5 ms·

An expired patent is of public domain or it is just free to be patented again by another person?

by soneca 10y ago

dhosek 10y ago
Public domain.
jaclaz 10y ago
It's public domain, see also: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-expired-patent-in-the-public-domain http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-expire... The idea of a patent is that for a given number of years your invention is protected, even if public, you cannot re-patent it "as is" (as it would not be anymore new or non-obvious) but you can sometimes patent a derivative (like an improvement of the same base idea). The generic issue may be that often behind something there can be a number of patents, often interlinked, so it is far from easy to determine whether you can "use" that expired patent.
- orionblastar 10y ago
  Would that apply to very old technology like 8-bit CPUs and support chips? Would it apply to old operating systems like CP/M? I heard of some people making a toy that had expired patents on it that was a hit in the 1970s or 1980s like Rubics Cube, Mood Rings, Tinker Toys, etc.
jandrese 10y ago
The whole point of the patent system is to make sure ideas aren't locked up so we can advance as a society (something the Copyright office has forgotten), so once they expire they are in the Public Domain forever.
- logicallee 10y ago
  This is not the only point of the patent system: you seem to think that any good patents could have been kept as trade secrets. But that's not the case. Sometimes there would be no way to use a patent as a trade secret, because, for example, it's simply given to the consumer and they can see how it works, easily. So another important point is to allow people to research and innovate and make it to market under a state-granted monopoly, in exchange for and to encourage doing so. As an example, suppose there existed a configuration of plastic that easily enabled xyz - but nobody has 'invented' or researched this configuration. If there really is no prior art, then someone could take the time to invent and patent it, and then sell it at a price that both recoups the cost of their invention, and also acts as an incentive for them to have done so in the first place. This is not theoretical. The cable tie is a great invention. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it: >The idea of the cable tie came to Logan while touring a Boeing aircraft manufacturing facility in 1956. Aircraft wiring was a cumbersome and detailed undertaking, involving thousands of feet of wire organized on sheets of 50-foot long plywood and held in place with knotted, waxcoated, braided nylon cord. Each knot had to be pulled tight by wrapping the cord around one's finger which sometimes cut the operator's fingers until they developed thick calluses or "hamburger hands." Logan was convinced there had to be an easier, more forgiving, way to accomplish this critical task. >For the next couple of years, Logan experimented with various tools and materials. On June 24, 1958, a patent for the Ty-Rap cable tie was submitted. In other words (if I'm reading it right) from 1958 until 1978 he had a monopoly on making those cheap plastic things. Then it was over. Today, (and for the past 45 years) everyone could make that piece of plastic easily and cheaply. Bu the KEY thing is "For the next couple of years, Logan experimented with various tools and materials. " -- THAT'S what the patent system enables. He would have had zero incentive to do so if he had not had a patent on the invention, for the next few years. People might have "hamburger hands", to this day. Trade secret has nothing to do with it.
  - wolfgang42 10y ago
    I think what jandrese meant is that's the whole point of the modern patent system with fixed expirations. This is as opposed to the earlier system of letters patent, which had the advantages you cite but no requirement of invention or fixed term; Elizabeth I of England, for example, famously issued a patent for salt.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      well it's no use speculating on what someone else meant, but the expirations are part of the incentive: it's not that if you figure out a new configuration, you get it FOREVER. You get it for twenty years. So it's a limited reward - just enough to motivate you. It goes right along with Congress's constitutional mandate: >To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Although this perhaps confuses things by mixing copyright into it. By the way I think in this day and age, patents should be for 5-7 years. Not twenty and certainly not longer. innovation has sped up. but anyway the whole idea is that to promote the progress of useful arts - so the incentive has to be just big enough to cause that promotion...
  - jandrese 10y ago
    No the whole point is to avoid this trade secret nonsense. Get the good ideas out into the public sphere and yet still reward the people who came up with them by giving them a limited window to monetize the ideas. Once the window is up everybody else is free to improve upon the ideas freely, avoiding licensing hell and also making sure inventors that get lucky can't just sit on their thumbs for the rest of their lives milking their one good idea. Or in the case of Copyrights, letting their great great grandchildren sit on their butts and milk the invention. Excessive use of trade secrets leads you down the road of middle age trade guilds that had to jealously guard their skills and could spend more energy keeping their secrets than advancing their arts.

An expired patent is of public domain or it is just free to be patented again by another person?

by soneca 10y ago

An expired patent is of public domain or it is just free to be patented again by another person?

dhosek 10y ago

Public domain.

jaclaz 10y ago

It's public domain, see also: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-expired-patent-in-the-public-domain http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-expire... The idea of a patent is that for a given number of years your invention is protected, even if public, you cannot re-patent it "as is" (as it would not be anymore new or non-obvious) but you can sometimes patent a derivative (like an improvement of the same base idea). The generic issue may be that often behind something there can be a number of patents, often interlinked, so it is far from easy to determine whether you can "use" that expired patent.

orionblastar 10y ago
Would that apply to very old technology like 8-bit CPUs and support chips? Would it apply to old operating systems like CP/M? I heard of some people making a toy that had expired patents on it that was a hit in the 1970s or 1980s like Rubics Cube, Mood Rings, Tinker Toys, etc.

jandrese 10y ago

The whole point of the patent system is to make sure ideas aren't locked up so we can advance as a society (something the Copyright office has forgotten), so once they expire they are in the Public Domain forever.

logicallee 10y ago
This is not the only point of the patent system: you seem to think that any good patents could have been kept as trade secrets. But that's not the case. Sometimes there would be no way to use a patent as a trade secret, because, for example, it's simply given to the consumer and they can see how it works, easily. So another important point is to allow people to research and innovate and make it to market under a state-granted monopoly, in exchange for and to encourage doing so. As an example, suppose there existed a configuration of plastic that easily enabled xyz - but nobody has 'invented' or researched this configuration. If there really is no prior art, then someone could take the time to invent and patent it, and then sell it at a price that both recoups the cost of their invention, and also acts as an incentive for them to have done so in the first place. This is not theoretical. The cable tie is a great invention. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it: >The idea of the cable tie came to Logan while touring a Boeing aircraft manufacturing facility in 1956. Aircraft wiring was a cumbersome and detailed undertaking, involving thousands of feet of wire organized on sheets of 50-foot long plywood and held in place with knotted, waxcoated, braided nylon cord. Each knot had to be pulled tight by wrapping the cord around one's finger which sometimes cut the operator's fingers until they developed thick calluses or "hamburger hands." Logan was convinced there had to be an easier, more forgiving, way to accomplish this critical task. >For the next couple of years, Logan experimented with various tools and materials. On June 24, 1958, a patent for the Ty-Rap cable tie was submitted. In other words (if I'm reading it right) from 1958 until 1978 he had a monopoly on making those cheap plastic things. Then it was over. Today, (and for the past 45 years) everyone could make that piece of plastic easily and cheaply. Bu the KEY thing is "For the next couple of years, Logan experimented with various tools and materials. " -- THAT'S what the patent system enables. He would have had zero incentive to do so if he had not had a patent on the invention, for the next few years. People might have "hamburger hands", to this day. Trade secret has nothing to do with it.
- wolfgang42 10y ago
  I think what jandrese meant is that's the whole point of the modern patent system with fixed expirations. This is as opposed to the earlier system of letters patent, which had the advantages you cite but no requirement of invention or fixed term; Elizabeth I of England, for example, famously issued a patent for salt.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    well it's no use speculating on what someone else meant, but the expirations are part of the incentive: it's not that if you figure out a new configuration, you get it FOREVER. You get it for twenty years. So it's a limited reward - just enough to motivate you. It goes right along with Congress's constitutional mandate: >To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Although this perhaps confuses things by mixing copyright into it. By the way I think in this day and age, patents should be for 5-7 years. Not twenty and certainly not longer. innovation has sped up. but anyway the whole idea is that to promote the progress of useful arts - so the incentive has to be just big enough to cause that promotion...
- jandrese 10y ago
  No the whole point is to avoid this trade secret nonsense. Get the good ideas out into the public sphere and yet still reward the people who came up with them by giving them a limited window to monetize the ideas. Once the window is up everybody else is free to improve upon the ideas freely, avoiding licensing hell and also making sure inventors that get lucky can't just sit on their thumbs for the rest of their lives milking their one good idea. Or in the case of Copyrights, letting their great great grandchildren sit on their butts and milk the invention. Excessive use of trade secrets leads you down the road of middle age trade guilds that had to jealously guard their skills and could spend more energy keeping their secrets than advancing their arts.