Suppose a product was using a technology before a patent ?

I have another question about patents.

On this website it says the following:

This text was probably copied from some kind of law text ;)

" C. Defining the invention; possible stages of "invention":

1. Conception: formation of a definite idea.

1. Research and development: diligence may be important if first to nceive of an invention, but not first to reduce the idea of practice.

2. Reduction to practice: actual embodiment or practicing of the invention; the filing of a patent application is considered constructive reduction to practice since applications must describe an enabled, operative invention. "

I wonder what this means.... especially number 3.

Does this mean a patent is only valid or accepted if the invention is already being used ? (For example a prototype ?) Or are all three stages allowed ? ;)

Bye, Skybuck.

From your text citation above:

"Although United States patent applications are kept in confidence, all information in a patent becomes available to the public when the patent is eventually published. At that time, the trade secret status of any information disclosed in a patent is lost. Conversely, according to US law, public use or sale of an invention for more than one year abolishes the patentability of the invention. Sale of a product produced by a secret process is considered to be a public use of the process."

Under your conditions the patent is invalid.

From society's (read; government) perspective the idea of a patent is education. The guilds weren't a pretty thing.

The intent is exactly the opposite. The intention is to foster knowledge by enticing inventors to teach their art. In return they receive a limited monopoly on their invention.

A wise man once wrote: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

There is a reason there are two parts of a patent. The "teachings" and the "Claims". You don't get the reward ("claims") without cost ("teachings").

Why? We have two inventors and a pile of money for lawyers. What's so valuable about that lesson?

That's the way the cookie crumbles. How do you know "B" discovered it "independently"? He may have falsified his notebook. Why does the government care? The art has been taught by "A".

You mist the point of patents. The purpose is to *TEACH* the relevant art. The exclusive license to practice the art is payment for those teachings.

There is no such thing as fair. Is it fair that you get dealt a better poker hand than I?

Capitalism is the worst system possible, except for all the others that have been tried.

B can then patent this "much more efficient way". B may (or may not) need a license from A to practice his art, but if it's that much better A will want a license from B too.

As always, their employer. Note that patents don't mean squat when national defense is at stake.

within

brochures,

reasons

patenting.

Let's see that text has a section about this:

" Bars preventing U.S. patenting of patentable inventions:

1. Pre-invention conduct. before the applicant's invention, another:

a. has public use or knowledge of the invention in the U.S.; "

I think the "bars" means here "rules"

And sentence 2 and a have to be attached to each other so the text could read as follows:

" Rules preventing U.S. patenting of patentable inventions:

1. Before the applicant's invention, another person/inventor has public use or knowledge of the invention in the U.S.; "

It says "public use" of the invention.

So I guess this means the manufacturer is allowed to publicly use an invention even if it's not publicly known ;)

Bye, Skybuck :)

In (a) the law says otherwise but then in your part (g) that could be an exception.

At page 102 (top left corner)

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or "

These are only conditions...

So a lawyer could say:

"The patent should not have been granted in the first place".

But your text is from this section:

" (g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other. "

But this section is too complex for me to understand at the moment... complex words and sentences and references to other sections... ;)

But this could be an exception to (a) ;)

Well we would have to know the details eh ? ;)

Del Cecchi wrote: (snip regarding patents, trade secrets, and simultaneous invention)

I would say it is different in the degree of proof needed.

Say I buy some coke and do chemical analysis to determine the formula. (If it were possible it would have been done by now). I would determine the individual chemicals in a given sample, but not necessarily the formula used by coke. Coke uses many natural ingredients containing mixtures of chemicals where it would be very difficult to identify the actual ingredient.

Another post regarded the plastic used in a golf ball. Identifying a single chemical, even one as varied as a polymer, isn't so hard. Much easier than the complex mixture that is Coke. It would, then, be relatively easy to prove that two golf balls were made of similar plastic than that two cola drinks were made from the same formula.

-- glen

From the manufacturer point of view this is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to this discussion there is no patent yet.

Where does the law say that ?

The manufacturer could prove two things:

1. He used the same technology, in that case the patent is invalid see down below unless you can find law which says otherwise.

or

1. He used a different technology thereby not violating any patents.

Where does the law say that ?

What I have found so far in the law is:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, "

"Used by others" could mean anything.

It could mean used to make a product work.

I will repeat this sentence over and over again until you disprove it with links to law which states otherwise ;)

Bye, Skybuck.

technology

since he

the

the

publicly-disclosed

Yes so in this context something=rules or law ;)

Bye, Skybuck.

Simplistic (but often correct) answer:

He who has the most money generally makes the rules.

The patent and copyright systems are protectionist legislation intended to try to enforce some degree of fairness over profit from intellectual property and innovation. Nobody ever claimed they were perfect.

The obvious point of patents is to protect an inventor who has invested a great deal of capital to develop an idea into an invention with some practical use which might be sold at profit from scalpers who simply copy the design without having to invest any of the R&D capital and can thus undercut the price of the inventor who needs to recover these costs through sales.

At this level, it's the same notion as forbidding the counterfeiting of money. Why earn it when you can just print what you need?

Someone said the notion of patents was to encourage inventors to disclose ("open source") their inventions, but I do not believe this to be the case. The system is merely an artifact of a capitalist economic system intended to serve as a check on free market exploitation.

If there is any "purpose" to the patent law, it is to encourage invention in the first place by providing some degree of insurance that an inventor will have the first shot at profiting from the invention.

The prolonged fight between DeForest and Armstrong with respect to radio technology should provide a valuable lesson.

The philosophical issue of fairness remains open. If party "A" invents something which is later completely independently discovered and developed by party "B," should B be denied the opportunity to profit from his invention simply because A discovered it first?

The general gist of patents is to deter copying, so it clearly falls short in such a case. B did not copy A, yet B may not be able to profit merely because A was first to register his invention.

A free market mentality would say, let the market decide, but that clearly isn't "fair" because it often simply depends on who can undercut the other on price.

Thus the system can never be universally fair.

That's why lawyers get paid so much.

No human society has ever fully resolved the notion of how to fairly reward human labor and inventiveness.

What if A invented an idea, but had a really crappy implementation, but B independently (or not) implemented the same idea in a much more efficient way?

The case of Teller vs. Ulam is another excellent example. Evidently Ulam first came up with the notion of radiational coupling as the way to create the hydrogen bomb, but Teller developed the concept into a workable design. Thus, who should "own" this dubious piece of intellectual property?

The crystal meth must be kicking in...

It doesn't say "trade secret" it clearly says invention !!!

It doesn't say: " A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the trade secret was known or used by others in this country, "

It says: " A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, "

The invention which is claimed by a person CAN be known by others, namely the trade secret holders !

It's the person who could not have known a probably kept trade secret !

However he is not the true inventor. The true inventor remains the trade secret holder !

Not only that but the trade secret holder can even prove it thanks to his products, process or whatever it is that uses it.

Suppose the formula of coca cola is reinvented by someone.

According to this court's decision that re-inventor can patent it and simply take over the bussiness from cola coca... or simply ruin the company by demanding that cola-cola no longer be produced etc.... ?

Define access ;)

I have internet access without access to the actual internet infrastructure.

I as many before me have had access to coca-cola soft drinks without knowing the coca-cola formula.

I do not have access to stealth bombers does that mean the technology can be patented and the american army sued ? ;)

Ok,

Bye, Skybuck :)

And BIFF begat B1FF, and so on...

nobody

are

A possible answer... don't know if it follows the law and is legal ;)

"I don't believe trolls" :) Skybuck Flying :)

nobody

are

You you troll lol :D

Not meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu are thezzz trolllll

I know you... I thought you were a big fat troll... with your unary encoding. Hahahahaha.

The fact is you mis-interpreted my universal coding you dumb f*ck ! lol.

Go read it again !!!!!!! ;) :P

Wieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It's good to rule :)

Oh yes I see... you setup the newsgroups to alt.flame again...

Not falling for that one again ;)

Wieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Lol, I am gonna leave it !

LET THERE BE FLAMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE =D

Bye, Skybuck.

Hello Winfield,

That often doesn't stick in a lawsuit. IIRC there was a company that made golf balls from Surlyn or some kind of special plastics. They kept the golf ball innards a secret but sold lots of these which constitutes "noninforming public use". Then Dunlop engineered something similar, filed a patent for the technology and subsequently sued. AFAIR Dunlop lost and their patent was declared invalid because of prior noninforming public use.

Regards, Joerg

What that hell is that.. or did you mean math :P.