|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 03:25 PM EST |
Why would you reveal your method?
Perhaps you are familiar with the little silver golf balls that used to do the
printing on IBM Selectric typewriters. IBM did not patent them because the
method of manufacture was a closely guarded secret.
And I do mean closely guarded. The manufacture took place in a separate
building at IBM's Lexington plant. No one but those involved in manufacturing
and engineering had access to the building.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 03:27 PM EST |
As in what the law *says* rather than what it *does*.
You don't get a patent!
In both your cases 1 and 2, you have just patented an idea, which is an invalid
patent. Let's quote your wording exactly ... "However it will require
several years of development to learn if I can reduce my method to
practice". You are NOT entitled to a patent until you HAVE reduced your
method to practice, because it's only that that you are legally entitled to
patent.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Case legal - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 03:37 PM EST
- Case legal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 09:44 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 04:02 PM EST |
In the chemical industry industrial processes are very often
not patented, but kept secret simply because publishing the
details of a method even in a patent application would give
a competitor a head start in finding a work-around.
I had a first-hand experience of this many years ago in the
field of catalytics. A company made a product for me, made
me sign an NDA with severe contractual penalties, and after
all was signed and sealed I asked the Project manager "how
did you do that" ... "oh, I'm absolutely not permitted to
tell you that " :-).
And he explained the problem with patents in catalytics.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
