Hi Jed, You write: >This is a serious problem ( lack of patentability ), but it may be somewhat >exaggerated.
Oh, but it gets worse when you follow though. Remember, it's not a new field, and as your own database attests, there is plenty of prior art. Some claimants already have applications filed before the boom was lowered. So you somehow get a device to market ( presumably you do this outside the country in a place where IP laws are weak ). Now the US patent office can't deny the reality of the device for long after that, so they must begin again to grant patents. But to whom? You? After all, shouldn't P&F take priority? They filed long before you, in fact you're probably infringing on their IP. If you want to sell in America ( 25% of worlds oil consumed daily ) you're going to have to start paying other people. How many? Who knows, thanks to the patent office. A great train wreck of reasonable claimants ensues, and your investor's heads start exploding (ouch). This "rejecting CF patents by default" position of the patent office is a stake in the heart of the field. It's also very disingenuous, as even a superficial perusal of the database will turn up all sorts of bogus and unworkable patents. That fact doesn't bother me; it's for industry to ultimately decide what's useful and what's not. But by "protecting" us from these patents they've created quite a monster. You suggest patenting around the problem area; I don't know how workable or reasonable that is. It's certainly done in fields where patents can be granted; but this situation is sort of unique. BLP is a good example of how one might try to do an end run around the system; but you can see the problems Randy Mills has had at the patent office as a result. Hey, he was rejected on a chemical patent where he was willing to provide _physical samples_ of the chemicals for testing. This is disturbing. BTW, Mike Carrell has mentioned that Randy is filing some monster new application. Any word on that, Mike? K.
