Multi-period patent

[Carl-NC]

A co-worker recently mentioned a patent I had never seen:

Coin Discriminating Apparatus Using Coil Pulses of Different Lengths

This is for a coin-operated vending machine and covers the use multiperiod PI.

In a prior thread some people "debated" the validity of the Minelab multiperiod patent, citing the Poole patent as prior art. It was never explained why the Poole patent constituted prior art, as it uses a different technique.

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

[Esteban]

Take care with your claims! You may be reinventing the wheel and rediscovering the fire!

[Altra]

Patents are a two way street. I think some manufacture uses them as defense against other manufacture/inventors claiming they were "first". Versus prectection against copying. It is like a membership card, "we are covered leave us alone". What if Poole happened to learn of ML's detectors? If ML had no patents, Poole could probably get compensated, without much legal effort, assuming his patent was still in effect. ML having patents, create a much greater and costly hurdle for Poole or anyone else claiming its their idea.

Here is another multi-period patent, which is more recent.

Regards
Mark

[Woody.au]

That is a truly interesting find Carl. The patent stipulates its a Coin Detector and thus could be classed as a Metal detector.

[Carl-NC]

That is a truly interesting find Carl. The patent stipulates its a Coin Detector and thus could be classed as a Metal detector.

Yes, that's exactly what it is. I typically do searches for "metal detector" and so forth and never thought to search for "coin detector".

[Woody.au]

There are complicated implications with these old prior art documents coming to light. The mind does Boggle why some other patents where granted when this material is in the archives of the Patents office. I might go off and patent a Lemon, it would probably be granted.

[WM6]

I might go off and patent a Lemon, it would probably be granted.

No problem if you request patent for Sweet Lemon.

[Carl-NC]

The mind does Boggle why some other patents where granted when this material is in the archives of the Patents office.

I've mentioned in the past about a patent I got at Analog Devices that was practically identical to an earlier patent, but for a completely different application. I missed it, my patent attorney missed it, and the patent examiner missed it.

Consider there are 7.5 million US patents, millions more foreign patents, and billions of other sources of prior art (books, magazines, manuals, white papers, Internet forums, ...to infinity), and consider that a single patent examiner gets to spend maybe 10-15 hours on any given patent. Missing a prior patent is mind boggling? I don't see how this could be anything other than expected.

- Carl

[simonbaker]

I once used the "Inventors Assistance League", a non-profit organization with a method for helping inventors license their inventions without first getting a patent.

Their position, to paraphrase, was that a patent was actually only good after it had been prosecuted and defended in a court of law, at best. (They were offering an alternative to the scam invention companies that took gobs of inventors money to get patents for inventions that would never turn a profit).

I thought that was a good point to keep in mind. In other words, your patent doesn't mean much until it is tested. Very expensive process.

-SB

[WM6]

In other words, your patent doesn't mean much until it is tested.

Tested? By court or by Patent authority? Can you say something more about alternative way to protect authors right?

[simonbaker]

Tested? By court or by Patent authority? Can you say something more about alternative way to protect authors right?

Tested in court is what I meant.

In a nutshell, here is what the IAL (Inventors Assistance League) advises, but they have a clever way to implement it (those details you have to sign up with them to get).

They rely on principles of trademark, copyright, and patent law, the most important of which is the "first to invent" law. As long as you correctly document your inventing/R&D (and there is a right and wrong way to do it), and if you adhere to proper procedures (diligence, non-public, non-disclosure, etc.), and if you are the first to invent, then you essentially have the all the rights to your idea without a patent, as if you actually had a patent.

The bulk of their program is a clever way to market-test and market your invention, keeping it secret and protected, without a patent. It may not achieve the same results as throwing lots of money at the problem, but it at least gives inventors on a shoestring budget a chance at capitalizing on their idea.

It is mainly oriented toward inventors in United States, although there is awareness of international patent laws in the methodologies.

-SB

[Carl-NC]

They rely on principles of trademark, copyright, and patent law, the most important of which is the "first to invent" law. As long as you correctly document your inventing/R&D (and there is a right and wrong way to do it), and if you adhere to proper procedures (diligence, non-public, non-disclosure, etc.), and if you are the first to invent, then you essentially have the all the rights to your idea without a patent, as if you actually had a patent.

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

[WM6]

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.

- Carl

But some of patents are totaly nonsense and without minimum chance to get some input compensation from such invention.

I can not believe that patents holder of such nonsense "invention" were willing to pay say $130,000 to protect such non usable idea?

So, I think that must be some non expensive way to achieve patent protection. Maybe in shortening or performed some sort of only partial patent procedure, I dont know?

I simply can not believe that patent holders are willing to pay about $120,000 to get patents without the possibilities to get some money back like this "ornamental detector design":

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D248627.pdf

[Woody.au]

Have you ever thought that the whole patents office system has developed into a huge money making scam? There is no protection to the small inventor due to the fact its un-affordable. It just supports a larger companies Cartel.

[WM6]

Have you ever thought that the whole patents office system has developed into a huge money making scam? There is no protection to the small inventor due to the fact its un-affordable. It just supports a larger companies Cartel.

Probably you are right. Anyway there are lot of patents given to small inventors. Not so perspective "inventions" too.

It is not clear to me whether those people throw money away or have found a cheaper alternative to obtaining a patent.