The Intellectual Property Forum

I think the idea is that patents should teach something. In your case, since the article itself is already known, the results produced by the use of such enlarged device must be deemed unobvious in order for it to be patentable, I believe. Here’s out of the book example: “… the use of a large pulley for a logging rig was held nonpatentable over the use of a small pulley for clotheslines. These situations are knows as obviousness by analogy.” - Patent it yourself By David Pressman.

Within 2 months of publication, you can submit prior art to the USPTO.

Hmm, is this 2 months period after the patent application publication of any special significance?

In other words, if I had a patent application that has just been published would it be justifiable and wise to wait over these two months prior to approaching a manufacturer with an offer to license my invention?

Wow, talking about a bit far fetched...

I am not a lawyer, so anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but from the inventor's perspective it might be interesting and useful for you to know that in the US, assuming the idea IS patentable and with certain odds on your side, you might still turn out to be the true inventor entitled to the patent, and not the other party, even though they filed for the patent first. Good luck!

just add -e at the end.

I tried to take the concept a step further, but, unfortunately, the domain name microsoftee.com turned out to be already taken or reserved.

there is no 'correct' way to pronounce the marks.

In all seriousness, though, I wonder if the argument of "good faith" ever gets raised or has any validity in trademark laws, meaning the new trademark, whether spelled, or pronounced, differently or "correctly", being created exclusively or mainly to feed off the existing trademark?
 

Quote from: radioleft on 09-10-09 at 09:15 pm

I've talked to friends in the various groups about why one word is OK and another is not, and have only recently learned from a dwarf friend why "dwarf" is OK, but "midget" isn't. "Dwarf" is considered to be a clinical description.

Hmmm... wonder if acceptance will change over time.

Imbecile, idiot, moron - all clinical classifications, aren't they?

Well, some diagnoses could be considered pretty obvious and easy to make, like in a dwarf case above, while others (see your other examples), are likely to be interpreted more of a judgement call, unless being made by a real doctor.

Here's a previous discussion on a related subject to get you started:

http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,12088.msg56090.html#msg56090