We have things called postal votes in the UK. These could be easily sold, and the buyer could definitely verify how the vote went. Some people have found this quite useful.
No, seriously. It's an interesting job, it pays very well, and the industry is desperate for experienced techy people. I had a similar crisis a few years ago, and it seems to have turned out pretty well so far.
Perhaps you should count yourself in amongst those people who still don't understand. The vast majority of patent applications describe inventions that have not been made. There is no legal requirement to 'make' the invention (the US abolished theirs over 100 years ago), only a requirement to describe it sufficiently to allow a person skilled in the art to make it. Software inventions are treated just the same as any other invention. If, as a programmer, someone gave you a really good idea about how to do X on a computer, would they need to tell you the exact code to enable you to do it? The other side of patents works the same way: provided a prior disclosure is 'enabling', it will prevent someone later on getting a patent for the invention.
Although IBM technical disclosures are a valuable prior art source for patent examiners, IBM stopped publishing a few years ago (in order to get more flaky patents granted) and it now costs money for mere mortals to access it. IP.com charge a minimum of $200 for your publications, charge more for longer documents, and do not provide a guarantee that their database will be either searched by patent examiners or that your publication will always be around. The patent system, however, is guaranteed to always be around (at least for as long as patents are granted), so once a document is published there it is much much more likely to come up in a future patent search. A UK application at least is still cheaper, as all it costs you is £100 and the postage.
As for the patent commons, that just looks like company PR to me. If a company genuinely wants to give everyone access to their patent, the best way is for them to abandon it.
You don't have to pass any exams to prepare and file patent applications. Anyone can do it. It's just that patent attorneys can get a better patent for you.
Applying for a patent simply to publish, and not to have a patent granted, is a cheap and effective way of publishing for defensive purposes, and is a sure way of making the work searchable by patent offices. See my comment below.
The best way to ensure that i) it is published; ii) that it will be available for patent searching in perpetuity; and iii) you don't have to spend too much money, is to write it all down in detail and send it to a patent office as an application. Provided you pay the initial filing fees, all patent applications are published. You can speed up publication by specifically requesting it, rather than waiting for 18 months. As an example (since I am a UK patent attorney), what I would recommend is filing an application consisting of pretty much anything at all, paying the £100 fee and then letting the application lapse after publication. Even easier than that, simply post your invention disclosure to the UK-IPO, Newport, Gwent, UK including the words "I would like to apply for a patent for the following", making sure to include some contact details, and the UK-IPO will let you know what else they need.
If I remember right, the US has a similar 'defensive' patent system for doing precisely this, but I would rather leave the details to someone else.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as an EU patent, and there is no particular benefit to filing a European patent application in Ireland. A European patent, granted by the European Patent Office, becomes a collection of national patents after grant, and the countries it ends up in are down to the choice of the applicant. There are consequently plenty of granted European patents currently in force in the UK that are apparently now invalid after Aerotel/Macrossan (search on Wikipedia if you don't know this case). All it should take is for someone (anyone) to apply for revocation. It costs £50. I can offer some suggestions if there is any interest.
I can do that right now. What has not been patented includes:
i) the set of things that nobody has yet thought of;
ii) er...;
iii) that's it.
Doesn't really help, does it?
That would certainly not be fair. As long as the 'skilled person' is given sufficient information to reduce the invention to practice, the application is enabled. Forcing the applicant to show a working version would unfairly prejudice the system against the smaller inventor, who might need to get investment before being able to work up a prototype. Investors are less likely to invest if there is no application on file.
Innovators are not necessarily discouraged from innovating in areas where there are prior patents. In fact, coming up with improvement patents can be a good way of establishing a bargaining position.
Welcome to the rest of the world. Keep it schtum until you have all the ducks in a row, file a decent patent specification and you are protected. The real worry about the first to file system is that someone else might get there before you. However, if your invention is really good, what are the chances of someone else coming up with the exact same idea before you (and filing an application on it, or publishing it)? If they do, could it perhaps be a sign that the idea is a little bit obvious?
Idiotic suggestion. All a big rich company would have to do is get one solid patent, state a large value and clean up by sueing everyone. Smaller companies wouldn't be able to afford the big property taxes, and wouldn't therefore get large damages. It would make the system even more unbalanced in favour of those who could afford it.
The debate may be over for now at the European (i.e. EU) level, but it rages on in the UK, with recent decisions from the UK Intellectual Property Office ruling that computer program product claims are not allowable. See the following for more details:
However, it still doesn't make it a trade mark infringement to put up a picture of your lava lamp, saying "look at my cool lava lamp", provided you're not trying to sell anything that isn't a genuine Lava Lamp (TM). There is of course more to it than that, but the average Joe should not be worried and certainly should not be threatened with big company lawyers by simply using trade mark terms to describe things.
There is nothing to stop you describing your Lava Lamp(TM) as a lava lamp. Trade mark owners such as Hoover and Bic (owners of the widely-believed-to-be-generic-but-not mark Biro) don't like descriptive use, as it can lead to 'genericide', but that's the risk you take with a popular mark that becomes the defacto descriptive term. Think of Escalator (Otis - now generic), Asprin (Bayer, now generic) or Heroin (IG Farben, now generic). Go ahead and use the term lava lamp (note the absence of capitals). I think it is on the way to commiting genericide anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
We have things called postal votes in the UK. These could be easily sold, and the buyer could definitely verify how the vote went. Some people have found this quite useful.
No, seriously. It's an interesting job, it pays very well, and the industry is desperate for experienced techy people. I had a similar crisis a few years ago, and it seems to have turned out pretty well so far.
Mathematicians are machines for turning caffeine into theorems. Looks like he may be proved right. Mind you, he also used a lot of speed as well. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Who-Loved-Only-Numbers/dp/1857028295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207226895&sr=8-1
Perhaps you should count yourself in amongst those people who still don't understand. The vast majority of patent applications describe inventions that have not been made. There is no legal requirement to 'make' the invention (the US abolished theirs over 100 years ago), only a requirement to describe it sufficiently to allow a person skilled in the art to make it. Software inventions are treated just the same as any other invention. If, as a programmer, someone gave you a really good idea about how to do X on a computer, would they need to tell you the exact code to enable you to do it? The other side of patents works the same way: provided a prior disclosure is 'enabling', it will prevent someone later on getting a patent for the invention.
Although IBM technical disclosures are a valuable prior art source for patent examiners, IBM stopped publishing a few years ago (in order to get more flaky patents granted) and it now costs money for mere mortals to access it. IP.com charge a minimum of $200 for your publications, charge more for longer documents, and do not provide a guarantee that their database will be either searched by patent examiners or that your publication will always be around. The patent system, however, is guaranteed to always be around (at least for as long as patents are granted), so once a document is published there it is much much more likely to come up in a future patent search. A UK application at least is still cheaper, as all it costs you is £100 and the postage. As for the patent commons, that just looks like company PR to me. If a company genuinely wants to give everyone access to their patent, the best way is for them to abandon it.
You don't have to pass any exams to prepare and file patent applications. Anyone can do it. It's just that patent attorneys can get a better patent for you.
Applying for a patent simply to publish, and not to have a patent granted, is a cheap and effective way of publishing for defensive purposes, and is a sure way of making the work searchable by patent offices. See my comment below.
The best way to ensure that i) it is published; ii) that it will be available for patent searching in perpetuity; and iii) you don't have to spend too much money, is to write it all down in detail and send it to a patent office as an application. Provided you pay the initial filing fees, all patent applications are published. You can speed up publication by specifically requesting it, rather than waiting for 18 months. As an example (since I am a UK patent attorney), what I would recommend is filing an application consisting of pretty much anything at all, paying the £100 fee and then letting the application lapse after publication. Even easier than that, simply post your invention disclosure to the UK-IPO, Newport, Gwent, UK including the words "I would like to apply for a patent for the following", making sure to include some contact details, and the UK-IPO will let you know what else they need.
If I remember right, the US has a similar 'defensive' patent system for doing precisely this, but I would rather leave the details to someone else.
Isn't that how Microsoft got started?
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as an EU patent, and there is no particular benefit to filing a European patent application in Ireland. A European patent, granted by the European Patent Office, becomes a collection of national patents after grant, and the countries it ends up in are down to the choice of the applicant. There are consequently plenty of granted European patents currently in force in the UK that are apparently now invalid after Aerotel/Macrossan (search on Wikipedia if you don't know this case). All it should take is for someone (anyone) to apply for revocation. It costs £50. I can offer some suggestions if there is any interest.
I can do that right now. What has not been patented includes: i) the set of things that nobody has yet thought of; ii) er...; iii) that's it. Doesn't really help, does it?
That would certainly not be fair. As long as the 'skilled person' is given sufficient information to reduce the invention to practice, the application is enabled. Forcing the applicant to show a working version would unfairly prejudice the system against the smaller inventor, who might need to get investment before being able to work up a prototype. Investors are less likely to invest if there is no application on file. Innovators are not necessarily discouraged from innovating in areas where there are prior patents. In fact, coming up with improvement patents can be a good way of establishing a bargaining position.
Welcome to the rest of the world. Keep it schtum until you have all the ducks in a row, file a decent patent specification and you are protected. The real worry about the first to file system is that someone else might get there before you. However, if your invention is really good, what are the chances of someone else coming up with the exact same idea before you (and filing an application on it, or publishing it)? If they do, could it perhaps be a sign that the idea is a little bit obvious?
Idiotic suggestion. All a big rich company would have to do is get one solid patent, state a large value and clean up by sueing everyone. Smaller companies wouldn't be able to afford the big property taxes, and wouldn't therefore get large damages. It would make the system even more unbalanced in favour of those who could afford it.
The debate may be over for now at the European (i.e. EU) level, but it rages on in the UK, with recent decisions from the UK Intellectual Property Office ruling that computer program product claims are not allowable. See the following for more details:
- aerotelmacrossan.htmlp rogram-claims-at-uk-ipo.html
t op-asking-questions.html
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/07/fallout-from
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-computer-
The EPO, however, have said that they don't even want to address the questions:
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/06/epo-please-s
The debate will rumble on for a while yet.
Amazon tried the same trick at the EPO (see IPKat post here), and got the application kicked out.
However, it still doesn't make it a trade mark infringement to put up a picture of your lava lamp, saying "look at my cool lava lamp", provided you're not trying to sell anything that isn't a genuine Lava Lamp (TM). There is of course more to it than that, but the average Joe should not be worried and certainly should not be threatened with big company lawyers by simply using trade mark terms to describe things.
There is nothing to stop you describing your Lava Lamp(TM) as a lava lamp. Trade mark owners such as Hoover and Bic (owners of the widely-believed-to-be-generic-but-not mark Biro) don't like descriptive use, as it can lead to 'genericide', but that's the risk you take with a popular mark that becomes the defacto descriptive term. Think of Escalator (Otis - now generic), Asprin (Bayer, now generic) or Heroin (IG Farben, now generic). Go ahead and use the term lava lamp (note the absence of capitals). I think it is on the way to commiting genericide anyway.