Patent pending or rather not..

[TeddyDiver]

Let's make an assumption.. Someone "invents" a gadget but couldn't care less about making business with it. Does it make a difference if he's "invention" becomes public one way or another before someone else might claim to get a patent for it.. ?
And what if there's allready excists a similar patent

[liki]

Existing "prior art" is, or atleast should be, a very important consideration when a validity of a patent application is considered. Sadly, it seems that this is considered only if the validity of a granted patent becomes questioned later in court under some jurisdictions.

Quite universally one should not get a patent if the invention in question has demonstrably existed before the application was filed.

[Ad Hoc]

It also depends which country one is in.

In the US endless patents are applied for and granted which would not be the case in the UK.

I have an idea, "I want to press a button then I am suddenly transported from my location to another location the other side of the world, in less than 1 second"...great idea, but just that. In a rough generalisation, in the US, the whole mechanics of how it works is not the emphasis, but the "idea" (this is a rough generalisation - but you get the idea). In the UK, the mechanics is more important, ie how it works must be demonstrated.

This is why endless patent are taken out in the US on "ideas", hoping that someone else will invent or develop the "hardware" to make the "idea" work. Ergo, money for free..!!

In your example, the reverse is also true. At my previous company, we "invented" or "designed" depending upon your slant, a neat system for interlocking floating "bridges" we shall call them. Sold very very well to the US. The company, being typical Brits were just happy with the sell. The US guys, wow, look no patent, (we just thought it was a nice idea that sold well, nothing revolutionary)...so they patented it themselves....they now "own" the "design".

Go figure....

[PAR]

That's incorrect, you don't patent ideas, you copyright the intellectual property. You patent devices, you copyright intangibles.

We've had similar discussions about the "trials" of this type of protection before and it still boils down to the same thing. Any protection, be it patent or copyright is useless, except to those that can aggressively defend them.

So, in answer to the original post, yes, apply for protection. It will fend off the ankle biters and force the serious infringements to dig deep into their pockets, which tends to negate a "quick buck", which is precisely the business tactic used against your British friends John.

[Ad Hoc]

I was using the term "idea" loosely and generalising (I suspected it would get the reaction), but it is, as you noted somewhat more complex. Every time it is explained to me, by a patent lawyer it always seems a different reply....ugh!

Our company lawyer summed it up in those simplistic terms for us at the time, since we are not layer's and do not understood the "legal" side very well at all. It is a minefield. Perhaps he was "stretching" the truth somewhat...but at least we got the "idea".!!!

[alan white]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Let's make an assumption.. Someone "invents" a gadget but couldn't care less about making business with it. Does it make a difference if he's "invention" becomes public one way or another before someone else might claim to get a patent for it.. ?
And what if there's allready excists a similar patent

Once public but unpatented, the invention is free to anyone and everyone. If there already exists another patent that's real similar it's okay--- just don't manufacture/profit from it without the expectation/possability that you could be sued for infringement.

[Ad Hoc]

What are the odds that the "designer" of this has a patent of sorts?
http://www.yankodesign.com/2009/10/14/the-spruce-whale/

"The WB-1010 is a concept plane made to make use of yet-to-be-invented materials and technology..."

[alan white]

Very doubtful. The materials and technology are "yet to be invented". You can copyright a drawing, I guess.

[masalai]

Like when some sad septic people from USA copyright over the word "UggBoot" which has been in general use to describe a pair of winter footware made of sheepskin with a good layer of natural wool (its fleece) still in place (on the inside), then had the audacity to say in a paid "tomb-stone advertisement" we could not use the words "Ugg Boot" - Well USA - - go **** yourselves - "Ugg Boot" is still used and you will be at a financial loss defending words in common usage... that (common usage) will destroy your play if you care to try... so stick that in your Hoover and suck it and see...

PS thank you for the opportunity to 'blow off' at one of the most stupid things I saw in the last couple of years

[boat fan]

I`m taking patents out on ALL "yet-to-be-invented materials and technology..."

Your`e all stuffed ......

[PAR]

Masalai, what's wrong with that? Here's a better example. A fellow charges 10 dollars for something he knows is worth 5, yet he gets sales from his advertising, which contains nothing but clever hype. Who's to blame? The fellow that sold stuff knowing full well it was twice it's real value or the sucker that bought it?

I have no problem with anyone attempting to "corner" a market with tactics. They don't have to be defendable, just sellable and if you're fool enough to buy into it, then please call me. I've got some water front property in south Florida I'd love to talk to you about.

[boat fan]

Originally Posted by PAR

..........if you're fool enough to buy into it, then please call me. I've got some water front property in south Florida I'd love to talk to you about.

What`s its highest elevation ?
How much of it`s total area is at that height or above ?

[TeddyDiver]

Quite a big resemblance with the swamps of the water front property and with the patent legislation I think..
In my opinion there's just too many and insignificant patents, and most of them are for the only purpose to make the competetors lifes miserable..

[masalai]

Par, my point was the act of putting "copyright" on the brand? for what? - inside USA because of the attitude there, - but globally? I think they (the copyright holders), have a problem between their ears... just another USA masturbatory exercise...

As far as hype goes - Go for it... but copyright and patents inside USA is a pathetic exercise in futility by a lot of loosers who believe in that "it is necessary to survive".... How very sad...

[PAR]

Leverage perceived is advantage earned (cheap too). A patent or copyright doesn't even have to be real to be effective, just the thought of an infringement suit is enough to keep most at bay and this is marketing at it's best, when you don't have to do a thing to keep the competition at arm's length. There's absolutely nothing not worth a good try in marketing, particularly if it costs next to nothing. You can't blame a person for asking.

There's no ethics or morality in marketing and there's no crying either. If I can convince you my identical product is better then the other, with little more then a patent pending stamp on the product's side, then I'm better then you and you should go home and let your mommy spank you good. It's nothing to get mad about, it's simply business and these rules and escapades were worked out long before the USA existed. You don't want to get me started on the East India Trading Company in the 16th century. You've not seen ruthless unless you're a business history buff.