As always, Reid has written eloquently and informatively. One quibble: according to several patent experts, including David Pressman, author of the well-known book Patent It Yourself, the "send-a-copy-to-yourself-by-registered-mail" method of documenting your invention is completely worthless and will not work in court. Another attorney I know of has published this comment also.
I recommend Pressman's book highly even for those who choose to consult a patent attorney, as I have on several occasions. (I hold no patents to date.) As Reid points out, it is a heck of a job to get a patent, and it is worth nothing except as a weapon in a court case. Unless you have a VERY solid, basic invention -- think Velcro -- that can not easily be "improved," think twice, three time, four times and ten times four times before investing your time and money in a patent. If you just want to keep someone else from patenting your invention, publish it as widely as possible. Unless you want to make money from your invention, there is no point in having a patent. It is all about money. I just came across an attorney named Rob Nathans who is semi-retired and will do patents for a price considerably less than the full-time attorneys. You can find his e-mail info using Google. Seems a good guy. I will be doing some patent searches through him soon. Good luck to all inventors! JBB Reid Harvey wrote: > > CS Enthusiasts, > I have a few thoughts on patents to add to the good suggestions several > have put forward. What Marshall says about having one year to make > application is important, and after that it can be necessary to make > several periodic disclosures, to update any new knowledge about the > invention. For example, just before we reached my one year deadline we > filed the application, then afterwards I got a new understanding about > why the filter is permeable. So I had to send that information to the > patent office. > > Then a year later, when the examiner looked at the patent he decided it > should really be two patents, his reasoning not very good, but I won't > go into that. It turned out that mounting a challenge would not be very > cost effective, so we began the process of applying for a second > patent. That covers our new understanding of permeability, as well as > those parts the patent examiner objected to. And who knows what he may > object to the second time around. It's important to understand that > getting a patent can become a continuing process, a bit more cash down > each time. > > Then there are the international patents, each country or grouping of > countries having a somewhat different approach to patent law. For > example, I recently returned from a trip to neighboring Myanmar (Burma) > where there has been no legislation concerning intellectual property > since 1947. So the operative law is what was written in India at that > time, questions remaining as to whether or not their government > recognizes this. So in Myanmar, for example, publishing to a number of > local newspapers is the only way to seek recognition of intellectual > property. > > But whether in Myanmar, the U.S. or wherever, patents don't really mean > much until one gets to court. A big part of the whole deal is giving > would be competitors the impression you're holding a big stick. But > this also means that if in court someone comes up with an embodiment of > your invention that you did not anticipate, you could be in trouble, > losing part of the legal battle. > > As to publishing on the internet this is also important. But to add to > what's been said I think it's also important to print the web site. > Some undependable web servers have glitches that cause the material not > to be presented as one intended, or your html was not skillfully > rendered. And firmly establishing the date of publication is > important. It is not considered excessive to get hard copy of your > publication then seal it in an envelope and mail it to yourself. Go to > your local post office and make sure the date of cancellation on the > stamp is legible. Then the letter should only be opened in court, when > the legal action is happening. > > I suppose a lot has to do with how good an idea went into your > invention. The more profitable the more worth stealing, then all the > seemingly nit picky details of protection become well worth it. If > someone has illicitly been making money on your invention, part of the > award will be all of their profits. I suppose this could appear to be > rather a money grubbing approach for someone who claims not to be in it > for the cash dollar! > > A little story here: ten years ago a patent examiner rejected two > applications of mine, saying the inventions were too similar to earlier > ones of my own for these new ones to be patentable. My attorney was > incensed and appealed. The appeal examiner came back with much the same > ruling. My attorney was incensed a second time and appealed to Federal > court, the last possible venue. This time it was a judge who knew a lot > about patent law and he overturned the earlier rejections. He even went > out of his way to bash the examiners a bit, though quite eloquently. > Anyhow, got a good idea you want to patent? Doing so does not make it a > done deal. > > Verbose Reid > > -- > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: > [email protected] -or- [email protected] > with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
