|
|
|
| Authored by: alanjshea on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
I think that the "working model" requirement would be valid: If the
patent is strong enough and the innovation innovative enough, then you should be
able to find some investors willing to help you build a working model to issue a
patent and participate in the benefits thereof.
Sort of the inverse of the current system, where investors put money into
benefiting from the issued patent, not into getting the patent to issue. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
And you provided me a reasonable situation that could lead to said small
inventor. But does not actually prove the situation occurred.
A
reasonable situation is not equal to evidence.
For the actual evidence I
expect:
A background on the inventor sufficient to prove the individual
invented the item in their own lab - whether garage, backyard, etc. This could
include such things as an interview with the individual.
Why is that point
necessary? Because if said "small inventor" was actually an employee using the
lab equipment of the company - obviously it doesn't fit the situation
described.
At the very least, the patent number!
This is so someone
else can review the patent for their own opinion on whether the patent is
reasonably valid. We have been shown quite conclusively by the USPTO that they
grant a significant portion of patents that turn out to be invalid. As a
result, we certainly cannot rely on the validity of the patent as determined by
the USPTO.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
