decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I can't figure out who "valid" backyard inventors are! (Are I one?) | 279 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A novel approach to solving the prior art mess
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 07:06 AM EDT
Or post a 100K bounty for others who find prior art that invalidates a patent.
That would encourage a comprehensive search from the companies to find it, and
others to join in for the money.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I can't figure out who "valid" backyard inventors are! (Are I one?)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 07:26 AM EDT
I can't figure out who "valid" backyard inventors are.

That is, even if you talk about Al Gore, of Gore-tex, he had employers as such,
and they weren't small. And gaming that kind of system will be rampant -- whats
$100K for a patent if you pay its inventor twice that annually? Do you really
think even $500K in bonds (one for each patent in suit) would have stopped
Apple?

I'm an inventor, (invented two halfway (but only halfway) reasonable patents,
and my current employer practices one of them and makes $$), and I invent on the
job for corporations. My job title, of course, involves engineer. If I get to
the point of selling stuff I own, and I've considered it, I still would be
forming an LLC or similar to do it, and its doubtful I will own all of it...I am
only one person.

The one real "backyard inventor" I met was severely undereducated,
barely washed, and had a patent on what amounted to a perpetual motion machine
in the form of an electric car with a generator hung on the back wheels and two
sets of batteries. My company gave him a computerised motor control. My Honda
Civic hybrid does a much better at the same job, regenerating braking energy.

Of my next two "interesting" ideas, neither is patentable, at least by
Groklaw criteria...one is just another computerised vehicle controller for a
particular market, the other is a re-write of the Minix OS from the ground up
for security against programs doing anything other than what the owner decides
they are allowed to.

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Wouldn't work
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 07:57 AM EDT
Corporations are already not allowed to be named as inventors on patent
applications. Individual human(s) must be the named inventor. Corporations are
"assigned" ownership of the patents. If such a system that you propose
with a sliding scale were put in place, corporations would require heir
employees to sign contracts whereby they assign ownership only after the patent
has been approved.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT
    • Wouldn't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:52 AM EDT
    A novel approach to solving the prior art mess
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT
    Better-charge the 100k bond to appeal any rejection of a patent. And keep
    any rejected patent as prior art. The examiner ends up with similar
    incentives but backyard inventors can still submit at low cost. It even
    encourages inventors to get their applications right the first time - which will

    help backlog.

    --Erwin

    [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )