|
|
Author |
Topic: Poor mans patent (Read 4283 times) |
|
James O'Dowd
Guest
|
Is there such a thing as a poor mans patent,. or is the whole thing of myth !? And offers no protections at all to the inventor .
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2584
|
 |
Re: Poor mans patent
« Reply #1 on: Nov 19th, 2004, 1:30pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Myth, myth, myth, myth, myth.
...unless you consider a company with as many as 499 employees overall a "poor man."
Don't bother mailing stuff to yourself, and don't bother with a provisional application that is any less thought-out and carefully written than a full, non-provisional application. Neither is worth more than the paper they're written on.
Regards.
|
|
IP Logged |
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
|
|
|
Isaac
Senior Member
Posts: 3472
|
|
Re: Poor mans patent
« Reply #2 on: Nov 20th, 2004, 3:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The poor man's patent is a pretty laughable thing. In it's
purest form, it relies on the assumption that being first to
invent something creates some rights. Well, in the US being first
to invent creates rights only if you file for a patent. (With
the possible exception of business methods where there is
an exception to infringement for people using the method prior
to it being patented).
The other problem is that the mailing will never be considered
as a serious proof in court.
|
|
IP Logged |
Isaac
|
|
|
JSonnabend
Moderator
Senior Member
Posts: 2251
|
|
Re: Poor mans patent
« Reply #3 on: Nov 22nd, 2004, 7:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 20th, 2004, 3:16pm, Isaac Clark wrote:| With the possible exception of business methods where there is an exception to infringement for people using the method prior to it being patented |
|
What's this all about?
|
|
IP Logged |
SonnabendLaw
Intellectual Property and Technology Law
Brooklyn, USA
718-832-8810
JSonnabend@SonnabendLaw.com
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
Posts: 2584
|
|
Re: Poor mans patent
« Reply #4 on: Nov 22nd, 2004, 7:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I forget the specific date it went into effect, but it's Congress's "insightful" response to State Street. Under the mistaken belief that State Street expanded patent-elligible subject matter to include "business methods", they created a defense of prior reliance on trade secret protection -- a defense not available for any technology other than "business methods." I believe W signed it into law, but I could be wrong; could have been Bill.
Of course, they didn't bother defining "business methods" and they failed to bother reading the decision as it clearly pointed out that "business methods" were never an excluded class of inventions as far as patents are concerned.
So, in essence, Congress gave us this wonderful "patch" where there is no "hole."
Oh well....
|
|
IP Logged |
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Remove