Hello
My understanding is that the US is a bit behind the rest of the world on some patent issues. One is publishing. In the US, public disclosure prohibits you from getting a patent like the rest of the world, but public disclosure is broadly defined in the US, and narrowly deifned in the rest of the world. Here, you can publish to a professional society, or disclose to investment groups with the intent of raising capital, without voiding rights - except that a one year clock starts ticking - within which you must apply for a US patent. Meanwhile, you've voided the right to get any foriegn patents - because of the very same limited public disclosure - and the US is trying to move towards the world standards - so the rules are changing. I've done patents, and tech transfer agreements without patents - my opinion is that if you are in a hot field, meaning venture capital is involved, money is at risk, etc - go for a patent. If you need investors - go for a patent - it gives them some protection from you walking off with the idea after they've funded it - because they will be part owners of the patent. But for sundials - the proper thing to do is more professional, that is to recognize or credit anyone who you emulate, and if its a direct copy, consider offering a modest payment. Numbers vary - but a typical royalty for an idea often is in the 1 to 10% (of sales) range. I like the free sundial idea for the inventor as well. Patents for sundials really don't make sense. Marketing does. Service to the customer does. Spend your money doing the actual work, not on lawyers. Best Wishes, - Ben John Carmichael wrote: > > Hello all: > > Hope all you Americans had a wonderful Thanksgiving! > > I have been having a discussion with a fellow dialist, who wishes to remain > anonymous at this point, about copyrights and patents. Maybe some of you > have also wondered about this before. Here is his dilemma : Let's say you > read an article in "The Compendium" about someone's new idea for a sundial, > and decide that you would like bring this design to life and enter into > serious production of the sundial. Now the author of the published article > only has drawings of his new sundial and presumeably no working model. You > add several innovative features of your own to the original design and work > out the manufacturing process. Now, after all this preliminary work, you > are ready to begin production, and it occurs to you that maybe you should > protect your project and efforts with a copyright or patent. But who has > the legal rights to the finished sundial, the author of the original article > or the manufacturer? > > Now I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that the original author wouldn't have > published his new design if he didn't want the sundial to be built. Now I > know that under copyright law that it's pretty much first come first served. > In other words, the first person to apply for copyright or patent > registration, regardless if he is the author or not, becomes the owner of > the invention. I have heard horror stories of people who failed to obtain a > copyright, and their ideas get stolen by someone else ( ie. the happy face > logo, or the guy who invented in-line skates). But in this case, both > parties have contributed their ideas to the final product. > > What should be done in this situation so that everybody wins and is happy > with the outcome? Have any of you been faced with this situation, and what > did you do to resolve it? > > Thanks, > > John Carmichael > Tucson Arizona
