Looking for guidance for next step

[kingcsi]

Hello - first post here and I am looking for a little insight.  I'm currently a small business owner and I have come up with an idea that is quite solid that I would like to bring to market.  The idea has great potential to be used worldwide in multiple commercial applications.  Now, this concept needs to utilize a touch screen computer just like the iPad from Apple while utilizing a custom written software program.

Question 1: Can I legally use/incorporate the iPad to develop a new product? 
Question 2: From what I gather it takes years for a patent to be approved so how can someone get something to market quickly without their idea being stolen and developed by a company and/or individual with deep pockets?  (I obviously don't understand how they work)
Question 3: Is it better to partner with a large company to develop the idea?  Following up that question with; or better to sell the idea?  Would you still need a patient to do any of question 3 or just a Confidential Agreement?  I understand that going this route would mean I wouldn't fully benefit financially as I would if I did this on my own but I am fine with that.

This idea is not a pie in the sky - 'might work' - it has strong mass potential and is currently not in the market place. 

I truly appreciate any guidance you offer in this preliminary stage.  Thank you.

[JimIvey]

Look to Apple's web site for an SDK (Software Developer's Kit).  I've used one for Android (and there are Android-based tablets if Apple turns out to be a little strict for your purposes).

You don't need a patent to make and sell something.  However, doing so might infringe the patents of others.  That's true whether you have your own patent or not.

Whether you ought to partner with a large company is a business decision and depends entirely on your business.  There's no general answer for that related to patent law/practice.

Regards.

[kingcsi]

Hi Jim thanks so much for your reply.  If I may I'd like to follow up with one of your comments the 'you don't need a patent to make or sell something'.   I understand what you are saying but yet does having a patent make your concept more difficult to 'steal'?  Does it offer any additional protection that say a confidentiality agreement would offer if I presented this idea to acquire partnering or selling of the idea?  My fear is that I go in not protected, present the idea, they say 'no' and 6 months later I see my idea in use some where.  The more I think about this the more I feel it would be a good idea to go this route instead of developing the concept by my own means.

Again I appreciate your time and insight - anything you may offer is greatly appreciated.

Blessings.   

[JimIvey]

I understand what you are saying but yet does having a patent make your concept more difficult to 'steal'?  Does it offer any additional protection that say a confidentiality agreement would offer if I presented this idea to acquire partnering or selling of the idea? 

Yes.  Sorry.  It's a common misconception that one must have a patent to make or sell something.  I assumed you had the same misconception.

Patents are much better protection that a confidentiality agreement.  However, patents are difficult and expensive to get.  To a large degree, you get what you pay for (confidentiality agreements are cheap).

Regards.

[kingcsi]

Thanks again Jim I do appreciate your time and input.

If anyone else has insight to offer please don't hesitate.

I'd still like to know if you need Apple's approval to use their hardware?

Thanks!

[JimIvey]

I'd still like to know if you need Apple's approval to use their hardware?

Sorry I didn't make that more clear.  Apple's SDK is a tool, from Apple, that allows you to write software that will only run on their hardware.  If they give you a tool that does nothing but make software that runs only on their hardware, I'd say that's implicit permission.  The SDK will most likely include some sort of license that will spell all the details out for you.

On the other hand, they review apps that go into their app store, so you'll need their permission to make your software available to other users of their hardware.

Regards.

[patentsusa]

If anyone else has insight to offer please don't hesitate.

I'd still like to know if you need Apple's approval to use their hardware?

I agree with Jim.  A patent, if written well and prosecuted carefully, provides strong protection against copying.  But a patent is not inexpensive to obtain. 

You do not need Apple's permission to file your own patent application.  Many inventions are improvements of existing products.  In your patent application, you would normally not be specific about using an iPad, you would instead discuss a computer having a touch screen (and then you could list alternatives including an iPad, iPhone, Tablet PC, etc.).

[MYK]

I'd still like to know if you need Apple's approval to use their hardware?

Apple has a sort of love-hate relationship with the rest of the planet.  On the one claw, if nobody developed apps for the iPad, it would be a dead product.  On the other claw, Apple is a corporate control freak which wants to constrain, chain, restrict, impose upon, and enslave anyone who dares to develop for its product.

Of course, on the third claw, last I heard, Apple was getting investigated (by the feds) for antitrust violations for exactly this reason -- started near the end of the Adobe Flash debacle -- so there's some hope.  And on the fourth claw, even if the company were to be forced to enter into a consent decree, Apple could still try to work around it to restrict application developers in other creative ways;  they certainly seem not to care about alienating the purchasers of their hardware, considering that they have issued updates that "bricked" jailbroken phones, etc., in the past.

While the iPad might be perfect for your application, you may want to consider keeping your code as platform-independent as possible so that you can switch to another manufacturer's gadget if necessary.

[johnsonrik]

hiii kingcsi,
Krogh didn't seem concerned about Apple's oft-stated policy to reject iPhone applications it claims duplicate existing functionality. "There aren't any identical applications on the iPhone," Krogh asserted, even though Apple's own Safari browser is already included on the device.Find A Lawyer
While he acknowledged that Safari is on the iPhone, and that Safari is a browser, he rejected the idea that Opera's offering is a duplicate. "Opera Mini is a different kind of browser, so we cannot see any conflict with any requirements in the App Store."

[chassyp]

Being a simple chap this may seem a simple answer. If you are worried about using or making software for use on an I pad. Ask yourself this...would you feel the same about using your software on a pc or an apple mac?? I think all the above are in a position to sit back and watch rather than get involve with litigation. Get on with it I say. 

[jothya]

I understand what you are saying but yet does having a patent make your concept more difficult to 'steal'?  Does it offer any additional protection that say a confidentiality agreement would offer if I presented this idea to acquire partnering or selling of the idea?  My fear is that I go in not protected, present the idea, they say 'no' and 6 months later I see my idea in use some where. 

Maybe this is nothing and kingcsi actually has an invention, but the reoccurring use of concept and idea give me pause. 

[Paskran]

kingcsi, you are in almost identical situation as I am.
I have an invention that I am very confident of its marketability.

According to my research, patent application does not give me any protection so that anyone can use the idea as they like without paying me a cent.

So this is how I have developed my strategy.

I am filing patent application anyway. I now understand that even the protection by patent itself is not safe as padlock. With so many other patents, preexisting products and models, it only gives me stronger position against infringement. But it is substantially stronger protection compared to the unpatented.

Although anyone can use my invention as they like, once the patent is granted, they have to pay me all the royalty and compensation based on the date the invention was published. This is the card I can use to force the company to have a license agreement with me. If they don't, they will have to pay me all those fees and not be able manufacture the product any more once I have patent.
And, I am going to have NDA executed before presenting my invention. The patent application is not published for 18 months. With NDA combined, they cannot legally use my invention until the application is published.

There is no such thing as complete protection in IP world, I learned. But these are pretty good leverage against infringement, I believe.

[OMG IP]

One caveat.  Just keep in mind: your rights, whatever you may have, are only as strong as your ability to enforce them