Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
JIMMIE wrote:
I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search (harder to do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite well). You'd have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the examiner to grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot of various schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers the same general application, there's a high probability that your patent "might" be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a possibility. If they are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested significant dollars in the product), then it's easy to negotiate a license and royalty, just to lay to rest the risk that you might file suit and force them to stop mfr and distribution. The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how to design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their new product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from vagueness comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that uncertainty has definite business value. The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build your device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B has a patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts; and B can make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to license each others patents, then between them, they can control the nut and bolt market, without money needing to change hands. Again, vagueness works to your advantage here. Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Lux" wrote in message ... JIMMIE wrote: I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search (harder to do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite well). You'd have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the examiner to grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot of various schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers the same general application, there's a high probability that your patent "might" be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a possibility. If they are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested significant dollars in the product), then it's easy to negotiate a license and royalty, just to lay to rest the risk that you might file suit and force them to stop mfr and distribution. The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how to design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their new product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from vagueness comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that uncertainty has definite business value. The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build your device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B has a patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts; and B can make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to license each others patents, then between them, they can control the nut and bolt market, without money needing to change hands. Again, vagueness works to your advantage here. Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works. Dont think I metioned patents at any time. On the other hand if you want someone to buy your new miracle whiz bang antenna you either let people know how great it is with data from a reliable source or you omit your data giving vague discriptions to pull in the suckers. I dont think an affidavit from the testing facility on measured field strength compared to a full size antenna who have endangered his product. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jimmie D wrote:
"Jim Lux" wrote in message ... JIMMIE wrote: I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title Dont think I metioned patents at any time. True enough.. However, URI has filed for patents on this antenna. And, there's lots of ways an inventor can use their invention for financial gain, only some of which involve convincing folks that it's a good invention. On the other hand if you want someone to buy your new miracle whiz bang antenna you either let people know how great it is with data from a reliable source or you omit your data giving vague discriptions to pull in the suckers. Perhaps the goal isn't to sell antennas in this case? Maybe it's to burnish the reputation of a university? Maybe it's to establish a patent portfolio in the burgeoning world of wireless communications, and just hope somebody else with deep pockets (e.g. a cellphone mfr) comes up with a practical idea that's close enough to what you patented. I dont think an affidavit from the testing facility on measured field strength compared to a full size antenna who have endangered his product. The test facility would normally provide a copy of the data to whoever paid for the tests. The data package would include appropriate certifications that the equipment was calibrated and to what standards. It would also usually have a description of the test procedure used, either explicitly, or by reference to some standard published procedure. It's the buyer of the data that has the responsibility to make the claims and comparisons. (or not... I've been involved in some measurement campaigns where the data wasn't disclosed, for competitive reasons.) In any event, the independent test facility would almost never make any sort of "summarizing conclusions", except, perhaps for a regulatory compliance test, where they'd say: The tested device (S/N #001) met all requirements for XYZ, as demonstrated by the attached test data and procedures. Note well the reference to a single test article. All the lab can say is that "the thing we tested did this".. they won't (and can't) make any assertions about the design or whether other articles of the same design will perform the same, etc. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Lux wrote:
[stuff] A thought came to me when this all set the naysayers off, "Don't wait for him/URI to come courting amateurs and attempting to sell 'em antennas." The amount of profit to be had might not cover his dinner and drinks ... I'd imagine we need to search cell phones, wireless routers/switches/etc., military, cell towers, gov't, etc. to find the antennas--where profits are to be had ... JS |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 20 Jun, 13:02, Jim Lux wrote:
JIMMIE wrote: I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search (harder to do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite well). You'd have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the examiner to grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot of various schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers the same general application, there's a high probability that your patent "might" be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a possibility. If they are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested significant dollars in the product), then it's easy to negotiate a license and royalty, just to lay to rest the risk that you might file suit and force them to stop mfr and distribution. The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how to design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their new product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from vagueness comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that uncertainty has definite business value. The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build your device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B has a patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts; and B can make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to license each others patents, then between them, they can control the nut and bolt market, without money needing to change hands. Again, vagueness works to your advantage here. Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works. Glad you wrote that Jim. A lot of people have no real idea of how the patent idea is used in commerce or that the claims are the most important part so at to protect in the event of new advances in science.When competing for contracts it is important to protect your designs even tho trivial incase the contract is put out again. I do have a question tho and that is with respect to trade secrets/utility patents. If a person decides not to patent and the idea is later deciphered does that prevent a patent issued to either party? With respect to submarines I thought the last changes to patent law now prevents this. Another posting stated that it is for the courts to determine if a patent was authentic yet I read that the courts have now stated that they are not in the game of overuling the patent office any more. Art |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
art wrote:
On 20 Jun, 13:02, Jim Lux wrote: Glad you wrote that Jim. A lot of people have no real idea of how the patent idea is used in commerce or that the claims are the most important part so at to protect in the event of new advances in science.When competing for contracts it is important to protect your designs even tho trivial incase the contract is put out again. I do have a question tho and that is with respect to trade secrets/utility patents. If a person decides not to patent and the idea is later deciphered does that prevent a patent issued to either party? Nope.. he who discovers first gets the potential ability to patent, regardless of what you've done in the past. "first to discover vs first to disclose". (US vs EU) If you've disclosed it, you have a year to get the app filed (in the US.. everywhere else, you have to file before first public disclosure) "disclosure" is kind of a tricky thing too. That's why that evidence of date of invention (the classic bound notebook with the signature on the page of someone who "read and understood") is handy. That establishes "priority" From a strategic point, it used to be (before the started publishing apps) that you'd have a trade secret AND file an application. You'd mark your thing "Patent Pending". You'd make little changes (possibly in response to an examiner's questions, or possibly as a "Continuation in Part" CIP) in the application to extend the time before the patent gets granted and published. If someone looked like they had independently discovered what your secret is (or they acquired it by espionage), you'd let the application start running, and then you'd go to the competitor and say, "Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it. When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business. Feel Lucky?" Then, negotiations for a license ensue. This is all changing though, so don't take what I write as gospel. With respect to submarines I thought the last changes to patent law now prevents this. Another posting stated that it is for the courts to determine if a patent was authentic yet I read that the courts have now stated that they are not in the game of overuling the patent office any more. There is that, too... However, you still have to go to court to enforce your patent. The alleged infringer has to say why your patent is invalid or why they don't infringe. This isn't cheap. If the infringer is an off-shore mfr, then you might get a customs order to stop importation, but that's like playing whack-a-mole, because each and every container load will likely be from a (ostensibly)different infringer. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:13 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote: "Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it. When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business. Feel Lucky?" In fact, the manufacturer is completely lucky. Their product line can continue forever based on the design preceeding publication - even if the design and the publication are the same. They just can't change it. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:13 -0700, Jim Lux wrote: "Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it. When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business. Feel Lucky?" In fact, the manufacturer is completely lucky. Their product line can continue forever based on the design preceeding publication - even if the design and the publication are the same. They just can't change it. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC It's the second mfr that's got the decision to make, and decide if they're lucky. Here's the speculative scenario: 1) Mfr A invents something, files ap, keeps it secret 2) Mfr B invents same thing, but later 3) Mfr B starts making the thing 4) Mfr A gets their patent 5) Mfr B is instantly infringing, and can't continue mfr, distribution, sale, etc., without a license from A. If B knows that A has filed a patent in an area of B's interest (potentially indicated by mfr A selling a product labelled Pat.Pend.), they've got a real gamble when they invest in step #3. B can negotiate in advance of patent issuance before step #4 OR B can tell A to go away, gambling that a)they won't infringe the unknown patent when it does issue or b)that the patent won't issue or c) A won't have the resources to take B on for infringement. OR B can wait for the patent to issue, then negotiate with A for a license. The last strategy is particularly effective if, meanwhile B has filed for or patented something that happens to be infringed by A's existing mfr operation. They can cross license their patents. (happens all the time in the semiconductor business) |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Submarine patents have gone away with a change in the maximum duration of a
patent being measured from the date of filing (and not the date of issue). Additionally, almost all applications are published 1.5 years after filing. Can not hide. 73, Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: "Jim Lux" wrote in message Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Submarine patents have gone away with a change in the maximum duration of a patent being measured from the date of filing (and not the date of issue). Additionally, almost all applications are published 1.5 years after filing. Can not hide. 73, Mac N8TT Gone mostly away, I'd say... There is an "art" in the writing of disclosures and claims that cause the patent to not look applicable. I knew someone who patented everything using the word "Catalyst" in the title, etc. There are thousands and thousands of catalyst patents issued all the time, so yours would be lost in the morass, and nobody has the time to read ALL the patents. Modern search engines help a lot to fight this. There's also the fact that standards bodies are much better about making participants in a standards setting process disclose their "patents in waiting" so you don't get submarined by adopting a standard, only to find the next year that it requires a license from some patent holder. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|