Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Another patent Q

D

Dirk Bruere

Jan 1, 1970
0
Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it.
Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in
(say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

Dirk
 
T

Tim Wescott

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dirk said:
Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it.
Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in
(say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

Dirk

Probably.

A friend of mine mentioned that he wants to patent abusive business
practices involving frivolous patents, then go after, well, everyone.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/
 
E

engineer

Jan 1, 1970
0
It sounds like there would be a term for that, in patent language, as
common occurance.

Let's say I invent a nail and hammer to drive it. Maybe I couldn't
patent the nail but the hammer. Then someone conceives of driving
screws with the hammer (not necessarily useful),
have they created a new thing? Drywall installers, by the way, often
set the screws halfway with a hammer.

Imagine that a plumber takes one of these 'anti-gravity units' and with
some fiddling develops a method of making carbonated beverages with the
anti-gravity unit. In that case perhaps he has created a new thing?

I have seen patents for claims similar to; Once an antigravity machine
is invented, this is what the controls will look like. Though in that
instance it was a child-finder control panel for a radio direction
finding scheme.

Having read a scant few patents, it seems like patent lawyers try to
frame wording to include all possible applications, and attempt to
extend by inference all possible likeness...if they went a bit further
they would claim the application had some rights as ruler of the known
universe... it's a bit extreme they way they word things.

The obvious applications would be part of the patent text, whether or
not that guarantees rights to the applications is for a patent lawyer
to answer. I bet you could find your answers by studying up online.

If antigravity flight were implemented in the patent requiring 6
such units, and you found a way of doing it with three, then I would
guess your implementation adds something new to how things are being
done so the method sounds patentable.

Like most people, I'm only slightly aware of what is and is not
patentable, and would guess
these views are reasonable approximations of what may be true.
 
E

engineer

Jan 1, 1970
0
but if you do become interested in patenting something, I would pay
attention to establishing inventorship first, and making sure that
you don't release any version of your invention into the public domain.
For example, if invent a new hammer and sell your brother one for six
dollars, you've released it and it's not patentable... however if you
sign a deal with your brother with a lawyer present that the hammer is
yours and he is borrowing it, that might be ok.

Publishing details before applying for a patent may also jeopardize
your ability to get the patent.
 
G

Guest

Jan 1, 1970
0
: Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it.
: Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in
: (say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

First, I'll assume that your definition of obvious is different
from the legal definition. The legal definition of obvious is that it is
apparent to anyone skilled in the art. I'll assume that your definition
of obvious means something more like that it seems like a natural
extension of the original patent. The difference between these two is
very murky.

For the example that you give, the answer is most likely yes, that
you could obtain a patent, but that it may or may not be of much use to
you. I'll illustrate why by providing an example that one of my former
patent attorneys uses to describe what a patent really legally means.

A patent is a "negetive right" obtaining a patent does not give
you the right to do anything, per se, but it takes away the right of
others to profit from your invention. Use a pencil as an example.
Suppose someone invented pencils and received a patent on that invention.
Suppose you realize that you can color the lead of a pencil, and invent
red pencils. Most likely, this new invention would not be deemed obvious
according to the legal definition. You receive a patent for your red
pencil. Who can sell red pencils? The answer is no one. The inventor of
pencils holds the patent for pencils (a red pencil is a pencil) so you
could not profit from the sale of your red pencils without infringing upon
the original patent on pencils. Conversely, even though a red pencil is a
pencil, it is a unique invention, and the patent holder for pencils could
not profit from its sale without infringing. All this assumes that no
licensing agreements exist, of course.

So, that example is, I believe, very analogous to yours. You
would, most likely, be able to patent an airplane with an antigravity
generator, but your couldn't sell them without infringing upon the the
patent for the antigravity generator (without a licensing agreement, of
course.)

Hope that helps,

Joe
 
D

David L. Jones

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dirk said:
Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it.
Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in
(say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

Dirk

Most probably, unless they have already patented that "application" for
the device. But then you can't build it the same as them unless you
want to pay a royalty.

It is common practice for companies to take out a patent for the
underlying technology and then other patents for it's manufacture and
various applications.
Kia Silverbrook, Australia's (and one of the worlds) most prolific
patent producers excels at this:
http://www.freshpatents.com/Silverbrook-Research-Pty-Ltd-cndirs.php

Remember, a patent is all but worthless unless you have the $$$$$$$
(note the 7 figures minimum) to defend it. For most stuff, it doesn't
take much to get around a patent.

Dave :)
 
K

Keith Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
but if you do become interested in patenting something, I would pay
attention to establishing inventorship first, and making sure that
you don't release any version of your invention into the public domain.
For example, if invent a new hammer and sell your brother one for six
dollars, you've released it and it's not patentable... however if you
sign a deal with your brother with a lawyer present that the hammer is
yours and he is borrowing it, that might be ok.

Not in the US. Offering a product for sale, or receiving other
"commercial gain" may start a one-year "bar" clock, but doesn't
prevent a patent.
Publishing details before applying for a patent may also jeopardize
your ability to get the patent.

Again, not in the US. It will start the bar clock though.
 
D

Dirk Bruere

Jan 1, 1970
0
: Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it.
: Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in
: (say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

First, I'll assume that your definition of obvious is different
from the legal definition. The legal definition of obvious is that it is
apparent to anyone skilled in the art. I'll assume that your definition
of obvious means something more like that it seems like a natural
extension of the original patent. The difference between these two is
very murky.

For the example that you give, the answer is most likely yes, that
you could obtain a patent, but that it may or may not be of much use to
you. I'll illustrate why by providing an example that one of my former
patent attorneys uses to describe what a patent really legally means.

A patent is a "negetive right" obtaining a patent does not give
you the right to do anything, per se, but it takes away the right of
others to profit from your invention. Use a pencil as an example.
Suppose someone invented pencils and received a patent on that invention.
Suppose you realize that you can color the lead of a pencil, and invent
red pencils. Most likely, this new invention would not be deemed obvious
according to the legal definition. You receive a patent for your red
pencil. Who can sell red pencils? The answer is no one. The inventor of
pencils holds the patent for pencils (a red pencil is a pencil) so you
could not profit from the sale of your red pencils without infringing upon
the original patent on pencils. Conversely, even though a red pencil is a
pencil, it is a unique invention, and the patent holder for pencils could
not profit from its sale without infringing. All this assumes that no
licensing agreements exist, of course.

So, that example is, I believe, very analogous to yours. You
would, most likely, be able to patent an airplane with an antigravity
generator, but your couldn't sell them without infringing upon the the
patent for the antigravity generator (without a licensing agreement, of
course.)

But I could stop aircraft manufacturers adopting AG drives?
That might be *very* profitable.

Dirk
 
G

Guest

Jan 1, 1970
0
: But I could stop aircraft manufacturers adopting AG drives?
: That might be *very* profitable.

Right, which is why it still makes sense to patent every
invention, even if you can't directly profit from it.

Joe
 
D

Dirk Bruere

Jan 1, 1970
0
: But I could stop aircraft manufacturers adopting AG drives?
: That might be *very* profitable.

Right, which is why it still makes sense to patent every
invention, even if you can't directly profit from it.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Patent X has wide applications, esp in industry B
Industry B does not (yet) know of patent X
I will create patent(s) Y that covers X's applications in B
And offer patent(s) Y to one of the large players in industry B

Dirk
 
J

JeffM

Jan 1, 1970
0
engineer wrote [WITHOUT CONTEXT]:
For example, if invent a new hammer
and sell your brother one for six dollars [yada, yada, yada]

Let me point out to you **once again**
that posting without *context* makes you look like a bozo.
Not including in your post
the name of the person to whom you are replying is just stupid.
Are you that poor an "engineer"
that you can't perceive a pattern and emulate it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....omated-blockquote-*-*-*+click-THAT-Reply-link
 
J

John Jardine.

Jan 1, 1970
0
David L. Jones said:
Most probably, unless they have already patented that "application" for
the device. But then you can't build it the same as them unless you
want to pay a royalty.

It is common practice for companies to take out a patent for the
underlying technology and then other patents for it's manufacture and
various applications.
Kia Silverbrook, Australia's (and one of the worlds) most prolific
patent producers excels at this:
http://www.freshpatents.com/Silverbrook-Research-Pty-Ltd-cndirs.php

Remember, a patent is all but worthless unless you have the $$$$$$$
(note the 7 figures minimum) to defend it. For most stuff, it doesn't
take much to get around a patent.

Dave :)
Interesting link.
In "Method of producing a printed, bound document" that they've somehow
managed to patent the timeless idea of sticking pieces of paper together to
form a book.
Also in Business Card" the idea of printing using infra-red responsive ink.

If you've the cash then it seems any old brain dead idea can be Hoovered up
and granted a patent, having full legal standing until someone objects that
it's 'prior art'.
But, objecting to this worthless tat, then costs someone time, effort and
yet more money.
The lawyers do not complain.
john
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
engineer wrote [WITHOUT CONTEXT]:
For example, if invent a new hammer
and sell your brother one for six dollars [yada, yada, yada]

Let me point out to you **once again**
that posting without *context* makes you look like a bozo.
Not including in your post
the name of the person to whom you are replying is just stupid.
Are you that poor an "engineer"
that you can't perceive a pattern and emulate it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....omated-blockquote-*-*-*+click-THAT-Reply-link

Just send a copy of this thread to his boss ;-)

...Jim Thompson
 
P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Jan 1, 1970
0
JeffM said:
engineer wrote [WITHOUT CONTEXT]:
For example, if invent a new hammer
and sell your brother one for six dollars [yada, yada, yada]

Let me point out to you **once again**
that posting without *context* makes you look like a bozo.

And I'm sure that someone else owns the patent on generating posts that
"look like a bozo".

;-)
 
P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dirk said:
I was thinking more along the lines of:

Patent X has wide applications, esp in industry B
Industry B does not (yet) know of patent X
I will create patent(s) Y that covers X's applications in B
And offer patent(s) Y to one of the large players in industry B

This is what bothers me about the (US) patent system. Even if the
application of X in industry B is an obvious case of its original claim,
the USPTO will issue patent Y.

It seems to be worse if X isn't patented (internet protocols are a good
example of this). The protocols may be described in broad terms (the use
of TCP/IP to establish point to point communications between two systems
for example), there are cases of patents issued for specific
applications (where TCP/IP replaces a dedicated serial link in some
application, for example) where nothing else is claimed other than the
specific use of something in the public domain for the broad
application.
 
R

Robert Baer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dirk said:
Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it.
Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in
(say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

Dirk
There are, on the patent books, a number of antigravity machines.
Where hav you been these past 20 (more or less) years?
 
K

Keith

Jan 1, 1970
0
JeffM said:
engineer wrote [WITHOUT CONTEXT]:
For example, if invent a new hammer
and sell your brother one for six dollars [yada, yada, yada]

Let me point out to you **once again**
that posting without *context* makes you look like a bozo.

And I'm sure that someone else owns the patent on generating posts that
"look like a bozo".

Nah, the prior art has that pretty well covered.

Indeed.
 
K

Keith

Jan 1, 1970
0
There are, on the patent books, a number of antigravity machines.
Where hav you been these past 20 (more or less) years?

Got numbers? AFAIK, they've all been declared invlaid, along with
anything smelling of PM. If you do find a way to do either, you're going
to have to have some pretty solid proof to get a patent granted.
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Keith said:
Got numbers? AFAIK, they've all been declared invlaid, along with
anything smelling of PM. If you do find a way to do either, you're going
to have to have some pretty solid proof to get a patent granted.


What? An antigravity generator powered by a perpetual motion machine?
;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
Keith said:
Got numbers? AFAIK, they've all been declared invlaid, along with
anything smelling of PM. If you do find a way to do either, you're
going to have to have some pretty solid proof to get a patent granted.

Wishful thinking. USPTO, unfortunately, allows just about anything through
since (some act in the 70s or 80s or 90s?).

Tim
 
Top