Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: question about patents the do the same thing

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: question about patents the do the same thing

Comments:
: Mr. A is right: infringement and patentability are two different and almost independent inquiries. : Re infringement: If you engage in just about any business, chances are that you'll infringe a number of patents. Yet new businesses are opening up every day so it can't be all that bad. Most of the patents you'll infringe will include royalties in the retail prices you pay for things and services. : Your licensees will be in the same situation. They may have to pay royalties to you <i>and</i> to a number of other patent holders. If there are many patent holders, they may be a bit discouraged and/or they may not be willing to pay you as much of a royalty. : Only issued patents can be infringed, not pending patent applications. So the pending application you found represents a potential future increase in the amount of royalties you or your licensee may have to pay -- or possibly a barrier to business if the patent holder refuses to license his/her technology to you. : As for prosecution, you only have to add some novel and non-obvious thing onto what is already in the public knowledge. Since others have already added to the public knowledge (in their patents and published applications), your contribution to the public knowledge will be a bit specific (i.e., probably relatively narrow). : However, that isn't the end of the question as to the value. While some will tell you that "broad" claims are valuable and that "narrow" claims are not. That's grossly over simplified. Here's an old war story told by a patent attorney I used to work with. A nationally known semiconductor company in the 1970s tried to patent a type of reed-switch transistor. The first patent attorney they saw told them it was obvious and they can't have a patent. The second patent attorney told them it was very close to the prior art, but he'll do his best to get the patent. And he did get the patent. And, in the marketplace, the reed-switch type ended up being favored over all other types. The patent was hugely valuable and had a significant impact on the value of the company. : Predicting the breadth of a claim you may get out of the patent office is within the capabilities of a competent patent attorney with perfect awareness of all relevant prior art (that last part is an impossible assumption, of course). However, predicting the <i>value</i> of that claim is beyond the competence of any patent attorney without extrinsic business expertice. There are attorneys who specialize in that type of analysis (best guesses as to how much people will be willing to pay for a particular invention over the life of a patent), but those are generally not patent attorneys. : I hope that helps. : Regards. : : : True. But I hope you understand my concern about the two subjects. Sure, I can waste a lot of money and get a patent, but it's no good if I'm going to face ligatation at the drop of a hat, or, more likely, if I have to license two or three other patents in order to actually use the patent. : : The idea is to look at the process as a whole. I am trying to look at the benefits and costs of patenting something that is similar to what is out there. It sounds like a case of rapidly diminishing returns. But I will seek a patent lawyer for a search and get a professional opinon. : : Thank you everyone for your opinons.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

Do not disclose any details of any patent idea. See a lawyer.
Before you post a message you must agree to the Terms of Use.