4 ms·

What I don't understand and also feel is a issue with patents as a whole is you can patent something without actualy being able to show a working example/produc

by Zenst 14y ago

What I don't understand and also feel is a issue with patents as a whole is you can patent something without actualy being able to show a working example/product. For example :- somebody could patent teleportation - define it and then when somebody does all the hard work and actualy invents a teleporter, you are then able to cry patent violation and cash in. That too me is compeletely wrong, yet that is how the patent system stands currently. I have also noted that alot of patents that have no working prototype or product, all seem to have been done in some SCI-FI movie/TV series priviously and find it somehow suprising that the movie industry have not started jumping on this patent bandwagon as they have more of a working prototype than many awarded patents that get approved in this day and age.

PaulHoule 14y ago
They aren't supposed to grant a patent if there isn't a reduction to practice. In practice, the PTO is overworked and things get through that shouldn't. If it comes down to a lawsuit and there was no reduction ot practice, a patent can be thrown out. Of course, when it gets to court it's very expensive for everybody. The best way to demonstrate the practicality of a software invention, for instance, is to attach working source code to the patent -- with the funny consequence that a strong software patent involves, in some sense, a contribution to open source.
- brazzy 14y ago
  That's not funny or ironic, that's one of the two things patents are intended to achieve: to encourage inventions to be published for everyone to use freely (after the patent protection expires) rather than kept secret.
  - PaulHoule 14y ago
    it makes sense from the perspective of the patent system and it's goals, but it's contradictory to the "patents bad" attitude that is common in the open source community.
brlewis 14y ago
If it makes you feel any better, the law on the books would preclude your teleportation example, because the patent is required to be written "in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use" teleportation. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_112.htm http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35... Disclaimer: I can't guarantee that the patent system will operate consistent with the law.
dguaraglia 14y ago
Absolutely. I've found that's my litmus test for defining whether a patent is valid or not: "are you making money from developing this idea?". If the author isn't pursuing the product, then he's just defining a general idea and letting others actually work out the details. Just think about that: the people who would actually do the work and get the product out are preempted by someone who is just sitting on his arse. How is that encouraging innovation?
HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
It is entirely possible to discover and develop an invention without being able to implement it. My best example is a very experienced engineer I used to consult for. In the process of explaining something to me, he had an epiphany and came up with a new method for "leveling" high power battery packs. Over the next few weeks, he tested concepts of the idea and was able to fully describe the design. Problem? He was an old analog power supply design engineer who knew nothing about programming and the only way his idea would be feasible would be using software. He couldn't build it, so I did, for him. Eventually he patented the idea. The point is that he could have gone through the entire patent process successfully without a working implementation. Should he have been refused a patent because he didn't have the skills to build it himself? What if he couldn't afford to pay me to implement it? The idea itself is no less valuable: he was obviously capable of explaining it well enough for someone to code the controller. I would argue that it's exactly his type of problem that necessitates a patent: someone with a brilliant idea, who can clearly describe how it should be implemented, but can't afford to do it himself (tooling up to build these things in quantity requires a lot of capital) and is willing to sell that patent to a manufacturer for final implementation.
danielweber 14y ago
I assume you know that patenting teleportation is more than just writing down "I patent teleportation." So, let's so with your example. Someone has an idea for a teleporter, and at great expense comes up with the blueprints that will let it be manufactured. However, it will take $3 billion and 2 years to create a working example. With patent protection, the inventor can seek out industrial or financial backers to produce it. Those parties can hire their own scientists and engineers to verify that the blueprints ought to work.

by Zenst 14y ago

PaulHoule 14y ago

They aren't supposed to grant a patent if there isn't a reduction to practice. In practice, the PTO is overworked and things get through that shouldn't. If it comes down to a lawsuit and there was no reduction ot practice, a patent can be thrown out. Of course, when it gets to court it's very expensive for everybody. The best way to demonstrate the practicality of a software invention, for instance, is to attach working source code to the patent -- with the funny consequence that a strong software patent involves, in some sense, a contribution to open source.

brazzy 14y ago
That's not funny or ironic, that's one of the two things patents are intended to achieve: to encourage inventions to be published for everyone to use freely (after the patent protection expires) rather than kept secret.
- PaulHoule 14y ago
  it makes sense from the perspective of the patent system and it's goals, but it's contradictory to the "patents bad" attitude that is common in the open source community.

brlewis 14y ago

If it makes you feel any better, the law on the books would preclude your teleportation example, because the patent is required to be written "in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use" teleportation. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_112.htm http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35... Disclaimer: I can't guarantee that the patent system will operate consistent with the law.

dguaraglia 14y ago

Absolutely. I've found that's my litmus test for defining whether a patent is valid or not: "are you making money from developing this idea?". If the author isn't pursuing the product, then he's just defining a general idea and letting others actually work out the details. Just think about that: the people who would actually do the work and get the product out are preempted by someone who is just sitting on his arse. How is that encouraging innovation?

HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago

It is entirely possible to discover and develop an invention without being able to implement it. My best example is a very experienced engineer I used to consult for. In the process of explaining something to me, he had an epiphany and came up with a new method for "leveling" high power battery packs. Over the next few weeks, he tested concepts of the idea and was able to fully describe the design. Problem? He was an old analog power supply design engineer who knew nothing about programming and the only way his idea would be feasible would be using software. He couldn't build it, so I did, for him. Eventually he patented the idea. The point is that he could have gone through the entire patent process successfully without a working implementation. Should he have been refused a patent because he didn't have the skills to build it himself? What if he couldn't afford to pay me to implement it? The idea itself is no less valuable: he was obviously capable of explaining it well enough for someone to code the controller. I would argue that it's exactly his type of problem that necessitates a patent: someone with a brilliant idea, who can clearly describe how it should be implemented, but can't afford to do it himself (tooling up to build these things in quantity requires a lot of capital) and is willing to sell that patent to a manufacturer for final implementation.

danielweber 14y ago

I assume you know that patenting teleportation is more than just writing down "I patent teleportation." So, let's so with your example. Someone has an idea for a teleporter, and at great expense comes up with the blueprints that will let it be manufactured. However, it will take $3 billion and 2 years to create a working example. With patent protection, the inventor can seek out industrial or financial backers to produce it. Those parties can hire their own scientists and engineers to verify that the blueprints ought to work.