Anyone who thinks they need a patent to secure their own ideas should look
into a simple method of documenting the idea before allowing the idea to be
publicly exposed (public domain).

No doubt there are numerous websites that will show this simple method is
used, although at the time I was looking into the idea, I found several very
detailed library books that recommended these methods.

It's not the common myth that you can describe the idea, draw plans etc,
have it notarized, and postmarked/mailed to yourself, then kept safe,
unopened.

Basically, you document and date your ideas, witnessed by others you trust,
that are qualified/experienced enough to understand your idea and the
proposed use of the product.
So you make drawings, beginning with the basic concept, as it first occurred
to you, then subsequent drawings that show how you derrived the more refined
final version.. all dated and witnessed.
If you feel that you need your plans to be witnessed by a stranger (with
some certification), you have them complete a non-disclosure agreement.

You can present the witnesses and documents as proof in any possible
"ownership/creator" disputes.

The days of individuals easily acquiring patents was probably over in the
50s. Otherwise, you'll most likely need large amounts of cash to secure any
rights thru patents.. the kinds of amounts that large corporations **** away
on a regular basis.

You can likely invest over $100k, and end up with your drawings and denials,
and/or a lot of paperwork detailing an expired "pending" patent.

When you approach one of the "invention" promoting groups, you'll find that
they will very likely want you to start laying out some serious money, with
no assurance that they will do anything specific.
You might walk away with a free non-disclosure agreement.

When you approach manufacturers of similar products, you'll likely find that
they don't want ideas from outside their own design departments.. if it was
a good idea, we would've thought of it.

--
WB
..........


"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
Awl --

Some time ago, I read somewhere that one of the risks in retaining
small/independent patent attorneys was the risk of the following egregious
scam (never mind the ever-present problem of competence):

If they saw commercial merit in your invention, they would write a ****ty
essentially non-defendable patent (via watered-down claims, which are VERY
difficult for the laymen to decipher -- see below), and then give the
patent to another attorney/client pair, who would write up a really good,
defensible patent.

Same invention, same basic patent, except one holder is ****ed, while the
other is sitting pretty.

Now, lest I be accused of slandering attorneys (who, ME????), note the use
of the word "risk".
And note the purpose of this post, which is to garmer other opinions on
the merit/size of sed risk.

And also to glean how one might assess the magnitude of this risk, on a
lawyer to lawyer basis.
I personally don't think this can be done, unless through some personal
referral or specific knowledge.

But for someone who has neither of these, I think this assessment may be
pert near impossible.


Also, regarding claims:

Has anyone ever written the claims part of a patent?

I actually studied this for a couple of afternoons at the 34th St. Science
and technology library in NYC/Manhattan, which is a patent repository --
via microfiche at the time, a real effing pita -- proly all pyooterized
now.

They had books on claim writing for lawyers, and goddamm, it was fairly
incomprehensible.
Plus, I studied patents and re-submitted patents, with adjusted claims,
and goddamm, STILL incomprehensible.

The whole of a patent is little more than a high-school level report, save
for the claims.
Interestingly, the strategy of an "effective" patent is to reveal as
little as possible, while protecting as much as possible, two ends that
are somewhat at odds.

Iny insight into the nature of claim writing??

--
EA

On Tue, 04 May 2010 23:26:34 GMT, Doug White
wrote the following:

The patent system in this country is seriously broken. I've taken a
course in patent law, read a lot of them, and have a couple patents with
more in the works.

It joins our broken legal, medical, penal, judicial, political, and
legislative systems. We have a bloody matched set, damnit.

--
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up
to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine