Slashdot Mirror
Bootstrapping a New Technology?
djk1024 writes "I've just filed for a patent on a new approach to motion capture that is simple, cheap, easy, accurate, and portable. It's RF-based, accurate to 1 mm, and simple enough that a sophisticated hobbyist could build one in a couple weekends from plans and standard electronics. So now what? I quit my job and have been working on this full-time for the past couple of years; now I'm out of money so can't continue development on my own. I'm also not an electrical or RF guy so I can't carry out my own independent development on the electronics. I'm quite frustrated at this point. I've been in the software development field for over 30 years and have gone through a large number of startups, but always just as the head techie, and always as part of a team. This doing it alone sucks. I would love some advice on how best to go forward."
Now, I have one question and please don't take this the wrong way: if you system is so simple it would take only a few weekends to build yourself, why is it taking you so long to develop?
Development usually takes a lot longer than following somebody else's directions.
.... If you just filed for a patent you should be patent-pending soon
If he just filed a patent application, then his thing is "patent pending." As soon as you file, you can call it that.
which means even if you sell kits or samples the users of your kits/samples will not be able to mass produce all they want - patent pending alone is enough to bring up and win a court case.
Um, no, that is absolutely not true. You cannot sue on a patent until it issues. Before it issues, you don't even know what the claims are going to be when they issue. In most cases, they get amended during prosecution. So until your patent issues, you can't sue anybody, much less win. There is one thing to be aware of. Once your application is published, if you put a potential infringer on notice of your pending application and if it then issues with substantially the same claims as the ones that were publishes, then after it issues and you sue them, you will be able to get a reasonable royalty going back to when you put them on notice. But you still can't actually sue until the patent issues.
Also, you don't really need a patent to copyright or license your idea, so why not do that now?
You can't copyright an idea. You can copyright your description of it, but that doesn't prevent somebody from reading that description and implementing the same idea. It just keeps them from copying your description. Copyrights and patents are not interchangeable.
I'm a patent attorney, but this post is not legal advice. It's for entertainment purposes only. In other words, if you use a post on Slashdot as legal advice and things go badly for you, (1) you deserve whatever you get, and (2) don't try to sue me.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I may have been too quick on the draw to reply. I'm sitting here thinking he wants to take over Hollywood when maybe all he's after is an inexpensive personal one-on-one mocap system that small companies could use to capture one or two people. In that case, he can throw what I said above out the window.
I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I could create software, hardware, an image, a document, an audio recording, it doesn't matter as soon as I create it and release it somehow I automatically get my rights to it. If someone were to copy it, regardless of weather or not I held a patent, I could raise legal action against them (unless I had already released it under a particular license which granted them use).
Yes, absolutely. But that still doesn't get you where you need to be. For example, let's say that I invent a brilliant new circuit, and do up a nice schematic of it. I have a copyright in that schematic. Maybe I'll even register my copyright. And if you copy the schematic, you infringe my copyright. But if you get a copy of my schematic and build the actual circuit, you have not infringed my copyright. The only way I can keep you from building the circuit is by patenting the circuit.
The company I am a part of provides such development services as well, and I'm fairly confident if the author claims his system is as simple as he states it is we could have developed it for him into a product for less than $5,000US and in less than a few months.
You ought to send me your contact info. I sometimes have inventors who need that kind of service. It's nice for them to have options. Contact info.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
The job I quit was as a software architect for Microsoft, so, no, a job isn't what I'm looking for. I had a pretty good one. I'm afraid that I'm addicted to tech startups. I think I've got a pretty important new thing here and I'm concerned about immediate survival mode until I can get this thing to ignition. And I haven't been looking for a buyer as much as development partners and seed funding.
I have a proof-of-theory prototype i.e. move the antennas relative to one another and get predictable readings and have already developed the math libraries in support of combining readings into Cartesian coordinates. . This is a far cry from a product however, and a substanstial amount of development needs to take place to make a working product. RF design houses that I've talked with figure about $100K for me to get to a working development kit. I'm aiming for a dev kit that would support about 20 targets and have a form factor in the neightborhood of a cigar box. I would want to price it at less than $1K.
I know you're just joking, but...
Patents don't preclude hobbyists from building their own, so long as they don't go selling it.
That is false. The statute makes it illegal for anyone other than the patent holder to "make" the invention. Selling it is also illegal. See 35 USC 271(a)
I've just filed my utility patent. As soon as I got the idea, over a year ago, I filed my provisional. I got my stake in the ground some time ago.
That is then another US extension of the original idea behind IP. Patents are supposed to contain a full disclosure of the invention, so that anyone using just the patent can build one, legally. Then this person can have a look at the invention, and use it as inspiration to improve on it, and potentially patent the improvements. That is the idea at least - that is how a patent stimulates invention and technological progress.
Whether such an improvement infringes on the original patent (and thus needs a license) will vary: if it uses the patented technology directly with minor modifications (e.g. an addition) it probably does, if it uses the idea but implements it in a different way, then it probably doesn't. When the patent expires of course the invention ends up in the public domain and can be used by anyone. Which is again one of the purposes of the patent system.
Selling a product based on a patent that you do not own or have a license on, is indeed illegal. Though reselling such a product is not. I.e. I invent something, patent it, make a product, and sell it to you, then you are free to sell this product to someone else. I can not limit that anymore.
Because I had an expert in RF build my prototype and those were his measurements.
Most common applications I foresee are for biologic tracking, legs, arms, hoofs, hands and fingers, fins, etc. Because it's wireless RF based most industrial applications would probably introduce too much reflective multipath. And the application has just been submitted and is not yet public, but the title is "Methods, Apparatus and Systems for Wireless Determination of Relative Spatial Relationship between Two Locations."
I would agree 100%. As a patent examiner my advice is get an application in, and an application done well the first time through. Once you file, you have a date on record, and that can be a valuable thing. That, and beware who you share your idea with before you get that date. The USPTO has plenty of resources for inventors. Google the web page and read it thoroughly... and hire a reputable IP attorney from an IP focused firm when you are ready... going the pro se route is a recipe for a mess if you've never been through this process before. My disclaimer: DO NOT contact me for patent advice of any kind other than what is presented here in this response. I can not comment further. I will ignore all comments and requests.
"This technology stuff is just plum crazy!"
in the title