4 ms·

Startups that can't compete on product deserve to be beaten in the marketplace. If a Chinese factory can clone your device just by looking at it, you're definit

by staunch 11y ago

Startups that can't compete on product deserve to be beaten in the marketplace. If a Chinese factory can clone your device just by looking at it, you're definitely not doing anything worthy of a patent.

bigdubs 11y ago
Downvoted because that is not a reasonable crucible for if something is patentable ("can clone your device just by looking at it"). There is a vast swath of reasonable patents that are easily "copyable" after the fact. If something wasn't easily copyable then you wouldn't need a patent in the first place.
- Throwaway23412 11y ago
  Airplanes are easily "copyable". That didn't stop the Wright Brothers from patenting the first workable one. And they were engineers, not really entrepreneurs. It would be a shame for the brothers known for giving man the power of flight to never make any money from their achievement.
  - sciguy77 11y ago
    > Airplanes are easily "copyable". You're kidding, right?
    - Throwaway23412 11y ago
      *were easily "copyable". The Wright Brothers had hundreds of competitors at the time. They were also very private during their later attempts to get their flying machine to work, so that they could avoid competitors copying their design.
carlosdp 11y ago
That's absurd, it can look the same and still be a crappy product that has issues like the battery blowing up. The consumer might not know the difference between your board and the lower quality one that looks the same on the outside, and when news goes around with a picture of a board that looks exactly like yours, it hurts your product's sales.
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  That's exactly what happened in Australia [0] It's definitely made me re-evaluate some of my AliBaba purchases - I don't think insurance will cover you if your house is burnt down by something that doesn't comply to Australian safety standards. [0]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-07/government-raises-hoverboard-safety-concerns/7072608 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-07/government-raises-hove...
  - rconti 11y ago
    I would be very surprised if there was such an exclusion, and if it were enforceable.
- dkbrk 11y ago
  Complying with relevant standards is a completely orthogonal issue to that of novelty and patentability. The question at hand is whether patents should protect products that are insufficiently novel to prevent it being cloned by a competitor. In my opinion, if a person technically competent in the appropriate fields could produce an equivalent design by having the product's functionality described to them then it should not be patentable. This also takes care of such idiocy as the Amazon one-click-buy patent, which is a simple matter to implement once given a description of its functionality.
- kalleboo 11y ago
  That's what trademark and trade dress is for.
chasing 11y ago
So let's say you spend a ton on R&D and come up with something unique. You deserve to lose in the marketplace because I can just steal your designs and manufacture an identical product more cheaply (since I didn't have to spend on R&D)?
rconti 11y ago
That's exactly how you clone a design patent. Comment is nonsensical.

by staunch 11y ago

bigdubs 11y ago

Downvoted because that is not a reasonable crucible for if something is patentable ("can clone your device just by looking at it"). There is a vast swath of reasonable patents that are easily "copyable" after the fact. If something wasn't easily copyable then you wouldn't need a patent in the first place.

Throwaway23412 11y ago
Airplanes are easily "copyable". That didn't stop the Wright Brothers from patenting the first workable one. And they were engineers, not really entrepreneurs. It would be a shame for the brothers known for giving man the power of flight to never make any money from their achievement.
- sciguy77 11y ago
  > Airplanes are easily "copyable". You're kidding, right?
  - Throwaway23412 11y ago
    *were easily "copyable". The Wright Brothers had hundreds of competitors at the time. They were also very private during their later attempts to get their flying machine to work, so that they could avoid competitors copying their design.

carlosdp 11y ago

That's absurd, it can look the same and still be a crappy product that has issues like the battery blowing up. The consumer might not know the difference between your board and the lower quality one that looks the same on the outside, and when news goes around with a picture of a board that looks exactly like yours, it hurts your product's sales.

voltagex_ 11y ago
That's exactly what happened in Australia [0] It's definitely made me re-evaluate some of my AliBaba purchases - I don't think insurance will cover you if your house is burnt down by something that doesn't comply to Australian safety standards. [0]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-07/government-raises-hoverboard-safety-concerns/7072608 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-07/government-raises-hove...
- rconti 11y ago
  I would be very surprised if there was such an exclusion, and if it were enforceable.
dkbrk 11y ago
Complying with relevant standards is a completely orthogonal issue to that of novelty and patentability. The question at hand is whether patents should protect products that are insufficiently novel to prevent it being cloned by a competitor. In my opinion, if a person technically competent in the appropriate fields could produce an equivalent design by having the product's functionality described to them then it should not be patentable. This also takes care of such idiocy as the Amazon one-click-buy patent, which is a simple matter to implement once given a description of its functionality.
kalleboo 11y ago
That's what trademark and trade dress is for.

chasing 11y ago

So let's say you spend a ton on R&D and come up with something unique. You deserve to lose in the marketplace because I can just steal your designs and manufacture an identical product more cheaply (since I didn't have to spend on R&D)?

rconti 11y ago

That's exactly how you clone a design patent. Comment is nonsensical.