WTF patents

I think the patent process is out of hand.

To a great extent the patent office seems to err on the side of accepting the patent -- this possibly makes sense in that they would get more complaints about being picky than about being accepting. Apparently the original revision of patent law was "accept anything, let the courts decide". Ultimately, it still means nothing until you've run it through a court of law.

The easy acceptance of patents means that big companies can shut down smaller ones even if the patents in question aren't valid. But it also means that little a**holes can file nuisance lawsuits, so maybe it balances out. I really don't know if the current environment is really suppressing innovation, or if it's turbo charging it by forcing people to be _really_ clever.

In the US you have a year after public disclosure to file. January to March is nothing. In Europe and other places you have to file before you disclose.

This is public information, let's name names, please.

Hell, that is nothing. In my searches for prior art related to my patents, i saw a number of "patents" that were obvious to those *not* skilled in the art! And if one wants to get really nasty, what about almost all of the electronic circuit patents centered around transistors that were nothing more that slightly modified tube circuits...

In the US there is a grace period of one year in which to file after public disclosure, but merely announcing the existence of the invention or demonstrating it does not necessarily constitute "public disclosure"-- you pretty much have to spill the beans on *how* it works, not just what it does. Offering it for sale has the same effect as public disclosure in the US. In Europe disclosure is a bar to patent. standard disclaimers: AFAIUI. IANAPL.

Or until it times out.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Which is a shame, because certainly if we could use ingenuity in any area, that's the one ;-)

Sadly I'm not allowed to reveal much, but I do know that one American company has patented putting an Ethernet cable down one particular configuration of tubes and joints. And uses this patent aggressively against competitors.

Paul Burke

No Clark, that's not right. Utility patents -- the most common patents -- must have *utility*. That is, they must perform some useful function, however obscure that function might be.

Showing that something cannot or does not work, and cannot be made to work with "reasonable" experimentation by someone "skilled in the art" is grounds for invalidating a patent.

Cheers, James Arthur -- IANAL

If it doesn't work, why would you need to invalidate the patent?

Another thing is the Patents do not have to work, and in many cases some could never work.

Look at is this way:

The US patent system is a wellfare scheme designed by lawyers for lawyers - then it is rather obvious what is going on.

Unfortunatly, the odds are that the EU will adopt it like the did with DMCA. Sheep!

thought

It *does* around here (Europe) - "publication" also covers black-box implementations.

The whole mess is going to collapse eventually. But first it has to get worse.

Walter, the claims specify what the guy's *trying* to patent, though this doesn't mean he'll get those claims granted.

U.S. applications are now published specifically as a way of soliciting public comment. I'm not sure how you do it, but this is your opportunity to provide the Patent Office with examples of what you feel are examples of relevant prior art.

AFAICT from very quickly skimming it, this is phantom power as for microphones, but applied to the instruments themselves. Another variation is a little external box that supplies the battery, presumably so the instrument can be interfaced to a non-phantom amplifier?

Me neither.

Dunno. Have musical instruments themselves used phantom power techniques? That's your bailiwick, not mine. And if hasn't been done, wouldn't it be obvious to apply the microphone-powering techniques to the instruments? And if it's so obvious, why hasn't it been done, if it hasn't? Those are the arguments to consider.

Yes.

No, as others have corrected said, applications must be filed no later than a year after public demonstration, disclosure, or offering for sale. The demonstration you cite does not preclude or conflict with filing.

Secondly, the effective filing date was April 1, 2004, the date the guy filed a Provisional Patent Application, as recited in [0001] of the specification section.

Best, James

Yes, exactly. Patents are sometimes granted, then their defects discovered later. The patent, then, is technically invalid, but not until so proven, formally, with proper proceedings.

One such proceeding is for a member of the public to request a "re-examination" of the offending patent in light of whatever new information he wishes to have considered, along with said citizen fronting a hefty fee, as the contesting party is expected to foot the bill.

James

-- Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss:

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at

IIRC, allegedly perpetual motion machines are an exception to that rule, by official policy anyway, for the USPTO.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

No, a patent must be "workable", and include a "preferred embodiment (one you believe is the best at the time of filing). Though the meaning of "workable" is often stretched.

When physical laws are violated the USPTO requires a bit more "proof" of workability. In the case of anything smelling of perpetual motion, they want a working model. ;-)

Considering that the USPTO is a *profit* center for the US government, one would expect a high acceptance rate.

It doesn't take a court to use patents as threats. The cost of litigation is often higher than the worth (or cost of license).

There are proposals to make the process better. AIUI there is a push to have peer input into patents and prior art before issue:

The disclosure bar in the US is one year from "commercial gain". It doesn't have to even be "disclosed" for the clock to start ticking. If the device (or whatever) is used in a product that is offered for sale, the clock starts, even though you haven't told anyone the device exists.

The claims are in force until the patent is invalidated. The holder of the patent is assumed to be correct until the courts find otherwise.

"The claims are in force"

But what exactly does that mean, there are no patent police that are going to stop your companies production until the courts have decided.

"The holder of the patent is assumed to be correct until the courts find otherwise."

The holder of the patent is assumed to be correct only after the courts find in their favor, otherwise, its just a piece of paper

Basically yes, making it public before the application invalidates it. Having been granted a patent means the application fulfilled some formal requirements. The content is not regarded. A patent is only valid until it is defeated.

Rene