Multi-period patent

[Carl-NC]

You can get a patent in the US for under $5000 pretty easily, less if you want to risk doing most of the work yourself. This is reasonably affordable but expensive enough to keep things serious.

Even so, some people get a patent purely for marketing reasons. Sometimes in order to put a patent number on the device to make it seem more hi-tech than it is. There have been a number of patents granted on scam devices solely for the purpose of convincing investors that they are legit. Many naive people view a patent as government approval of an idea, or that the invention had to be successfully demonstrated to the patent office.

What doesn't work is trying to protect a legitimate novel idea using a cheap short-cut. I know some people have tried the old "mail yourself a registered letter" trick, which will be thrown out of court in the first 10 minutes. Other short-cut methods are equally effective.

- Carl

[Altra]

Carl,

I remember hearing that there is some sort of a provisional patent application. It protects your idea for about year and the fees involved, as recall were pretty low. Do you, or anyone else know about these?

Mark

[simonbaker]

Hate to say, but this is absolutely false. Trademark & copyright are no substitute for patent protection, and when it comes to a true invention will offer zero protection if someone else files on top of your idea.

Yes, it's true that a patent only gives you the right to sue someone for infringement. And it's true that getting the patent is expensive and the defense of it is even more expensive. But having an idea and not getting a patent may not mean beans if someone comes along later and gets a patent on the same idea, even if you have documentation. Nor does merely mentioning an idea on a forum automatically place it in the public domain and make it unpatentable. I've read a lot of Really Bad Opinions in some of these patent discussions.

- Carl

I would not say trademark and copyright substitute for patents, just that trademark, copyright, and patent law is used to the fullest in the IAL program.

Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure what the reality is. But my understanding is that if you can prove when you started developing an idea and you can show you did not abandon the idea (diligence in continuous R&D activity), the law says you are the original inventor and you can effectively void a patent application that cannot show an earlier date of invention. The important thing is correct procedures in establishing the time of invention and the diligence activities. It must be documented and witnessed properly. The IAL maintains that they follow the same procedures that are used by large companies that have successfully defended their inventions in court. Again, I'm not sure what the reality is, but I feel that there must be many cases of inventors proving they were the first to invent and voiding other patents with less evidence than the IAL program guides you to establish.

I would be interested in seeing some examples where documentation did not mean beans in a patent dispute. The nature of the documentation is pretty important -- there are many wrong ways to do it.

-SB

[Carl-NC]

I remember hearing that there is some sort of a provisional patent application. It protects your idea for about year and the fees involved, as recall were pretty low. Do you, or anyone else know about these?

Yes, a provisional application allows you to establish an early filing date for a much lower price, $110 I think. But you still need to be very careful in making sure the claims are well-written. If you are getting a patent attorney to help with the claims (highly recommended), then there will be some add'l costs for this, but maybe only $1000 instead of $5000.

So this gives you a year to develop and/or shop the idea. Of course, if someone stole your idea you would still have to get the full patent in order to sue them. The provisional only establishes a date.

[Carl-NC]

But my understanding is that if you can prove when you started developing an idea and you can show you did not abandon the idea (diligence in continuous R&D activity), the law says you are the original inventor and you can effectively void a patent application that cannot show an earlier date of invention.

Yes, this is true. Dangerous, though.

I would be interested in seeing some examples where documentation did not mean beans in a patent dispute.

As you said, if you develop an idea and even fully document it with dates and witnesses, but at any point failed to pursue the idea to commercialization, then you lose the rights to it. How easy or difficult it is to show continuous pursuit may depend on the quality of your opponents legal team. That's why I say it's dangerous.

- Carl

[simonbaker]

Yes, this is true. Dangerous, though.



As you said, if you develop an idea and even fully document it with dates and witnesses, but at any point failed to pursue the idea to commercialization, then you lose the rights to it. How easy or difficult it is to show continuous pursuit may depend on the quality of your opponents legal team. That's why I say it's dangerous.

- Carl

I'm sure you're right - although that same legal team could probably do considerable damage even if you obtained a patent.

For a small inventor, the risk of spending a lot of money on an idea that has no commercial value is huge. Given that 1 out of 1000 ideas have commercial possibilities, the drain of patents shuts down inventors from pursuing more than a couple of ideas at best. A patent also exposes the idea to better funded, swifter competition who can improve upon it before your glue is dried. You have a nice patent for an obsolete design.

The IAL method is interesting because it simultaneously protects the idea while it explores the market for the idea before major investment is made. If it has commercial value in the eyes of a major player in the market, the inventor is able to make a lucrative contract and the company pays for the patent. The odds are still not high, as inventing is a long shot, but I think it is a very credible approach for the little guy.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on that approach, but I think the premise that patents are over-rated for the small inventor, if not detrimental, is sort of a paradigm shift that is eye-opening and worth considering.

I actually tried the IAL approach with some ideas. I didn't close a deal, but I was able to protect my ideas and enter into meetings with executives of top companies in the market concerning the ideas. I dropped the ball on one idea that maybe could have succeeded if I had perservered through some hurdles.

I'm not recommending anyone go and sign up with IAL because it was a long time ago I used their program and the original head of the organization is gone -- I suspect they need to modernize their methods now, but don't know for sure. I just found many of their ideas revolutionary and common sense at the same time.

-SB

[Ferric Toes]

But this patent appears to show precisely the same technique, so those looking to invalidate the Minelab claims may want to study this patent. In a cursory examination it appears that there may be more vending machine patents worth a look. Also slot machines and traffic sensors.

- Carl

Interesting! Also security PI detectors i.e. airport archway type. Many of these are pulse induction.

Eric.

[Woody.au]

Minelab patents in General pertain to eliminating Ground responses, the detection of metal seems to be coincidental.

[Altra]

Using that logic. Some one could patent a detector that distinguishes between metals with different TC's that just happens to ignore the ground?

[Carl-NC]

A patent also exposes the idea to better funded, swifter competition who can improve upon it before your glue is dried. You have a nice patent for an obsolete design.

I look at patentable ideas as 2 categories: functionality, and implementation. The classic 'variable wiper delay' design is one of functionality, such that if you show someone your idea they could immediately duplicate it because 'how it works' is obvious. That is, it wasn't obvious what to do, but once you see the what, the how is obvious.

A discriminating PI detector is an example of implementation. The what -- a discriminating PI detector -- is obvious. The how is not obvious even when you show someone your prototype, because they cannot see the critical details of the design.

IMO, you are pretty safe shopping around an implementation idea because you can hide the important stuff, and folks can't easily copy it. But a functionality idea almost requires a patent, because the first person who sees it will run off and copy it.

- Carl

[Carl-NC]

Interesting! Also security PI detectors i.e. airport archway type. Many of these are pulse induction.

Correct, and oddly there aren't a whole lot of patents on these, even though they've had to do some clever tricks to deal with issues peculiar to their use.

- Carl

[bugwhiskers]

The following is my reply in another forum to a post by Robby_H who asked what relevance a vending machine patent had to eliminating ground in a detector.


Tell my why THE MOST RELEVANT of prior art was not mentioned in the 1996 MPS patent despite a lapse of 8 years that would have ensured wide dispersal. The patent examiners are highly dependent on being supplied such pertinent information.

A coin is made of metal, as if you didn't know. Drop the vending machine spin, it's not relevant to the physics involved. They were using MPS to "detect this metal" and allow better classification/differentiation from bogus material like buttons, washers and perhaps other materials some of which could have had a similar decay characteristic to ground mineralisation. Sound familiar ??

regards
bugwhiskers

[digger barns]

Patents

The problem with good ideas is that is all to easy to get carried away with your good idea ( tunnel vision ). Your fantastic invention is not actually any use, but you can’t see this. Big companies may file dozens of patents a week. The Audi A6 is said to have more patents than the space shuttle. I never understood this, the costs involved must be staggering.

Good idea no 1: Cordless headphones for metal detectors. I actually took out a provisional on this. Cost £1 at the patent office in London many years ago. I just let it lapse as I could not get it to work very well on the threshold detectors at that time. Phoned a couple of patent agents though, and they thought it sounded a good idea.
3/4 companies had a go at it since then, but I still use ordinary headphones.

Good idea no 2: The spring loaded chuck key. I made a nice prototype of this one. Chuck key was hollow inside, so that a strong spring could push a small pin through a hole at the tip. Impossible to leave the key in the chuck. Should I risk another £1 ?
Then I saw a chuck key in a tool catalogue. Had a simple coil spring stuck on the out side of the key. Blast!

Good Idea no 3: Patio door catch. When my son was small he got a fascination with the sliding patio door at the rear of our house. He liked to slam the door shut. Will he chop off his fingers I am worrying? Do others do this?. So I made another Prototype. A plastic catch that sprung into the gap as the door was opened just stopping the door from completely closing again. No chopped off fingers. Just gradually forgot about this one has my son stopped playing with the door. A high pitched scream when he when near the door did the trick in the end. Some years later was horrified to read in a a trade magazine that Dpont had patented a spring loaded plastic safety catch for patio doors. I never saw one on sale though. People only buy this sort of thing after the fingers have been chopped. Good idea, but small market.

Good ideas 4 and 5 still in my head, but are they really worth money.

[Atul Asthana]

Se how patents are used and misused
www.groklaw.net

[Carl-NC]

The following is my reply in another forum to a post by Robby_H who asked what relevance a vending machine patent had to eliminating ground in a detector.

I'm not sure why this topic is being dragged off to other forums, nor why Robby's comment is posted here. If Robby wants to post here, he can do it himself, as he has in the past. I started this thread to discuss the merits of Minelab's multi-period patents in light of significant prior art, not to bash Minelab or people who use their detectors.

That said, the relevance is in the claims. What is described in the body of the patent, including the usefulness of the technique (for identifying coins, or excluding ground) is largely irrelevant. All that matters is what's in the claims.

In this case, the Chapman patent covers the use of multi-period pulse techniques in a metal detector. Subsequent patents can also cover multi-period techniques, but the actual specifics would need to be unique. Just saying it's for excluding ground instead of identifying coins, or that it's for a hobby detector instead of a vending machine, is not enough.

Also, even slight variations from the Chapman patent can be challenged on the basis of obviousness. That is, if Chapman describes a particular method of multi-period for discriminating between metals in a vending machine, then it's obvious to try similar techniques to identify ground in a hobby detector.

- Carl