Tom Gardner wrote:

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
Case against patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Lots more of this, as Lancaster is prolific, to say the least.

Whaddaya think? Certainly an original inneresting take, that I can find
nowhere else on the web.
Most of the search retrievals involved the ethics, constitutionality,
economic-growth-type implications, but not pure CYA effectivenss of the
patenting process.

Here or elsewhere, he does peg a kind of "break-even point" for a patent,
as $12 mil is sales -- if you expect to sell $12 mil worth of your
product, then mebbe patent it. This was in 1993, tho.
--
EA



Every one of my nine patents has been stolen and produced in China. My
lawyer asked me how much money do I want to throw away.

Consider yourself lucky, someone could push through a nebulous patent
and then once they receive it turn around and sue you claiming that your
long established products infringe their (bogus) patent. I've seen it
personally and the offenders made tens of millions.

"Pete C." wrote in message
. com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
Case against patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Lots more of this, as Lancaster is prolific, to say the least.

Whaddaya think? Certainly an original inneresting take, that I can
find
nowhere else on the web.
Most of the search retrievals involved the ethics, constitutionality,
economic-growth-type implications, but not pure CYA effectivenss of the
patenting process.

Here or elsewhere, he does peg a kind of "break-even point" for a
patent,
as $12 mil is sales -- if you expect to sell $12 mil worth of your
product, then mebbe patent it. This was in 1993, tho.
--
EA



Every one of my nine patents has been stolen and produced in China. My
lawyer asked me how much money do I want to throw away.

Consider yourself lucky, someone could push through a nebulous patent
and then once they receive it turn around and sue you claiming that your
long established products infringe their (bogus) patent. I've seen it
personally and the offenders made tens of millions.

How can they do this if your patent (the person being sued) was filed first?
--
EA

Existential Angst wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
. com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
Case against patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Lots more of this, as Lancaster is prolific, to say the least.

Whaddaya think? Certainly an original inneresting take, that I can
find
nowhere else on the web.
Most of the search retrievals involved the ethics, constitutionality,
economic-growth-type implications, but not pure CYA effectivenss of the
patenting process.

Here or elsewhere, he does peg a kind of "break-even point" for a
patent,
as $12 mil is sales -- if you expect to sell $12 mil worth of your
product, then mebbe patent it. This was in 1993, tho.
--
EA



Every one of my nine patents has been stolen and produced in China. My
lawyer asked me how much money do I want to throw away.

Consider yourself lucky, someone could push through a nebulous patent
and then once they receive it turn around and sue you claiming that your
long established products infringe their (bogus) patent. I've seen it
personally and the offenders made tens of millions.

How can they do this if your patent (the person being sued) was filed first?
--
EA

It's not a question of your patent vs. their patent. They will just find
some part of one of your popular products to claim infringes their bogus
patent. This would apply more to complex products where they can confuse
the uneducated jurors as to the particular component / feature of the
product. They will go after some big company and play the little guy who
had his patented idea stolen by the big bad company angle to the
clueless jury. All emotion, no substance and facilitated by the now
corrupted patent office granting patents on most any claim without any
review by technical experts, just by career bureaucrats.

In article ,
"Existential Angst" wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
. com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
Case against patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Lots more of this, as Lancaster is prolific, to say the least.

Whaddaya think? Certainly an original inneresting take, that I can
find
nowhere else on the web.
Most of the search retrievals involved the ethics, constitutionality,
economic-growth-type implications, but not pure CYA effectivenss of the
patenting process.

Here or elsewhere, he does peg a kind of "break-even point" for a
patent,
as $12 mil is sales -- if you expect to sell $12 mil worth of your
product, then mebbe patent it. This was in 1993, tho.
--
EA



Every one of my nine patents has been stolen and produced in China. My
lawyer asked me how much money do I want to throw away.

Consider yourself lucky, someone could push through a nebulous patent
and then once they receive it turn around and sue you claiming that your
long established products infringe their (bogus) patent. I've seen it
personally and the offenders made tens of millions.

How can they do this if your patent (the person being sued) was filed first?

Because the rule until this year was "first to invent" not "first to
file".

Only the US used first to invent. Congress recently changed the US
patent system to first to file. What comes along with that change is
that patent applications are no longer secret. There is a period of
time after publication when the public (people and companies alike) are
asked to file comments pointing to existing art that would preclude
issuance of a patent.

This was done to align us with the rest of the world, to shut down all
those patent-pending games, prevent submarine patents, and to get the
patent office out of having to judge claimed inventions on the edge of
current technology, where the patent office's expertise is thin or zero.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Existential Angst" wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
. com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
Case against patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Lots more of this, as Lancaster is prolific, to say the least.

Whaddaya think? Certainly an original inneresting take, that I can
find
nowhere else on the web.
Most of the search retrievals involved the ethics, constitutionality,
economic-growth-type implications, but not pure CYA effectivenss of the
patenting process.

Here or elsewhere, he does peg a kind of "break-even point" for a
patent,
as $12 mil is sales -- if you expect to sell $12 mil worth of your
product, then mebbe patent it. This was in 1993, tho.
--
EA



Every one of my nine patents has been stolen and produced in China. My
lawyer asked me how much money do I want to throw away.

Consider yourself lucky, someone could push through a nebulous patent
and then once they receive it turn around and sue you claiming that your
long established products infringe their (bogus) patent. I've seen it
personally and the offenders made tens of millions.

How can they do this if your patent (the person being sued) was filed first?

Because the rule until this year was "first to invent" not "first to
file".

Only the US used first to invent. Congress recently changed the US
patent system to first to file. What comes along with that change is
that patent applications are no longer secret. There is a period of
time after publication when the public (people and companies alike) are
asked to file comments pointing to existing art that would preclude
issuance of a patent.

This was done to align us with the rest of the world, to shut down all
those patent-pending games, prevent submarine patents, and to get the
patent office out of having to judge claimed inventions on the edge of
current technology, where the patent office's expertise is thin or zero.

Joe Gwinn

It is still first to invent, you can't patent something that is already
in existence and use somewhere else, or has even just been published.
You also can't (aren't supposed to be able to) patent something that
would be obvious to someone in the relevant field and this is one of the
areas that is the greatest problem with the current corrupted patent
office where the skilled examiners have been replaced with bureaucrats.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:16:25 -0600, the renowned "Pete C."
wrote:


It is still first to invent, you can't patent something that is already
in existence and use somewhere else, or has even just been published.
You also can't (aren't supposed to be able to) patent something that
would be obvious to someone in the relevant field and this is one of the
areas that is the greatest problem with the current corrupted patent
office where the skilled examiners have been replaced with bureaucrats.

Skilled or not, I've been told they have only ten minutes to examine a
patent at each go. Even in a field I'm expert it, it would take a LOT
longer to determine if the idea is novel. Any truth to that?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 2/25/2012 6:20 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:16:25 -0600, the renowned "Pete C."
wrote:


It is still first to invent, you can't patent something that is already
in existence and use somewhere else, or has even just been published.
You also can't (aren't supposed to be able to) patent something that
would be obvious to someone in the relevant field and this is one of the
areas that is the greatest problem with the current corrupted patent
office where the skilled examiners have been replaced with bureaucrats.

Skilled or not, I've been told they have only ten minutes to examine a
patent at each go. Even in a field I'm expert it, it would take a LOT
longer to determine if the idea is novel. Any truth to that?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

based on my experience with patents, I'd say the examiner spends more
than 10 minutes per pass - I've had some come back with pretty detailed
rationale but in only one case did I need to modify claims

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Existential Angst" wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
. com...

Tom Gardner wrote:

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
Case against patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf
Lots more of this, as Lancaster is prolific, to say the least.

Whaddaya think? Certainly an original inneresting take, that I can
find
nowhere else on the web.
Most of the search retrievals involved the ethics,
constitutionality,
economic-growth-type implications, but not pure CYA effectivenss of
the
patenting process.

Here or elsewhere, he does peg a kind of "break-even point" for a
patent,
as $12 mil is sales -- if you expect to sell $12 mil worth of your
product, then mebbe patent it. This was in 1993, tho.
--
EA



Every one of my nine patents has been stolen and produced in China.
My
lawyer asked me how much money do I want to throw away.

Consider yourself lucky, someone could push through a nebulous patent
and then once they receive it turn around and sue you claiming that
your
long established products infringe their (bogus) patent. I've seen it
personally and the offenders made tens of millions.

How can they do this if your patent (the person being sued) was filed
first?

Because the rule until this year was "first to invent" not "first to
file".

Only the US used first to invent. Congress recently changed the US
patent system to first to file. What comes along with that change is
that patent applications are no longer secret. There is a period of
time after publication when the public (people and companies alike) are
asked to file comments pointing to existing art that would preclude
issuance of a patent.

This was done to align us with the rest of the world, to shut down all
those patent-pending games, prevent submarine patents, and to get the
patent office out of having to judge claimed inventions on the edge of
current technology, where the patent office's expertise is thin or zero.

Joe Gwinn

It is still first to invent, you can't patent something that is already
in existence and use somewhere else, or has even just been published.
You also can't (aren't supposed to be able to) patent something that
would be obvious to someone in the relevant field and this is one of the
areas that is the greatest problem with the current corrupted patent
office where the skilled examiners have been replaced with bureaucrats.

Umm. You may be right, but it does not matter. The law has changed.
Who gets the patent now depends *only* on the date of filing, not when
inspiration hit.

Joe Gwinn