Sorry let me expand. To fully protect a patent, I meant to register the patent in all the countries with large economies. I.E. England, Germany, France, Spain, Japan etc.... that takes about $450,000 USD and must be constantly renewed. And renewal fees do apply.
Normally the threshold for damages or lost sales must be high to make it worthwhile to go after a patent infringer. From what I have heard, most patent lawyers would not recommend it (suing an infringer) unless damages where in the millions (USD). Even then, they can cloud the issue by bringing up similar prior art, or they may have filed similar patents. Which could confuse a jury. Then you have to prove damages, which hopefully will cover your already spent legal fees. Everbody loses in trials, so lawyers generally recommend a solutions nobody likes, specifically a cheap license.
Basically my take on this whole thing is, patents are for large companies. I've read small companies should try to be first to market then move on.
Recently I attended a corporate IP (intellectual property) seminar. I work for a large, Fortune500 company. After 8 hours of 5 lawyers droning I came away with this. The starting cost of protecting a patent worldwide is $450,000 USD, to effectively attack an already awarded patent starts at $450,000 USD.
Many companies looking to bust a patent are searching the old Soviet Union's past research journal archives for prior art. They are not computerized and evidently they have proven to be a rich source.
They also discussed how some companies patent similar ideas in order to cause enough doubt in the plantiff's lawyers on a clear court victory, so the plantiffs lawyers will look for a cheap license arrangement.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed,
I first heard this 30 years ago. And foolishly I believed it and steered away from Software as a career. I regret that decision.
The reports of the death of fillintheblank by a newspaper are greatly WRONG!
Doing business a 1/2 a world, a few timezones away, and cultures away is not easy and brings costs of their own.
Sorry let me expand.
To fully protect a patent, I meant to register the patent in all the countries with large economies. I.E. England, Germany, France, Spain, Japan etc.... that takes about $450,000 USD and must be constantly renewed. And renewal fees do apply.
Normally the threshold for damages or lost sales must be high to make it worthwhile to go after a patent infringer. From what I have heard, most patent lawyers would not recommend it (suing an infringer) unless damages where in the millions (USD). Even then, they can cloud the issue by bringing up similar prior art, or they may have filed similar patents. Which could confuse a jury. Then you have to prove damages, which hopefully will cover your already spent legal fees. Everbody loses in trials, so lawyers generally recommend a solutions nobody likes, specifically a cheap license.
Basically my take on this whole thing is, patents are for large companies. I've read small companies should try to be first to market then move on.
Depressing isn't it.
Recently I attended a corporate IP (intellectual property) seminar. I work for a large, Fortune500 company. After 8 hours of 5 lawyers droning I came away with this. The starting cost of protecting a patent worldwide is $450,000 USD, to effectively attack an already awarded patent starts at $450,000 USD. Many companies looking to bust a patent are searching the old Soviet Union's past research journal archives for prior art. They are not computerized and evidently they have proven to be a rich source. They also discussed how some companies patent similar ideas in order to cause enough doubt in the plantiff's lawyers on a clear court victory, so the plantiffs lawyers will look for a cheap license arrangement.