|
|
|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
You are saying that if someone invents a mechanically operated
hybrid powered by bicycle pedals and patents it as described
by the author
Then I come along with a completely new and elegant solution
where the regenerative energy from braking is the mechanical
means of charging the battery, bicycle boy gets to sue me and
win, even though his patent is absurdly ridiculous and is in
no way beneficial to mankind. Is that what you are arguing?
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- you need a cross license for this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- you need a cross license for this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 10:27 PM EDT
- No. - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- No. NO. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:59 PM EDT
- No. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 04:24 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Doghouse on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Agreed. I fully understand what PJ was getting at with regard to overly-broad
patents, but the example wasn't one of her best.
The claim you make
is your invention - not whatever "eureka" concept you may have initially
had in mind (and even if that's what you still think you'll try and bring to
market). Stepping back from the specific (e.g. a pedalling passenger), and
thinking about what the underlying concept is (Hmm. Any mechanical method,
maybe?) is an important part of the process of going from an initial bright idea
to a strong final patent (which, in this case at least, you'd reject as overly
broad and look for something a little more specific). What you try to distil for
your patent are the fundamental, novel idea(s) underlying your
brainwave. Fail to do that, and all you do is give away your invention to anyone
who can, now you've conveniently shown them the way, see a slightly different
way to achieve the same result (that you didn't cover).
A cautionary tale
of someone falling foul of precisely that, is Trevor Bayliss' patent of the
wind-up radio/torch/etc.. It didn't make him rich.
As
PJ was trying to illustrate, the potential problem comes when (accidentally or
otherwise) you draw things so generally that other, pre-existing ideas start to
fit your claim. But even then, it's still not yet a problem; that comes
about, as we're all well aware, at the point that the patent examiner fails to
recognise that fact, waves it through on the nod and awards you a
patent.
I used to work with a guy who had a large number of
patents to his name. Part of the reason was that he was brilliant at taking that
step back from someone's bright idea, asking "What's the actual invention?", and
helping them burnish that into a solid patent submission (on which, under
patent law - and quite rightly - he would also be named). I took a couple of
ideas to him at different times; it was quite sobering to see the difference
between my initial thoughts and the distilled concept. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
PJ told you she hadn't invented the hybrid car she "invented" a
completely impractical version thereof. Others invented hybrid vehicles long
before she was born (well unless she's approaching 110) what she did was to
write a claim that encompassed pre-existing technologies but which COULD be read
as a description of her invention, then in her evil trolling way she sued every
manufacturer of hybrid cars cleverly only asking for slightly less per suit than
defending the case would cost.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
The hypothetical claim in the article is invalid under Section 101, because it
contains both method and apparatus limitations. The verb "using" in
the claim is a method step. Most of the remaining limitations are apparatus
limitations. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 03:11 AM EDT |
Absolutely.
And that is absolutely why it's a problem. You thought of it first, nobody else
gets to improve it, neener neener.
This behaviour is harmful. That we have law that allows it is harmful. The only
way to deal with it is to reverse the law that allows it.
Therefore, we need to abolish the patent system.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
