Another patent Q

Probably.

A friend of mine mentioned that he wants to patent abusive business practices involving frivolous patents, then go after, well, everyone.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google?  See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

It sounds like there would be a term for that, in patent language, as common occurance.

Let's say I invent a nail and hammer to drive it. Maybe I couldn't patent the nail but the hammer. Then someone conceives of driving screws with the hammer (not necessarily useful), have they created a new thing? Drywall installers, by the way, often set the screws halfway with a hammer.

Imagine that a plumber takes one of these 'anti-gravity units' and with some fiddling develops a method of making carbonated beverages with the anti-gravity unit. In that case perhaps he has created a new thing?

I have seen patents for claims similar to; Once an antigravity machine is invented, this is what the controls will look like. Though in that instance it was a child-finder control panel for a radio direction finding scheme.

Having read a scant few patents, it seems like patent lawyers try to frame wording to include all possible applications, and attempt to extend by inference all possible likeness...if they went a bit further they would claim the application had some rights as ruler of the known universe... it's a bit extreme they way they word things.

The obvious applications would be part of the patent text, whether or not that guarantees rights to the applications is for a patent lawyer to answer. I bet you could find your answers by studying up online.

If antigravity flight were implemented in the patent requiring 6 such units, and you found a way of doing it with three, then I would guess your implementation adds something new to how things are being done so the method sounds patentable.

Like most people, I'm only slightly aware of what is and is not patentable, and would guess these views are reasonable approximations of what may be true.

but if you do become interested in patenting something, I would pay attention to establishing inventorship first, and making sure that you don't release any version of your invention into the public domain. For example, if invent a new hammer and sell your brother one for six dollars, you've released it and it's not patentable... however if you sign a deal with your brother with a lawyer present that the hammer is yours and he is borrowing it, that might be ok.

Publishing details before applying for a patent may also jeopardize your ability to get the patent.

Dirk Bruere wrote: : Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it. : Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in : (say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

First, I'll assume that your definition of obvious is different from the legal definition. The legal definition of obvious is that it is apparent to anyone skilled in the art. I'll assume that your definition of obvious means something more like that it seems like a natural extension of the original patent. The difference between these two is very murky.

For the example that you give, the answer is most likely yes, that you could obtain a patent, but that it may or may not be of much use to you. I'll illustrate why by providing an example that one of my former patent attorneys uses to describe what a patent really legally means.

A patent is a "negetive right" obtaining a patent does not give you the right to do anything, per se, but it takes away the right of others to profit from your invention. Use a pencil as an example. Suppose someone invented pencils and received a patent on that invention. Suppose you realize that you can color the lead of a pencil, and invent red pencils. Most likely, this new invention would not be deemed obvious according to the legal definition. You receive a patent for your red pencil. Who can sell red pencils? The answer is no one. The inventor of pencils holds the patent for pencils (a red pencil is a pencil) so you could not profit from the sale of your red pencils without infringing upon the original patent on pencils. Conversely, even though a red pencil is a pencil, it is a unique invention, and the patent holder for pencils could not profit from its sale without infringing. All this assumes that no licensing agreements exist, of course.

So, that example is, I believe, very analogous to yours. You would, most likely, be able to patent an airplane with an antigravity generator, but your couldn't sell them without infringing upon the the patent for the antigravity generator (without a licensing agreement, of course.)

Hope that helps,

Joe

Most probably, unless they have already patented that "application" for the device. But then you can't build it the same as them unless you want to pay a royalty.

It is common practice for companies to take out a patent for the underlying technology and then other patents for it's manufacture and various applications. Kia Silverbrook, Australia's (and one of the worlds) most prolific patent producers excels at this:

Remember, a patent is all but worthless unless you have the $$$$$$$ (note the 7 figures minimum) to defend it. For most stuff, it doesn't take much to get around a patent.

Dave :)

Not in the US. Offering a product for sale, or receiving other "commercial gain" may start a one-year "bar" clock, but doesn't prevent a patent.

Again, not in the US. It will start the bar clock though.

--
  Keith

But I could stop aircraft manufacturers adopting AG drives? That might be *very* profitable.

Dirk

: But I could stop aircraft manufacturers adopting AG drives? : That might be *very* profitable.

Right, which is why it still makes sense to patent every invention, even if you can't directly profit from it.

Joe

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Patent X has wide applications, esp in industry B Industry B does not (yet) know of patent X I will create patent(s) Y that covers X's applications in B And offer patent(s) Y to one of the large players in industry B

Dirk

engineer wrote [WITHOUT CONTEXT]:

Let me point out to you **once again** that posting without *context* makes you look like a bozo. Not including in your post the name of the person to whom you are replying is just stupid. Are you that poor an "engineer" that you can't perceive a pattern and emulate it?

't-click-the-reply-link-that-is-in-plain-sight+To-get-context-the-easy-way+on-Google+zzz+show-options*-*-*-snip-*-*-*-*-the-automated-blockquote-*-*-*+click-THAT-Reply-link

Interesting link. In "Method of producing a printed, bound document" that they've somehow managed to patent the timeless idea of sticking pieces of paper together to form a book. Also in Business Card" the idea of printing using infra-red responsive ink.

If you've the cash then it seems any old brain dead idea can be Hoovered up and granted a patent, having full legal standing until someone objects that it's 'prior art'. But, objecting to this worthless tat, then costs someone time, effort and yet more money. The lawyers do not complain. john

Just send a copy of this thread to his boss ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
     It\'s what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.

And I'm sure that someone else owns the patent on generating posts that "look like a bozo".

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAM disk is *not* an installation procedure.

This is what bothers me about the (US) patent system. Even if the application of X in industry B is an obvious case of its original claim, the USPTO will issue patent Y.

It seems to be worse if X isn't patented (internet protocols are a good example of this). The protocols may be described in broad terms (the use of TCP/IP to establish point to point communications between two systems for example), there are cases of patents issued for specific applications (where TCP/IP replaces a dedicated serial link in some application, for example) where nothing else is claimed other than the specific use of something in the public domain for the broad application.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
c (velocity of light in a vacuum) = 1.8x10^12 furlongs per fortnight

There are, on the patent books, a number of antigravity machines. Where hav you been these past 20 (more or less) years?

Nah, the prior art has that pretty well covered.

Indeed.

--
  Keith

Got numbers? AFAIK, they've all been declared invlaid, along with anything smelling of PM. If you do find a way to do either, you're going to have to have some pretty solid proof to get a patent granted.

--
  Keith

What? An antigravity generator powered by a perpetual motion machine? ;-)

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Wishful thinking. USPTO, unfortunately, allows just about anything through since (some act in the 70s or 80s or 90s?).

Tim

-- Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk. Website: