3 ms·
On one hand I'm upset about the fact that I can invent something, not have the money to patent it, and have someone else get rights to the patent because they h
by ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
On one hand I'm upset about the fact that I can invent something, not have the money to patent it, and have someone else get rights to the patent because they had the money for it.
=============================
On the other hand, image this:
- I created an invention.
- I worked my ass off saving up $5-10 thousand dollars for patent and legal fees.
- I spend hundreds of hours of my life searching for prior art on the internet and in publishing magazines. I think I'm safe.
- I file the patent.
- Some random ass guy in Minnesota comes up with prior art and I don't get the patent.
- I just wasted $15,000 and years of my life.
=============================
It feels like the first-to-file system protects inventors who haul ass and get shit done, and punishes lazy (or unfortunately poor) inventors who sit on their inventions and cannot afford to /or/ refuse to move them to market.
So maybe this is the good thing?
- nextparadigms 15y agoIs this the biggest "improvement" of the "overhaul"? I see this everywhere, but not much else. Did they shorten the expiration time for patents? Did they make it so you can't file for stupidly obvious patents? If they didn't, then this "overhaul" is not much of an overhaul at all.
- Vivtek 15y agoIf you don't have the money to patent it, then publish it - rendering it unpatentable due to your prior art. Nothing keeps you from being the expert in the field, but you're protected from somebody else patenting it and charging you a royalty. The first-to-file provision essentially just makes it easier to decide who gets the patent if two people patent substantially the same thing. I don't think it's going to make much of a difference in the existing breakage of the patent system.