There are all kinds of scenarios. I have always found that the best course is to assume that a great idea has already been invented and probably patented, somewhere in the world. In the alternative it is in the public domain, having been run up by some bright guy who lacks funds or inclination to patent. Sometimes patents just attract curiosity and eventually generate competitors with better ideas than your own.

There is some good writing in this thread, from smart expereienced people. My two cents is that I am troubled by the chips on consumer inkjet cartridges and have been since since they came out. I believe that a case could be made that the steps taken by inkjet companies to lock out refill ink not sold by themselves is no more admissible than General Motors selling a car which will retain a warrantly only if run on gasoline from service stations owned by the company. There are class actions under way currently on cell phone lockouts and captive billing, why not inkjets? The printer companies proclaim the warranty issue, but in many businesses products are optionally sold "warranty off," and I think that non-chipped cartridge use, or resetters provided by the maker, should be mandatory if the consum,er is willing to forget warranty. The only part materially at issue is the print head anyway. There is an issue of the materiality of the alleged novelty compoent of the OEM product. How "special" is this OEM ink anyway?

This issue is likely large enough financially to attract a class-action law firm.

I will think about this more, and look into the background a bit, and come back to this thread later.

 

[panos]

If someone else has the idea and there's prior art then it's a non issue...

Is this at all related to the discussion of vaccum refilling by any chance?

Yes.

 

[Xalky]

Here's the problem with patents. Especially as they apply here to refilling cartridges. By the time the patent is granted the technology will have changed.

It's far better, in a fast moving industry to develop your idea secretly and put it to market quickly, before someone else does, and make your money on the initial sales. By the time someone else puts it out you will have already made your $$ and had time and $$ to put out your next great idea. The key is getting this thing out to market as hard and as fast as you can. Save your money on a patent attorney, and spend it on a marketing/sales network.

In a slow moving industry the logic is reversed.

Xalky

 

[AlienSteve]

Don Lancaster's The Case Against Patents. Basically that patenting is not always the same thing, just what Xalky said.

Some of his "must read" papers on panents as PDFs on his site:
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp

 

[mikling]

Did you guys take my statement seriously about patents......... regarding the refilling the Canon. Surely you jest. HP has so many patents on vacuum refilling all tied up already. Any idea on patents on refilling via vacuum would probably be a wasted effort.

I did seriously lose a patent to Matsushita in 1990 though. I was 1 month late. Last year I saw the very product I had applied for and spent quite a few dollars on legal fees back then.

The other thing to also remember is that you can blatantly copy a patented product for personal use. Even electronic circuits. That is perfectly OK. However, the sale of the item for commercial gain is however not allowed. Thus any idea copied on the forum is OK for anyone to use as long as it is for personal use.