Maker Pro
Maker Pro

WTF patents

W

Walter Harley

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art. Consider US
patent application 20050218880 (http://tinyurl.com/al578), "Apparatus for
powering an electronic musical instrument".

I cannot figure out what this guy thinks he is patenting, that is not
already prior art (consider in particular the "phantom power" scheme for
microphones, and the fact that Alembic basses in the 1970s used external
power sources). The only part of this that *might* be novel is the idea of
having an on-board rechargeable energy source, and recharging it by plugging
a power adapter into the signal jack.

But IANAL.

Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent (application) is
actually defensible?

And, is there any way for a member of the general public (me) to weigh in
with prior art on a patent application, before it's granted?

FWIW, the application was filed March 31 2005, and the device was publicly
demonstrated by the "inventor" at the NAMM show in January 2005. I thought
public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it?? Maybe I'm
confused about that.
 
R

Robert Baer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Walter said:
I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art. Consider US
patent application 20050218880 (http://tinyurl.com/al578), "Apparatus for
powering an electronic musical instrument".

I cannot figure out what this guy thinks he is patenting, that is not
already prior art (consider in particular the "phantom power" scheme for
microphones, and the fact that Alembic basses in the 1970s used external
power sources). The only part of this that *might* be novel is the idea of
having an on-board rechargeable energy source, and recharging it by plugging
a power adapter into the signal jack.

But IANAL.

Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent (application) is
actually defensible?

And, is there any way for a member of the general public (me) to weigh in
with prior art on a patent application, before it's granted?

FWIW, the application was filed March 31 2005, and the device was publicly
demonstrated by the "inventor" at the NAMM show in January 2005. I thought
public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it?? Maybe I'm
confused about that.
Hell, that is nothing.
In my searches for prior art related to my patents, i saw a number of
"patents" that were obvious to those *not* skilled in the art!
And if one wants to get really nasty, what about almost all of the
electronic circuit patents centered around transistors that were nothing
more that slightly modified tube circuits...
 
T

Tim Wescott

Jan 1, 1970
0
Walter said:
I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art. Consider US
patent application 20050218880 (http://tinyurl.com/al578), "Apparatus for
powering an electronic musical instrument".

I cannot figure out what this guy thinks he is patenting, that is not
already prior art (consider in particular the "phantom power" scheme for
microphones, and the fact that Alembic basses in the 1970s used external
power sources). The only part of this that *might* be novel is the idea of
having an on-board rechargeable energy source, and recharging it by plugging
a power adapter into the signal jack.

But IANAL.

Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent (application) is
actually defensible?

And, is there any way for a member of the general public (me) to weigh in
with prior art on a patent application, before it's granted?

FWIW, the application was filed March 31 2005, and the device was publicly
demonstrated by the "inventor" at the NAMM show in January 2005. I thought
public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it?? Maybe I'm
confused about that.
I think the patent process is out of hand.

To a great extent the patent office seems to err on the side of
accepting the patent -- this possibly makes sense in that they would get
more complaints about being picky than about being accepting.
Apparently the original revision of patent law was "accept anything, let
the courts decide". Ultimately, it still means nothing until you've run
it through a court of law.

The easy acceptance of patents means that big companies can shut down
smaller ones even if the patents in question aren't valid. But it also
means that little a**holes can file nuisance lawsuits, so maybe it
balances out. I really don't know if the current environment is really
suppressing innovation, or if it's turbo charging it by forcing people
to be _really_ clever.

In the US you have a year after public disclosure to file. January to
March is nothing. In Europe and other places you have to file before
you disclose.
 
P

Paul Burke

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim said:
The easy acceptance of patents means that big companies can shut down
smaller ones even if the patents in question aren't valid. But it also
means that little a**holes can file nuisance lawsuits, so maybe it
balances out.

Sadly I'm not allowed to reveal much, but I do know that one American
company has patented putting an Ethernet cable down one particular
configuration of tubes and joints. And uses this patent aggressively
against competitors.

Paul Burke
 
F

Frithiof Andreas Jensen

Jan 1, 1970
0
Walter Harley said:
I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art.

Look at is this way:

The US patent system is a wellfare scheme designed by lawyers for lawyers -
then it is rather obvious what is going on.

Unfortunatly, the odds are that the EU will adopt it like the did with DMCA.
Sheep!
FWIW, the application was filed March 31 2005, and the device was publicly
demonstrated by the "inventor" at the NAMM show in January 2005. I thought
public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it??

It *does* around here (Europe) - "publication" also covers black-box
implementations.
Maybe I'm
confused about that.

The whole mess is going to collapse eventually. But first it has to get
worse.
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul Burke wrote...
Sadly I'm not allowed to reveal much, but I do know that one American
company has patented putting an Ethernet cable down one particular
configuration of tubes and joints. And uses this patent aggressively
against competitors.

This is public information, let's name names, please.
 
R

Rene Tschaggelar

Jan 1, 1970
0
Walter said:
I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art. Consider US
patent application 20050218880 (http://tinyurl.com/al578), "Apparatus for
powering an electronic musical instrument".

I cannot figure out what this guy thinks he is patenting, that is not
already prior art (consider in particular the "phantom power" scheme for
microphones, and the fact that Alembic basses in the 1970s used external
power sources). The only part of this that *might* be novel is the idea of
having an on-board rechargeable energy source, and recharging it by plugging
a power adapter into the signal jack.

But IANAL.

Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent (application) is
actually defensible?

And, is there any way for a member of the general public (me) to weigh in
with prior art on a patent application, before it's granted?

FWIW, the application was filed March 31 2005, and the device was publicly
demonstrated by the "inventor" at the NAMM show in January 2005. I thought
public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it?? Maybe I'm
confused about that.

Basically yes, making it public before the
application invalidates it.
Having been granted a patent means the application
fulfilled some formal requirements. The content
is not regarded. A patent is only valid until
it is defeated.

Rene
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
Basically yes, making it public before the
application invalidates it.

In the US there is a grace period of one year in which to file after
public disclosure, but merely announcing the existence of the
invention or demonstrating it does not necessarily constitute "public
disclosure"-- you pretty much have to spill the beans on *how* it
works, not just what it does. Offering it for sale has the same effect
as public disclosure in the US. In Europe disclosure is a bar to
patent. standard disclaimers: AFAIUI. IANAPL.
Having been granted a patent means the application
fulfilled some formal requirements. The content
is not regarded. A patent is only valid until
it is defeated.

Rene

Or until it times out.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
C

Clark

Jan 1, 1970
0
Another thing is the Patents do not have to work, and in many cases some
could never work.
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
Another thing is the Patents do not have to work, and in many cases some
could never work.

IIRC, allegedly perpetual motion machines are an exception to that
rule, by official policy anyway, for the USPTO.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
W

Walter Harley

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro Pefhany said:
IIRC, allegedly perpetual motion machines are an exception to that
rule, by official policy anyway, for the USPTO.

Which is a shame, because certainly if we could use ingenuity in any area,
that's the one ;-)
 
K

Keith Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
No, a patent must be "workable", and include a "preferred
embodiment (one you believe is the best at the time of filing).
Though the meaning of "workable" is often stretched.
IIRC, allegedly perpetual motion machines are an exception to that
rule, by official policy anyway, for the USPTO.

When physical laws are violated the USPTO requires a bit more
"proof" of workability. In the case of anything smelling of
perpetual motion, they want a working model. ;-)
 
K

Keith Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
I think the patent process is out of hand.

To a great extent the patent office seems to err on the side of
accepting the patent -- this possibly makes sense in that they would get
more complaints about being picky than about being accepting.

Considering that the USPTO is a *profit* center for the US
government, one would expect a high acceptance rate.
Apparently the original revision of patent law was "accept anything, let
the courts decide". Ultimately, it still means nothing until you've run
it through a court of law.

It doesn't take a court to use patents as threats. The cost of
litigation is often higher than the worth (or cost of license).
The easy acceptance of patents means that big companies can shut down
smaller ones even if the patents in question aren't valid. But it also
means that little a**holes can file nuisance lawsuits, so maybe it
balances out. I really don't know if the current environment is really
suppressing innovation, or if it's turbo charging it by forcing people
to be _really_ clever.

There are proposals to make the process better. AIUI there is a
push to have peer input into patents and prior art before issue:

http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/

In the US you have a year after public disclosure to file. January to
March is nothing. In Europe and other places you have to file before
you disclose.

The disclosure bar in the US is one year from "commercial gain".
It doesn't have to even be "disclosed" for the clock to start
ticking. If the device (or whatever) is used in a product that is
offered for sale, the clock starts, even though you haven't told
anyone the device exists.
 
Clark said:
Another thing is the Patents do not have to work, and in many cases some
could never work.

No Clark, that's not right. Utility patents -- the most common
patents -- must have *utility*. That is, they must perform some useful
function, however obscure that function might be.

Showing that something cannot or does not work, and cannot be made to
work with "reasonable" experimentation by someone "skilled in the art"
is grounds for invalidating a patent.

Cheers,
James Arthur -- IANAL
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
No Clark, that's not right. Utility patents -- the most common
patents -- must have *utility*. That is, they must perform some useful
function, however obscure that function might be.

Showing that something cannot or does not work, and cannot be made to
work with "reasonable" experimentation by someone "skilled in the art"
is grounds for invalidating a patent.

If it doesn't work, why would you need to invalidate the patent?
 
K

Keith Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
If it doesn't work, why would you need to invalidate the patent?

The claims are in force until the patent is invalidated. The
holder of the patent is assumed to be correct until the courts find
otherwise.
 
Walter said:
I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art. Consider US
patent application 20050218880 (http://tinyurl.com/al578), "Apparatus for
powering an electronic musical instrument".

I cannot figure out what this guy thinks he is patenting,

Walter, the claims specify what the guy's *trying* to patent, though
this doesn't mean he'll get those claims granted.

that is not
already prior art (consider in particular the "phantom power" scheme for
microphones, and the fact that Alembic basses in the 1970s used external
power sources).

U.S. applications are now published specifically as a way of
soliciting public comment. I'm not sure how you do it, but this is
your opportunity to provide the Patent Office with examples of what you
feel are examples of relevant prior art.
The only part of this that *might* be novel is the idea of
having an on-board rechargeable energy source, and recharging it by plugging
a power adapter into the signal jack.

AFAICT from very quickly skimming it, this is phantom power as for
microphones, but applied to the instruments themselves. Another
variation is a little external box that supplies the battery,
presumably so the instrument can be interfaced to a non-phantom
amplifier?

But IANAL.

Me neither.
Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent (application) is
actually defensible?

Dunno. Have musical instruments themselves used phantom power
techniques? That's your bailiwick, not mine. And if hasn't been done,
wouldn't it be obvious to apply the microphone-powering techniques to
the instruments? And if it's so obvious, why hasn't it been done, if
it hasn't? Those are the arguments to consider.
And, is there any way for a member of the general public (me) to weigh in
with prior art on a patent application, before it's granted?
Yes.

FWIW, the application was filed March 31 2005, and the device was publicly
demonstrated by the "inventor" at the NAMM show in January 2005. I thought
public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it?? Maybe I'm
confused about that.

No, as others have corrected said, applications must be filed no
later than a year after public demonstration, disclosure, or offering
for sale. The demonstration you cite does not preclude or conflict
with filing.

Secondly, the effective filing date was April 1, 2004, the date the
guy filed a Provisional Patent Application, as recited in [0001] of the
specification section.

Best,
James
 
Keith said:
The claims are in force until the patent is invalidated. The
holder of the patent is assumed to be correct until the courts find
otherwise.

Yes, exactly. Patents are sometimes granted, then their defects
discovered later. The patent, then, is technically invalid, but not
until so proven, formally, with proper proceedings.

One such proceeding is for a member of the public to request a
"re-examination" of the offending patent in light of whatever new
information he wishes to have considered, along with said citizen
fronting a hefty fee, as the contesting party is expected to foot the
bill.

James
 
I

Ian Bell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Walter said:
I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art. Consider US
patent application 20050218880 (http://tinyurl.com/al578), "Apparatus for
powering an electronic musical instrument".

I cannot figure out what this guy thinks he is patenting, that is not
already prior art (consider in particular the "phantom power" scheme for
microphones, and the fact that Alembic basses in the 1970s used external
power sources). The only part of this that *might* be novel is the idea
of having an on-board rechargeable energy source, and recharging it by
plugging a power adapter into the signal jack.

But IANAL.

Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent (application) is
actually defensible?

If you read it carefully you will see he is patenting the specific case
where with one connector plugged in you get the battery working the
electronics and producing and output signal and where with different
connector plugged in you get power routed to the battery to charge it.

That is a very specific and hence narrowly applicable patent made worse by
the fact it applies only to musical instruments.

Quite a neat idea. Has possibly been done before but it definitely is NOT
the same as phantom power.

Ian
 
Top