Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Carlos Conde]

It could be (and I don't have authority to sign or to deny) that the figure of 1:10 000, be due to an accumulation of causes, for example:  
* A company, he/she can understand that it patents something, knowing that it won't suppose him any economic benefit (direct), but it avoids this way that another company uses its system - method - invention;  therefore the benefit is strategic, and not as a result of licensing the use of its patent.  
 
* Other companies, they can simply want to patent their ideas that take applying during years, to avoid that other companies patent them, and then to seek to limit them the use, entering this way in litigations (it is another reason of strategies). It may to see it often , inventions that I call "fool", since that its patent, doesn't have utility some, its utility can be assumed exclusively strategic: to look at the quantity of office things that they maintain a patent (often as pat. pending) and that they are based on a design or structural physical model). Other times what is sought to avoid is the excessive resemblance in the products that other marks want to take advantage, to attract the client, for confusion or physical resemblance defining a wide margin of possibilities with the help of patenting models that look like each other enough to their original.  
 
* there are certainly always completely useless inventions, for example a box that has the mold to house the different types of coins, so that once full the hole of each group of currencies, contain a concrete quantity of money. It is clear that an invention of this type, is feasible of being invented by anyone, and therefore to design a model different to the one proposed by other patents. Since the object of the invention is obvious (in this case), the only thing that will be been able to patent, is the product with what is manufactured, or the adopted physical form (that is the base I suppose with these devices they are patented), this way this types of inventions, I believe that they will never give benefits.  
 
Maybe be mistaken in my positions, but the figure 1 among 10 000 I find high, if correct if it is used in figured sense wanting to indicate with it that should take care the invention, so that it is useful to their inventor (I suppose that this it is the idea that is in the mind of Mr. Auslander when he mentions this circumstance).  
 
Greetings.

[JimIvey]

Just a couple of quick notes on this thread.....

I appreciate Mr. Stasik's thoughtful analysis of patent "success".  There may be a few underlying assumptions that ought to be examined.

"I do not personally believe that six times as many licensing disuptes are settled without resorting to litigation as require some amount of litigation. At best it is an equal number."

In an analysis of a client's portfolio some time ago, I had the opportunity to review another attorney's lengthy list of cease & desist letters and their consequences.  Well over 90% of the letters were successful in getting the target to "cease and desist."  Probably about 5% took licenses.  One conflict resulted in litigation.  While this is just one client's experience, it suggests that C&D letters are rather effective and I would hesitate in assuming insignificant utilization of a patent from lack of litigation or licenses.

Another use of patents that makes it nearly impossible to parse out value of individual patents is the mega-portfolio strategy.  If a company says, "we have 2,000 patents and think you ought to take a license," how do you allocate the value of each patent when that approach succeeds?  I've met in-house counsel for a major, international company who shared some insights into the use of patents once they've been issued.  He said he hates to look at the patents he's responsible for.  He prefers to say "You infringe!" and then begin negotiating the terms of the license.  He may be sitting on valuable patents or worthless patents -- he prefers not to know because it makes his job easier.  So, again, don't infer too much of the merits of a given patent from its litigation or licensing history.  Was this guy typical or a statistical outlier?  I don't know.

That raises another point:  since many major companies engage in the mega-portfolio strategy, they tend to file for patents on *everything* that's even arguably non-obvious.  In my opinion, that tends to influence the 20% valuable rate quoted by Mr. Stasik.  Conversely, consider the mind-set of the independent inventor.  Their invention is their "baby" and they want to bet their retirement on its success.  Of course, their judgment might be clouded by emotion and hope and inexperience, but their decision to file a patent application is based on much more careful consideration.

So that would suggest that independent inventors file applications with a higher ratio of "valuable" inventions.

On the other hand, independent inventors rarely have the capacity to really take the idea to market in a way that maximizes its chances for market success.  Contrast the example of Microsoft which can pretty much impose any innovation it wants to on to its customer base.  So pretty much any invention MSFT wants to use will "make money" or at least be incorporated into a profitable product.  On the other hand, you can invent the greatest thing since sliced bread or the Wright Bros.'s patented flying machine and you still have to convince someone else -- investors, manufacturers, competitors, etc. to make/use/sell/fund the invention.  

That would suggest a lower "valuable" ratio for independent inventors.

So how can we extrapolate to determine a "success rate" for independent inventors?  I have no idea.

Regards.

[JimIvey]

If the program completes a task, where the results of the task are preforming an action, which is novel and unobvious, then is the program patentable or is the task?

Both.  The task would be claimed as a method of steps performed by a computer and the program (not patentable per se, whatever that means) would be patentable as computer instructions stored in a computer-readable medium and configured to cause the computer to perform that same method.  The computer so programmed is also separately patentable.  

That's true in the U.S. and Europe, although Europe adds a requirement of "technical effect."  Mr. Stasik and I have been all over this issue in this forum.  Hopefully, that exchange, including delving into hairsplitting on that issue, is available in the archives.

To my understanding it would be the task which is patentable.  Would that task be considered a "Business Method" in the U.S.  Its all so confusing.  I did read up on software patents and it seems likely to get a patent for my idea.

Hopefully, this will help:

http://www.iveylaw.com/index.php?option=faq&task=viewfaq&artid=3&Itemid=5

That FAQ is a bit old and I should add in there somewhere that some form of intervening rights exist for "business methods" which were practiced before the issuance of the patent.  I don't think the term "business method" was ever defined and I haven't heard of any court cases which might have clarified the term.  It seems people aren't litigating over that issue, yet.  Or maybe I'm just not seeing those cases for whatever reason.

For what it's worth, I see much of the legislative whirlwind over the last year or two about "business method" patents as a collosal effort to fix something that was never broken.

Regards.

[Barc2004]

Okay thanks,

I Know what part of my idea can be patented as to avoid anyone else from using it after i do all the hard work to get it earning money,

Thanks to evey one who has participated in this thread...

Kind regard
Sam Adams

[M. Arthur Auslander]

Dear Barc,

Just pick a good registered patent lawyer you can trust.

[AlphaStarOmega]

OMG,

I love this site already, so much so I feel like a kid in a candy store! But in reality I know I am in big trouble because now a days its takes money! Where can a poor man go? Who will look at our creations and see merit in thier concepts? Like the author of this post said the more he learns the more he feels he knows nothing! ME I feel so stupid right now even after 42 years of knowledge and skills I feel like I am like that of an infant!

Here you mentioned paralegals could help in ways, but how? Even they cant work for free!

To me a "TRUE INVENTORS DREAM" IS TO SEE ATTORNEYS SEE A POTENTIAL CLIENT AND BACK THEM UP! In hopes of seeing a better future for both the client and them selves. And to see that all intrest is protected for all parties!

Right now if I had an attorney who would take my case I would not be posting here I would be making further negotiations with the Mayor of Key West Flordia with my attorney at my side! Knowing its all or nothing!

but then thats a dream of fancy I presume

[JimIvey]

To answer your question, I think you need to separate two issues -- how to get support to go forward and how to protect your idea.  Too many people combine the two and ask the patent practitioner (attorney or agent) to protect the idea and later share in the proceeds.  Most practitioners have agreed to a deal like that at one time or another -- and most regret it.

The problem is this:  a good patent is essential but insufficient.  To make money, a patent is not enough (but still very valuable).

So, for the support side of the equation, you need to find an investor that you can convince to share in the proceeds in exchange for support.  Patent practitioners are woefully unqualified to evaluate a business plan -- we just don't have any training in valuation of markets and projection market shares and estimating operating costs and profits.  That's what investors do; they evaluate business plans and take calculated risks.  

Unfortunately for you, it's going to take as much work on your part to learn of all the ins and outs of working with investors as it does to learn about intellectual property.

Here's one place you might find those type of resources for an independent inventor:  http://www.inved.org  Join their mailing list.

Their IP expertise and coverage is limited, so come back to this forum for a more thorough discussion of IP.  But they can point you in the right direction for perhaps finding investors or getting by without.  And don't believe them regarding provisional applications -- they've got that topic wrong, in my opinion.

Good luck!