It's not too terribly hard to object to a patent right now, even with our current system - granted, you will need to hire lawyers. Such is the cost of an incredibly complex legal system.
A world-patent system is probably a good idea, though. Our laws need to advance to keep up with the rapidly changing way that business works, and business is more often than not international.
Wrong. If you publish something and fail to patent it within one year of its date of publication, and no one else patents it, it enters "public domain," and anyone can use it. The only way this would be true is if said "mega-corporation" had developed it BEFORE the small inventor, but kept it as a trade-secret. Then if they later came forward with documentation proving that they had thought of it first, they might be able to obtain a patent. Still, they would have to individually litigate against everyone who was using their invention, which would be massively expensive with almost no return.
Patents should definitely be for methods. Patents aren't for just "ideas," unless they have been reduced to practice (either made into a prototype or basically a manual for how to make it if you wanted to.) What about new chemical compositions? Chemists simply combine existing elements and substances in order to make new ones, so the METHOD of making and using the composition must be patentable.
My comment was a bit skewed because I didn't realize the variables were listed in a linear fashion =p Sorry.
Unfortuanetly I don't have a link to back myself up. Everything I'm pulling is from the "Intellectual Property - The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks" Hornbook on my desk - I work as a paralegal at an Intellectual Property law firm and deal primarily with patent litigation all day.
First, when you file a patent you are expected to provide your examples of prior art. You don't have to, but later if someone claims you were being underhanded with your claims, which will invalidate your patent (Say, B wrote a letter to the same magazine that A's article was published in, proving he read A's research/idea first.)
Second, the patent examiner uses various patent search tools mainly to make sure that the new patent doesn't confuse another established patent. The patent examiner usually holds a B.S.A. or higher degree in whatever field he is examing patents in.
As a last form of protection (and this is a tool that worries me about the new legislation, which seems to limit them) "Re-Exams" can be filed. As of 1998, with the introduction of Inter-Partes Reexams, this has become very popular. When someone requests a reexam, they introduce evidence of prior art into the file of the patent in question and the patent examiner decides whether this new evidence invalidates the patent. This is a method to regain the use of your patent that is considerably cheaper than civil litigation, which will basically be 50k+. Unfortuanetly it's still going to run you several grand to do.
The patent office can afford to be wrong now and then, because our entire system of laws and justice is built around court interpretation of legislative laws. There is still an avenue open to correct the mistake if a patent is wrongly or unjustly filed, because you can sue.
In this case, IF B was awarded the patent first, and A can prove that he was diligent in processing his patent, then B's patent can be reversed by the USPTO during a Reexam. Of course, this is a time-consuming process. Or, you could take it to court.
I'd like to reiterate that the purpose of the patent system is to benefit society as a whole, not corporations OR small inventors. If you aren't diligent in at least filing a Notice of Disclosure, which gives you patent-pending status for a year and protects your patent for further filing, then the public should not suffer for it. Whoever can bring it to the public fastest probably SHOULD be allowed to profit from it.
It's a slow day at the office, so feel free to ask more questions.
"Um, working prototype is currently a requirement FOR ALL PATENTS. You do not patent an idea, you patent an invention, the actual item."
Incorrect. You must only reduce your idea to practice, which means you can make a detailed list or explanation of your invention rather than a working prototype. You can patent something that doesn't exist, or doesn't work. It only must THEORETICALLY work. Of course, if the language is not extremely specific as to what the invention does, the patent claims will not protect against anything. This is a protection of the USPTO to protect those who don't have millions to spend on R&D.
That's not at all what the USPTO does, or is for. It's theoretically insensitive to the wealth of the person applying for a patent.
The USPTO, and patent offices in all countries, are made to give inventors incentive to create and profit from their creations. It allows you a 20 year period of protection to sell your invention exclusively, before everyone can sell it (public domain.)
Patenting works in the interest of society as a whole, and doesn't limit mega-corporations.
This is not entirely accurate. If inventor "C" actually thought it up first, or "reduced it to practice" in the form of a list of workable steps, and has adequate proof (published documents of any kind usually will do) he could be awarded a patent. That's the difference between the American system and all other patent systems (A lot of people have gotten this totally wrong.) In ALL countries other than America, the person to file for the invention (Or simply file a Notice of Disclosure) would be allowed the patent.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the cut of your jib.
It's not too terribly hard to object to a patent right now, even with our current system - granted, you will need to hire lawyers. Such is the cost of an incredibly complex legal system.
A world-patent system is probably a good idea, though. Our laws need to advance to keep up with the rapidly changing way that business works, and business is more often than not international.
Wrong. If you publish something and fail to patent it within one year of its date of publication, and no one else patents it, it enters "public domain," and anyone can use it. The only way this would be true is if said "mega-corporation" had developed it BEFORE the small inventor, but kept it as a trade-secret. Then if they later came forward with documentation proving that they had thought of it first, they might be able to obtain a patent. Still, they would have to individually litigate against everyone who was using their invention, which would be massively expensive with almost no return.
Patents should definitely be for methods. Patents aren't for just "ideas," unless they have been reduced to practice (either made into a prototype or basically a manual for how to make it if you wanted to.) What about new chemical compositions? Chemists simply combine existing elements and substances in order to make new ones, so the METHOD of making and using the composition must be patentable.
Very correct.
My comment was a bit skewed because I didn't realize the variables were listed in a linear fashion =p Sorry.
Unfortuanetly I don't have a link to back myself up. Everything I'm pulling is from the "Intellectual Property - The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks" Hornbook on my desk - I work as a paralegal at an Intellectual Property law firm and deal primarily with patent litigation all day.
First, when you file a patent you are expected to provide your examples of prior art. You don't have to, but later if someone claims you were being underhanded with your claims, which will invalidate your patent (Say, B wrote a letter to the same magazine that A's article was published in, proving he read A's research/idea first.)
Second, the patent examiner uses various patent search tools mainly to make sure that the new patent doesn't confuse another established patent. The patent examiner usually holds a B.S.A. or higher degree in whatever field he is examing patents in.
As a last form of protection (and this is a tool that worries me about the new legislation, which seems to limit them) "Re-Exams" can be filed. As of 1998, with the introduction of Inter-Partes Reexams, this has become very popular. When someone requests a reexam, they introduce evidence of prior art into the file of the patent in question and the patent examiner decides whether this new evidence invalidates the patent. This is a method to regain the use of your patent that is considerably cheaper than civil litigation, which will basically be 50k+. Unfortuanetly it's still going to run you several grand to do.
The patent office can afford to be wrong now and then, because our entire system of laws and justice is built around court interpretation of legislative laws. There is still an avenue open to correct the mistake if a patent is wrongly or unjustly filed, because you can sue.
In this case, IF B was awarded the patent first, and A can prove that he was diligent in processing his patent, then B's patent can be reversed by the USPTO during a Reexam. Of course, this is a time-consuming process. Or, you could take it to court.
I'd like to reiterate that the purpose of the patent system is to benefit society as a whole, not corporations OR small inventors. If you aren't diligent in at least filing a Notice of Disclosure, which gives you patent-pending status for a year and protects your patent for further filing, then the public should not suffer for it. Whoever can bring it to the public fastest probably SHOULD be allowed to profit from it.
It's a slow day at the office, so feel free to ask more questions.
"Um, working prototype is currently a requirement FOR ALL PATENTS. You do not patent an idea, you patent an invention, the actual item." Incorrect. You must only reduce your idea to practice, which means you can make a detailed list or explanation of your invention rather than a working prototype. You can patent something that doesn't exist, or doesn't work. It only must THEORETICALLY work. Of course, if the language is not extremely specific as to what the invention does, the patent claims will not protect against anything. This is a protection of the USPTO to protect those who don't have millions to spend on R&D.
That's not at all what the USPTO does, or is for. It's theoretically insensitive to the wealth of the person applying for a patent. The USPTO, and patent offices in all countries, are made to give inventors incentive to create and profit from their creations. It allows you a 20 year period of protection to sell your invention exclusively, before everyone can sell it (public domain.) Patenting works in the interest of society as a whole, and doesn't limit mega-corporations.
This is not entirely accurate. If inventor "C" actually thought it up first, or "reduced it to practice" in the form of a list of workable steps, and has adequate proof (published documents of any kind usually will do) he could be awarded a patent. That's the difference between the American system and all other patent systems (A lot of people have gotten this totally wrong.) In ALL countries other than America, the person to file for the invention (Or simply file a Notice of Disclosure) would be allowed the patent.