[HN Gopher] Advice for first-time inventors from a patent engineer
___________________________________________________________________
Advice for first-time inventors from a patent engineer
Author : rbanffy
Score : 106 points
Date : 2024-10-18 12:19 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| ogou wrote:
| It took 4 years for me to get any communication from the USPTO
| after I filed. I had a patent lawyer prepare the application and
| transmit it electronically. There was a confirmation code of
| receipt and that was it. Nothing for 4 years and then an office
| action saying no. Ok, fine. One of the reasons offered was that
| there was a Chinese patent for something similar, owned by
| Bytedance. I read their patent and it is a huge word salad of a
| vast array of concepts, with very little application. When it
| comes to technology, I believe the whole America patent system is
| dominated by corporations and foreign players. Despite the new
| marketing of USPTO there is no way an independent inventor has a
| chance in this system.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| Because patent specialists are experts at defining the widest
| possible scope for their idea, when I have reason to read a
| patent I find it a confusing word mess of noise, that does not
| have any meaningful interpretation until a case is argued in
| court, at which point the word salad is brought into the
| appropriate interpreted focus.
|
| I am not convinced an independent inventor is able to ever file
| a patent that can not be countered from another patent that had
| no intention to cover the inventor's use case when written,
| it's just a useful tool to protect the filer in any and all
| scenarios.
|
| Does anyone - except patent specialists who make their living
| from this - see value in the patent process at all any more?
| We're a long, long way from the original intent of the process
| these days, it seems.
| jll29 wrote:
| "If you disclose your invention publicly and do not file an
| application within one year, you could be barred from receiving a
| patent on that exact invention,"
|
| I am not a layer not patent attorney, but I have extensive
| experience as a former asset manager of a IP portfolio of an
| international stock market traded information company and
| inventor/co-inventor on multiple US and non-US patents and patent
| applications.
|
| This sentence is poor advice, since the one-year rule exists only
| in the U.S., whereas other countries have stricter rules. So it
| is recommended to always keep things secret (meaning you can only
| tell people under NDA about it) until a patent application is
| filed. You will normally want to be able to exercise your patent
| rights (a government-granted, time-limited, territorial monopoly)
| in multiple jurisdictions, not just the U.S., as your competitors
| will likely sit not just in the U.S. (if you file only in one
| country, people can work around your patent by using the method
| disclosed therein in another, unprotected jurisdiction instead,
| which is perfectly legal).
|
| Another piece of advice, namely to file a provisional application
| first, is only advisable if you are not quite ready to file the
| full application, yet you are afraid someone else may file first.
| In most circumstances it may be smarter to file a full
| application as the first action; the reason is that no new
| material matter may be added to the provisional application, and
| in the course of writing and "fine tuning" the language of the
| final application, one often wishes to include additional matter.
| To sum it up, a provisional freezes the scope of the application,
| while not providing you an earlier "priority date".
|
| You need to understand IP well to play this game; most people
| don't. It's also a game with large capital requirements
| ($100k/lifetime of a patent, including extension fees, foreign
| filings and translations) and very long time lines (double
| decades rather than weeks). But if executed carefully, a single
| transaction (case of patent litigation or licensing) may bring an
| IP owner more $$$ than they may earn with their normal
| operational business.
| Temporary_31337 wrote:
| Unless you have a business that can easily support these costs
| AND a plan to make extra money from the exclusivity that patent
| award gives you then I don't see how this makes financial sense
| for any small entrepreneur.
| Beijinger wrote:
| "If you disclose your invention publicly and do not file an
| application within one year, you could be barred from receiving
| a patent on that exact invention,"
|
| Wasn't this rule retired? I vaguely remember something in this
| regard.
|
| "It's also a game with large capital requirements "
|
| True. And many BS patents from big corporations are getting
| granted because their lawyers fight day and night to have it
| granted. And many solid patents from single inventors get
| rejected. The patent examiner is just lazy, likely does not
| even read your applications and rejects it on grounds that make
| it obvious that he has neither, read nor understood your
| applications (dont ask :-) ). While this can be fixed, it
| leaves your skeptical about the whole system.
| phasetransition wrote:
| I, too, am not a lawyer, but ended up overseeing the IP
| portfolio of a publicly traded EU company. Small world...
|
| I comment in geneal support of this advice.
|
| We have started to submit a presentation that would be used for
| an examiner interview as our provisional application.
| Intermernet wrote:
| There should be a legally accepted way to publish something, free
| of cost, that demonstrates a new invention, that prevents other
| people patenting it, and can allow the person who published it to
| claim the credit for doing so.
|
| I'm not sure what's so difficult about this concept in the age of
| verifiable chains of communications and transactions.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| This has always existed. You disclose the idea. Things that are
| public cannot be patented.
|
| Put your great idea up on arxiv and it becomes prior work which
| the patent office can find. Or publish it in some conference.
| Etc. It gets officially timestamped and you're all done. You
| don't need any of this useless verifiable chain of
| communication nonsense. The world figured out how to do this
| centuries ago in far simpler ways.
|
| Whether the patent office finds your prior art or not, that's a
| whole other question. They may still grant a patent no matter
| how obviously it overlaps with prior art. But then you can use
| your prior art when they come to try and shake you down, if it
| comes down to that.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Couldn't you post it on hacker news or X? That would have a
| pretty strong timestamp.
| rvnx wrote:
| It's easy to fake if you are part of YC. You think they
| would lose 1B+ potential revenue if the only thing they
| have to do is to change one database record that nobody
| except them is monitoring ?
| qup wrote:
| They're not the only ones monitoring their own database.
| DowagerDave wrote:
| it's pretty hard to unpublish something on the internet
| though. How many system do you think are consuming HN
| content? how many consume those? You can't un-ring a
| bell, so a simple social post is almost always
| discoverable in the future.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| HN timestamps get rewritten for second chance pool
| submissions and possibly others.
| ogou wrote:
| A simple social media post can work as prior art, especially if
| it has details or some kind of diagram. But, that only limits
| their ability to patent it. Your own ability to monetise it is
| not protected by that. For independent inventors, licensing a
| patent is far more practical and lucrative than actually
| manufacturing something or releasing complex software packages.
| If you are raising VC money, having any kind of patent can
| increase your chances by a substantial factor.
| prennert wrote:
| Does licensing from smaller actors happens much in practice?
| It feels to me as there is a huge asymmetry of the ability of
| corps either infringing the patent directly, or circumventing
| it vs an individuals budget for infringement discovery and
| lawyers. I wonder even if bigger players like universities
| have much success in licensing their IP.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| I guess if you have a patent and a big corp infringes it,
| then a patent troll would be more than willing to buy it
| from you.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Yes, it does, but it often needs at least an implied threat
| of a lawsuit or some extra deliverables that help
| implementation of the technology.
|
| Patents also turn "I got crushed by Google" stories into
| legal battles done by patent trolls that often have a
| decent payoff.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| There is: Publishing it on a blog or in a scientific
| publication does that. At trial, your blog can be used to
| invalidate any patent claims that it predates.
| ricksunny wrote:
| This is correct. And it is called ensuring 'Freedom to
| operate' - FTO.
| kjellsbells wrote:
| That is supported by the article, but I would find it hard to
| imagine that an inventor who is trying to assert their rights
| against a much more well-resourced competitor would want
| things to go to trial. The article is pretty clear that
| filing first is what matters, not posting first, and first to
| file provides much, much, stronger evidence of your claim
| than a social media post.
| freejazz wrote:
| You don't need to go to trial to invalidate a patent. It
| happens frequently at the motion to dismiss or summary
| judgment phases.
| DowagerDave wrote:
| you still need the resources to go through the courts
| though. This closes out the option for almost all.
| echoangle wrote:
| Well there's literally nothing you can do about that when
| every party has a right to a trial. How are conflicts
| supposed to be resolved if one party doesn't want to go
| to court?
| freejazz wrote:
| If you have good prior art, why would a patent holder
| litigate against you? They'd be almost guaranteed to lose
| their patent.
| monocasa wrote:
| Ask Sable wrt their spat with CloudFlare.
| freejazz wrote:
| Perhaps you can make your point here so I don't have to
| go searching for something you have not even explained
| the relevancy of.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I'm confused because my understanding is that "first to file"
| rather than "first to invent" is now basically universal.
|
| My assumption was that tagline meant what to said, that it
| didn't matter when you create or publish something, that the
| government was open to giving a monopoly to whomever jumps
| through the legal hoops first.
|
| ...which has been a major load of salt I've carried around
| with me.
| hansvm wrote:
| First to file determines who gets the patent, if anyone.
| Anything out in the public as verifiable prior art can
| invalidate all such patents, giving you (and your
| competitors) the freedom to operate.
| jcranmer wrote:
| When you make a public disclosure (this includes things
| like "releasing a product that uses that method", fwiw),
| that starts a countdown clock [1]. When that clock reaches
| 0, that disclosure is now prior art, and anyone who files
| for a patent after that point is unable to get a patent for
| that method. Sufficiently old public disclosure invalidates
| any patent, independent of any filing system for patents.
|
| First-to-file and first-to-invent are instead what happens
| if you get two different people who try to file for a
| patent before that point. In a first-to-invent system,
| there's an adjudication process that's going to look at all
| of the internal records to figure out who "invented" the
| process first (which, in the absence of evidence, is going
| to default to the first person to file anyways). In a
| first-to-file system, the first person to get their
| paperwork in the door is going to get the patent.
|
| This doesn't mean that an unscrupulous person gets to look
| for public disclosures and rush their own patent
| applications to beat out the original inventor. You still
| need to demonstrate independent conception of the idea
| (although this would likely only be demonstrated in the
| context of an actual trial).
|
| [1] I don't remember it's length, but I want to say it's
| like a year.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| > This doesn't mean that an unscrupulous person gets to
| look for public disclosures and rush their own patent
| applications to beat out the original inventor. You still
| need to demonstrate independent conception of the idea
| (although this would likely only be demonstrated in the
| context of an actual trial).
|
| IPRs and PGRs can also be used for this, and are cheaper
| than doing it at a full-blown trial.
| rostigerpudel wrote:
| That one year grace period is specific to the US and does
| not apply in most other countries. So by publishing your
| invention before filing a patent application you create
| prior art that will stand in your way in most of the
| world.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| > "first to file" rather than "first to invent"
|
| These rules only apply when two people with the same
| invention both file a patent. If you publish something on
| Monday and someone files a patent (really - a provisional)
| for it on Tuesday, you are prior art to their patent and
| can be used to make it "obvious."
| mikewarot wrote:
| >"If you disclose your invention publicly and do not file an
| application within one year, you could be barred from receiving a
| patent on that exact invention."
|
| Does this mean if I disclose an invention, that _nobody_ can
| patent it after a year?
|
| This is my explicit reason for writing about BitGrid out in the
| open, since 2004.[1]
|
| If it turns out to be useful, that's awesome. If not, it's been a
| fun mud ball to polish.[2]
|
| [1] https://bitgrid.blogspot.com/2004/
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorodango
| devnull3 wrote:
| > Does this mean if I disclose an invention, that nobody can
| patent it after a year?
|
| Others can. But during their application who is going to tell
| that there is a prior art? Patent offices only do basic checks
| on existing patents and not on the wider internet.
|
| Once the others get their patent, you can appeal [1] it.
|
| [1] I am not sure its the right word
| jcranmer wrote:
| > appeal [1] I am not sure its the right word
|
| You can challenge the patent at the USPTO to instigate an in
| partes review.
|
| You can also raise a defense of 'the patent is invalid' if
| the patent owner tries to sue you.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| "prior art" is usually meaningless in a first-to-file country
| like the USA.
|
| i.e. if you disclose your IP publicly, there is zero
| protection from getting scooped by competitors and trolls. If
| you NDA more than 17 entities, than it becomes public domain
| in some countries.
|
| Patent-pending status is somewhat of a more economical tool,
| and buys time to entrench a manufacturing product line in a
| market. A fully complete patent is only useful for litigation
| and customs enforcement... and can't be revised to cover
| sleazy IP workarounds.
|
| We only won about 4 out of 7 international scope patents I
| drafted, so YMMV. =3
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| In theory you can't patent something that has already been
| described prior to the filing date. In practice I'm sure
| there's been things that've been patented that someone else
| independently invented beforehand. It's also not always clear
| if something is a new invention or not (e.g., some chemical has
| been known for a while but someone realized it could be used to
| treat some disease).
| devnull3 wrote:
| Having filed multiple patents, it does not leave a good taste in
| your mouth (esp software patents). You know you are bullshitting
| but unfortunately it needs to be done because others will do it
| and deny you to use the invention.
| GJim wrote:
| > it does not leave a good taste in your mouth (esp software
| patents)
|
| The very _concept_ of software patents should leave a bad taste
| in anybody's mouth.
| fatnoah wrote:
| Fully agree. Over 20 years ago, I did the same job as the
| Patent Engineer (I had a slightly different title, but same
| role) at a big law firm. Half of the patents I filed were BS
| software patents for a name brand tech company, and the other
| half were for actually novel and cool inventions for things
| like super-efficient distillation/chilling systems for coffee
| and satellite antennas for moving vehicles.
|
| Getting that job was almost as easy as getting a software job
| in 2019. I had a masters in EE and a few years of SWE
| experience. I sent out 5 applications to top local law firms,
| got 3 interviews, and one offer over the course of a month.
| Apparently, the bulk of people in that role were post-docs in
| bio/chem who weren't excited about managing student loan debt
| while being underpaid lab people. (The EE/CS contingent was 5
| out of 30 in the role, and I was the only one with actual SWE
| experience, so it gave the me and the firm creditability with
| inventors)
|
| My salary matched my SWE salary, I had my own office +
| secretary, and the firm paid overtime and law school tuition.
| They also charged $250/hour for my time. I also only lasted
| about year in that role since it was very isolating and not
| collaborative.
|
| The coolest part of that whole experience came a couple years
| later when I went to dinner with my wife, her close friend, and
| the friend's serious boyfriend. In the "what do you do" chit
| chat, he mentioned working with someone on a new way to brew
| and chill coffee quickly that they were close to bringing to
| market.
|
| When I asked if it works like [describes invention exactly] his
| mind was absolutely blown away. As it turns out, I wrote their
| patent.
| freejazz wrote:
| If your invention is a prior art, then it is a defense to
| infringement. The asserted patent is invalid.
| devnull3 wrote:
| This assertion needs a lawsuit and deep pockets. Most
| startups will not be able to do this.
|
| Infact the patent holder can file a lawsuit against a
| startup. Now even if the startup can prove that the patent is
| invalid, it has to spend precious money on the lawsuit.
| freejazz wrote:
| Yes, we live in a world where patents exist. It's still
| possible to be correct about certain things in that world,
| and the fact that one does not like that patents exist
| doesn't entitle people to be incorrect about how the patent
| system works.
| hiddencost wrote:
| "you'll regret it" is basically the right advice. Unless you're
| carrying at 10 figure legal budget and a portfolio of thousands
| of patents.
| floathub wrote:
| The patent system in general and the USPTO in particular is a
| very strange amalgam. As a holder of multiple patents (both
| hardware and method/soft), I've found the process to be extremely
| odd.
|
| First you have to phrase whatever your technology involves in a
| legal vernacular that is weirdly constraining and rarely maps
| well onto what the thing in question actually does. You always
| have the sense that you're playing a game of legal-mumbo-jumbo
| performance art more than actually describing an invention.
|
| Second, you then have to interact with patent examiners. Some are
| great, many not so much. One I encountered was possibly the
| dumbest person I have ever met. Thick as two short planks with
| two extra short planks nailed on.
|
| Third, the process just seems to go on and on. The examiner will
| make an objection or point to prior art. These actions may have
| little basis in logic or common sense, but they do seem to move
| pieces of paper from one box to another. Meetings occur with the
| examiner and/or their supervisor where your jaw will drop at how
| little anyone involved understands the technology being claimed.
|
| You can cut through a lot of this with good legal counsel, but
| that is really just contributing to the gamesmanship of the whole
| process.
|
| And, in the end, a patent is a pretty meaningless thing. A
| portfolio of _defended_ patents might be an "Intellectual
| Property" asset (what an awful term). But so many people have to
| jump through the process just as a defensive act so they have a
| sliver of reassurance that using the novel thing they came up
| with will not lead to immediate cease-and-desist injunctions from
| IP-fortified competitors. What a collective waste of human
| creativity.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _You always have the sense that you 're playing a game of
| legal-mumbo-jumbo performance art more than actually describing
| an invention._
|
| My first patent was filed a few weeks ago, with consultations
| with a patent attorney. This is pretty much the highlight of my
| takeaway as well.
|
| It helps to have a good understanding of the English dictionary
| and thesaurus to be able to negotiate wording. But yes, it's
| still mumbo-jumbo. Inventions might be "obvious" to someone
| else in the trade, but it's hard to say if it's going to be
| obvious if it isn't described using that trade's mumbo-jumbo
| instead of Legal mumbo-jumbo.
| freejazz wrote:
| > But so many people have to jump through the process just as a
| defensive act so they have a sliver of reassurance that using
| the novel thing they came up with will not lead to immediate
| cease-and-desist injunctions from IP-fortified competitors.
|
| Having a patent is not a defense to an allegation of
| infringement and if that's what your legal counsel told you,
| then you should seek new counsel.
| kiba wrote:
| It's just a way to get a seat at the negotiation table. If
| they sue you, you could potentially countersue them for
| patent infringement.
|
| Yes, it's all a bunch of bullshit, but that is what you get
| when you have a flawed notion of how inventing works.
| freejazz wrote:
| > It's just a way to get a seat at the negotiation table.
|
| It's not needed at all. Valid prior art is a defense to
| patent infringement because it outright invalidates their
| patent. Full stop. That's the best leverage out there. It's
| better than being able to prove non-infringement, because
| the patent remains in that scenario. So when you have good
| prior art and they threaten to sue, you say "okay, I'll
| invalidate your patent in a motion to dismiss". If you want
| to countersue, now you risk your patent being invalidated
| and still being found liable for infringement.
|
| > If they sue you, you could potentially countersue them
| for patent infringement.
|
| Maybe? It depends on the patent and their practice. Just
| because someone accuses you of infringing doesn't mean
| their practice infringes your patent. It doesn't even
| follow at all, actually.
|
| >Yes, it's all a bunch of bullshit, but that is what you
| get when you have a flawed notion of how inventing works.
|
| I disagree and I'm not going to take your word for it
| considering that everything wrong I've pointed out about
| your posts. It is ironic that you use the phrase "flawed
| notion."
| kiba wrote:
| _It 's not needed at all. Valid prior art is a defense to
| patent infringement because it outright invalidates their
| patent. Full stop. That's the best leverage out there.
| It's better than being able to prove non-infringement,
| because the patent remains in that scenario. So when you
| have good prior art and they threaten to sue, you say
| "okay, I'll invalidate your patent in a motion to
| dismiss". If you want to countersue, now you risk your
| patent being invalidated and still being found liable for
| infringement._
|
| The patent is beside the point of the business of
| inventing and bringing products to market. It's a legal
| weapon, not a tool to encourage commerce.
|
| _Maybe? It depends on the patent and their practice.
| Just because someone accuses you of infringing doesn 't
| mean their practice infringes your patent. It doesn't
| even follow at all, actually._
|
| It's not about protecting your inventions. It's a legal
| weapon.
| freejazz wrote:
| >The patent is beside the point of the business of
| inventing and bringing products to market. It's a legal
| weapon, not a tool to encourage commerce.
|
| I'm not sure how this is responsive to my comment, which
| was directed at correcting your misconceptions about how
| patents work and are used. I think some people would
| disagree that it doesn't encourage commerce. Were it not
| for patents, many inventions would be trapped under trade
| secrets and would never have been disclosed to the public
| at all. It's also an odd point to make to me as I never
| suggested that a patent was a "tool to encourage
| commerce."
|
| >It's not about protecting your inventions. It's a legal
| weapon.
|
| Yes, a patent is a legal tool. You were the one that
| suggested owning a patent was a defensive tool, which I
| explained to you is not really true, most especially in
| the context you provided of countersuing.
| riskable wrote:
| This assumes the entity suing you actually performs some
| business other than litigating patents. You could have the
| largest patent portfolio in the world but if a laywer who
| owns a single patent files suit against you that "IP war
| chest" will be completely worthless.
| dahart wrote:
| > You can cut through a lot of this with good legal counsel,
| but that is really just contributing to the gamesmanship of the
| whole process.
|
| True and true. In some ways perhaps that's the point. It is a
| game of sorts, it is business competition; businesses
| temporarily monopolizing business on inventions in return for
| disclosing them. And it makes sense that legal protections for
| businesses are better & easier for those businesses when they
| spend money on lawyers, if a little pessimistic. Unfortunately
| the system is somewhat motivated to try to cut out people who
| can't afford lawyers.
|
| You mentioned bad/dumb patent examiners. I've never worked with
| them and only worked with patent lawyers, and I have to say
| I've been constantly impressed with their ability to absorb,
| understand, and describe highly technical work in legalese (and
| yes the language is sometimes performative and can sound funny
| to engineers). Teams creating these inventions take months and
| years to make something patentable, and when I think about how
| the lawyer's job is to understand these new inventions in a
| short amount of time, over and over, week after week, I feel
| like they have a hard job and I'm routinely surprised at how
| well and how quickly they understand it.
| DowagerDave wrote:
| >> I've been constantly impressed with their ability to
| absorb, understand, and describe highly technical work in
| legalese (and yes the language is sometimes performative and
| can sound funny to engineers).
|
| This is one of the saddest aspects: so much high-value effort
| and skill towards an end that, in the whole, I view as a
| massive drain and retardant on human development.
| tightbookkeeper wrote:
| - Documenting and classifying inventions is valuable -
| people choose to become a patent clerk/lawyer because of
| the stability. It enables them to take care of family,
| pursue hobbies, etc (see Einstein). - the alternative for
| some is being an engineer but for others it might be a
| librarian
| ajb wrote:
| The latter points are valid, but for the first - software
| engineers are usually best advised not to spend time
| looking at the patent database. For a long time (is it
| still true?) there were triple damages for _knowingly_
| infringing a parent, and in any case the function of the
| patent database as a publication of ideas is extremely
| small in software. I have literally not heard of anyone
| locating something they need to implement by looking at
| it.
| tightbookkeeper wrote:
| Working engineers are not the only audience.
| ajb wrote:
| No, but property rights in inventions are supposedly
| justified by the idea that this publishing will enable
| implementations when the patent expires. In the software
| world that means engineers. I don't know what audience
| you have in mind?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Patents are close to completely useless as a form of
| documentation. It's not valuable.
|
| You may be thinking about old patents where people wrote
| real engineering information with real details on them
| that excluded non-working alternatives. Patents are not
| like that anymore.
| tightbookkeeper wrote:
| Then that sounds like a management problem, not a
| fundamental problem with the concept of patent lawyers
| and clerks which this poster claimed was a "brain drain".
| creer wrote:
| > This is one of the saddest aspects: so much high-value
| effort and skill towards an end that, in the whole, I view
| as a massive drain and retardant on human development.
|
| I think this speaks to the scale of the economy. There is
| all this waste. Soooo much waste. And patents are just one
| small aspect of the constant waste. And yet all these
| businesses and people, in aggregate "the economy",
| consistantly make money and progress and invent more. It's
| impressive.
|
| And still, yes, so much more could be possible.
| riskable wrote:
| > invent more
|
| The world does this _despite_ the patent system. Not
| because of it. If the patent system were to disappear
| today all that invention would still go on. It would just
| put a lot of lawyers out of work and make a bunch of rich
| companies CEOs nervous.
|
| Look at software: It existed for decades and decades
| without patents and the technological progress in that
| field _vastly_ surpasses that of any other contemporary
| science /technology. Then we tried applying patents to
| software and it did nothing but create a giant mess,
| destroy small businesses, and make a bunch of patent
| attorneys (and their friends) rich. There is literally no
| benefit to society from software patents. It is 100%
| negative.
| rvnx wrote:
| We have no software patents in Europe, and this is great.
| Patents totally hinders innovation, except if you are a
| large company.
| mandibles wrote:
| No matter the situation, in America the lawyers always win.
| analog31 wrote:
| A good lesson I learned from one of my patent attorneys was:
| "Never try to write claim language yourself." You're much
| better off writing it in straightforward language that you
| understand yourself, and let the lawyers translate it into good
| claims, which you can then review.
|
| Of course this assumes access to lawyers who are familiar
| enough with the subject matter. But if you don't have that,
| then you're screwed, and your patents will be weak.
|
| In my submissions to the patent lawyers, I have a section such
| as "proposed claims" and I write them in conversational
| language. I explain why I think each claim is important. This
| is also useful when other people such as managers have to be
| involved in deciding whether an invention is worth patenting or
| not.
| rostigerpudel wrote:
| That is a very good approach imo. It takes into account a
| very basic truth: As an engineer or scientist, you really do
| not know how to explain technical stuff to a judge with whom
| you have very few common professional points of reference. It
| is the patent attorney's job to translate engineering lingo
| into something a brain subjected to years of legalese can
| comprehend or at least handle sufficiently well to make a
| reasonable decision.
| matthewsinclair wrote:
| As a holder of multiple patents (some thru employers, and
| several, now lapsed, that I tried to get personally) the entire
| system is a joke. As a few people have said here, it seems like
| it is designed entirely to obfuscate the process, make money for
| lawyers, and entrench the value of the existing portfolios of
| large patent holders.
|
| In the process of doing some research on patents a while back I
| came across this article [0] which really resonated with me.
|
| [0]: "Against intellectual property" -- Brian Martin,
| https://documents.uow.edu.au/~/bmartin/pubs/95psa.html
| foobarian wrote:
| Part of the problem is that there are no more easy inventions
| left. The time when you could get a dozen new inventions just
| sticking a pair of electrodes into a vacuum chamber in your
| garage is long over.
| scotty79 wrote:
| And yet lawyers need to earn.
| Manabu-eo wrote:
| At first I thought you were linking to "Against Intellectual
| Monopoly" by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine:
| http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
| matthewsinclair wrote:
| I haven't read that one (queued for tomorrow) but based on
| the title and ToC it seems to be similar in reasoning to the
| link I posted.
| singlepaynews wrote:
| Hi, I work at USPTO, the following statements and opinions are my
| own and represent me only:
|
| 1) While many do indeed file for the broadest patent possible, in
| my (limited) experience so far this makes an application much
| easier to reject. The application that I've seen so far that was
| the most difficult to reject was made difficult by extremely
| specific claims.
|
| 2) The best argument I've ever heard in favor of the USPTO is
| that it allows small inventors to hedge market competition risk.
| Imagine you are an AI startup, developing a novel model
| architecture for a domain-specific application. You file a patent
| for the method, and once your product begins selling and
| Microsoft creates a fast-follow product you can sue. Microsoft
| will have much more to gain from buying your company at that
| point than giving up the market to some plucky dorks with a
| Patent, and your IPO is just the cost of doing business for them.
|
| 3) To the extent that "it is very difficult to get a man to
| believe something his paycheck depends on him denying", I am
| aware of a personal incentive to argue for the utility of the
| USPTO. Idk what else to say besides offer me a job on your
| engineering team and I'll quit immediately. (edit: actually I do
| know what else to say: If you don't care about patents don't
| apply for one. Fully optional endeavor. If you do care about
| patents, then I am here to help.)
| generalizations wrote:
| I remember learning about the pros and cons of patents vs trade
| secrets a few years ago- it's a lot less cut and dried than
| that. With trade secrets, you just have to make a reasonable
| effort to keep them secret, and then if it gets out you can sue
| for theft (or some such). As long as there's a secret sauce you
| can keep out of the public eye it's nearly functionally
| equivalent.
|
| > The application that I've seen so far that was the most
| difficult to reject was made difficult by extremely specific
| claims.
|
| Tradeoffs: the narrower the patent, the less useful it is,
| because it's that much easier for your competition to just
| tweak something inconsequential.
|
| > once your product begins selling and Microsoft creates a
| fast-follow product you can sue
|
| Not that easy - you need to be able to afford a patent law
| fight. Big companies like MS might just take it anyway and risk
| the lawsuit, because they can afford to drag it out longer than
| you can stay solvent.
|
| On the other hand, if you go the trade secret route, Microsoft
| can't fast-follow because you didn't publish the whole thing.
| freejazz wrote:
| It's not functionally equivalent at all because trade secrets
| have no term limitation, whereas patents have express term
| limits.
|
| >Not that easy - you need to be able to afford a patent law
| fight. Big companies like MS might just take it anyway and
| risk the lawsuit, because they can afford to drag it out
| longer than you can stay solvent.
|
| People bemoan plaintiff-side patent litigation financing but
| this is exactly why it exists and is a good thing, imo.
| scotty79 wrote:
| > "If you disclose your invention publicly and do not file an
| application within one year, you could be barred from receiving a
| patent on that exact invention," she says. "Because of the 'first
| to file' system, if someone steals your idea by filing first,
| this can be hard and very expensive to reverse."
|
| If that doesn't tell you it's an extortion racket on anyone with
| useful ideas then I don't know what will.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| The US is actually permissive relative to other countries. In
| most countries if you disclose your invention before filing you
| lose the right to patent it.
| BS_Alarm wrote:
| AFAIK, the US is one of the only, if not the only, country that
| allows for 1 year.
| Animats wrote:
| I used to make money with patents. I've held six of them. But
| once US patents were weakened, it was no longer profitable.
|
| The trouble with a weak patent system is that things which used
| to be patented are now trade secrets. How Waymo and Tesla do
| self-driving is a trade secret, for example.
| rostigerpudel wrote:
| European Patent Attorney here. AMA
| kragen wrote:
| Probably better advice is from expired patent holder Don
| Lancaster: https://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
|
| > _Now, the patent system may or may not still retain some
| marginal utility in a Fortune 500 enterprise. But, as a Midnight
| Engineer or other small scale startup, nearly any involvement
| whatsoever with the patent system in any way, shape, or form, is
| virtually guaranteed to cause you a monumental long term loss of
| time, money, and sanity. I 'd guess the main problem is the
| mythology that has built up around the patent process over all
| the years. A mythology which no longer applies to the Midnight
| Engineer or to a small scale startup._
|
| For those who don't know, Lancaster was for decades one of the
| best-selling authors on electrical and electronic engineering,
| with columns in popular magazines. He was constantly providing
| consulting services to engineers who were designing products,
| too. I don't know if he ever had a commercially successful
| product himself other than his books, but I still think his
| reasoning is worth weighing.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| I think patents could work again if the key acceptance criteria
| was that based on the patent alone, a team of engineers must be
| able to reproduce the invention.
|
| This would eliminate a whole range of ills with the current
| system that seems to do little except keep lawyers employed.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| IIRC the patent court and tax court are the only two that non-
| lawyers can practice at in the US.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-22 23:02 UTC)