Can a Method of Marketing be patentable? Without revealing my idea, it’s sort of like a recipe.

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
780
So, take the secret out of the recipe because once I launch it, anyone could do it. I may only be able to secure a Brand recognition of my company then just run as fast on the idea as I can to make enough money to stay ahead of competition.

If that’s the approach I will need a lot of money to begin with and a few lawyers on tab most likely, having a patent does help in this without one it’s like flash paper, how fast can you sell to stay ahead of others who will copy your Brand.

@ericgibbs gave me a website that allows a person to secure an Idea with the potential for a world wide patentable product.
 
Last edited:

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
9,378
Certainly, a new method to synthesize an organic compound is patentable. Of course, there is a tangible product too. (The product itself was not patentable in the past. Maybe that has changed.) Methods to solve computational problems may also be patented. However, such laws depends on very fine points. See this: https://jenner.com/system/assets/publications/13136/original/U.S._Supreme_Court_Narrows_Patentability_of_Software_Algorithms_-_ATTORNEY_ADVERTISING.pdf?1403272105

The answer to your question is that patents are a very specialized part of law. Get the advice from a good patent attorney.
 

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
780
Certainly, a new method to synthesize an organic compound is patentable. Of course, there is a tangible product too. (The product itself was not patentable in the past. Maybe that has changed.) Methods to solve computational problems may also be patented. However, such laws depends on very fine points. See this: https://jenner.com/system/assets/publications/13136/original/U.S._Supreme_Court_Narrows_Patentability_of_Software_Algorithms_-_ATTORNEY_ADVERTISING.pdf?1403272105

The answer to your question is that patents are a very specialized part of law. Get the advice from a good patent attorney.
So, in essence if I have a device attached to the methodology, it might be reasonable to assume that a patent attorney could make it a patentable process. Am I understanding you correctly?

Kv
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
9,378
Yes and no. Our patent law has evolved. Many years ago, it was difficult/impossible to patent an algorithm or software unless it did something like synthesize aspirin. I experienced that first hand. Today, that is not the case. The only person who can advise you knowledgeably about patentability is a patent attorney. The device itself might be patented separately.

I searched on patentability of software and algorithms. Yes, they are patentable today. But, as in the Supreme Court case I linked to, there are or will be limitations. Many of the citations are in the last few years. My take on that is the situation is evolving. Old adages such as you cannot patent a "composition of nature" (like a chemical structure) no longer hold. Even gene sequences, which to me are the epitome of a composition of nature, are being patented.

Of course, everyone will also tell you that a patent is only worthwhile if you can afford to defend it or have a buyer who can do that.
 

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
780
Yes and no. Our patent law has evolved. Many years ago, it was difficult/impossible to patent an algorithm or software unless it did something like synthesize aspirin. I experienced that first hand. Today, that is not the case. The only person who can advise you knowledgeably about patentability is a patent attorney. The device itself might be patented separately.

I searched on patentability of software and algorithms. Yes, they are patentable today. But, as in the Supreme Court case I linked to, there are or will be limitations. Many of the citations are in the last few years. My take on that is the situation is evolving. Old adages such as you cannot patent a "composition of nature" (like a chemical structure) no longer hold. Even gene sequences, which to me are the epitome of a composition of nature, are being patented.

Of course, everyone will also tell you that a patent is only worthwhile if you can afford to defend it or have a buyer who can do that.
I watch “Sharks” and the one thing they say is do you have a patent. It’s when Kevin O’Leary say’s I have patent attorneys who can take care of that for you. I guess it depends on how much muscle you have behind the idea or devices you invent.

I have the ability to Brand my Company as well as products I create to illicit consumer interest, Indirect Marketing, combined with Direct Marketing through processes, but avoiding others coping my ideas I cannot stop.

Data Storage and Syncing will be handled elsewhere. I plan to beta test this summer, but will secure my structure of ideas in a flow chart and post it on @ericgibbs Declaration Website he suggested it doesn’t patent but secures your ideas like intellectual property, the cost is minimal compared to patent attorney by which even mentioning something to someone I don’t know is or isn’t ethical. At least it would be favorable to have some intellectual property disclosure, better than nothing I guess.

kv
 
Last edited:

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
9,378
If you want some heavy ready, here are three subjects involving laboratory testing that illustrate how the law and its interpretation is evolving. The crux of the disputes was not methodology for measuring an analyte, which is patentable, but the correlations derived from the results using other analytical methods. As one writer said (not in these links) , they want to patent a physician's thoughts.

1) Homocysteine for predicting cardiovascular disease (patent effectively confirmed):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabCorp_v._Metabolite,_Inc. (homocysteine as predictor for cardiovascular disease)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18315767 (another viewpoint on the above)

2) Assay method for monitoring thiopurine drugs and their metabolites in treatment of certain autoimmune diseases (infringement claims over turned):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc. (method can be patented but the patent doesn't cover alternative methods and use of results)

3) "Triple screen test" for birth defects (SCOTUS refused to review, patent enforcement overturned):
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2005111626A2/en (patent)
https://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/triple-screen-test/ (use)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sequenom-roche/supreme-court-refuses-to-review-prenatal-test-patent-dispute-idUSKCN0ZD1RT (patent cancelled)

Use of results and correlations are leading 2:1 at SCOTUS. The homocysteine ruling shocked a lot of us.
 

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
780
If you want some heavy ready, here are three subjects involving laboratory testing that illustrate how the law and its interpretation is evolving. The crux of the disputes was not methodology for measuring an analyte, which is patentable, but the correlations derived from the results using other analytical methods. As one writer said (not in these links) , they want to patent a physician's thoughts.

1) Homocysteine for predicting cardiovascular disease (patent effectively confirmed):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabCorp_v._Metabolite,_Inc. (homocysteine as predictor for cardiovascular disease)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18315767 (another viewpoint on the above)

2) Assay method for monitoring thiopurine drugs and their metabolites in treatment of certain autoimmune diseases (infringement claims over turned):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc. (method can be patented but the patent doesn't cover alternative methods and use of results)

3) "Triple screen test" for birth defects (SCOTUS refused to review, patent enforcement overturned):
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2005111626A2/en (patent)
https://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/triple-screen-test/ (use)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sequenom-roche/supreme-court-refuses-to-review-prenatal-test-patent-dispute-idUSKCN0ZD1RT (patent cancelled)

Use of results and correlations are leading 2:1 at SCOTUS. The homocysteine ruling shocked a lot of us.
I think maybe a Copy Right on my process methods etc and Patents on my devices separating them might work as well. Not sure if that would be a good way to secure the process like a recipe.

kv
 
Last edited:

DickCappels

Joined Aug 21, 2008
6,380
You can copyright the documentation that describes a method but anybody can use that method. Much like a cookbook that can be copyright protected anybody can use it to make cakes that they can sell. Copyrights don't protect methods. Patents do that.

I think the majority of U.S. Utility Patents include the word "method" in the title such as "Apparatus and method for reducing the magnitude of...", the reasoning being that if you can't get an infringer on the physical invention you can go after the method.

Patents are useful for impressing customers, protecting rights if you can afford to do so, and making money by doing patent searches, writing patent applications, and suing infringment. Often the best protection against theft of an invention is to keep it a secret.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
13,711
You can copyright the documentation that describes a method but anybody can use that method. Much like a cookbook that can be copyright protected anybody can use it to make cakes that they can sell. Copyrights don't protect methods. Patents do that.

I think the majority of U.S. Utility Patents include the word "method" in the title such as "Apparatus and method for reducing the magnitude of...", the reasoning being that if you can't get an infringer on the physical invention you can go after the method.

Patents are useful for impressing customers, protecting rights if you can afford to do so, and making money by doing patent searches, writing patent applications, and suing infringment. Often the best protection against theft of an invention is to keep it a secret.
Even better is to get the idea into the market first, and then be prepared to move on to the next new-new thing about a microsecond after the copycats show up. The reason is that you will bankrupt yourself trying to enforce the patent while the infringer with deep pockets will tie you up in court for decades. Read Don Lancaster's piece on "The Case Against Patents". Then get back to us with your thoughts.

https://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf

You'd be better off selling hard drugs on the steps of a police station. The one in Salt Lake City comes to mind.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
780
You can copyright the documentation that describes a method but anybody can use that method. Much like a cookbook that can be copyright protected anybody can use it to make cakes that they can sell. Copyrights don't protect methods. Patents do that.

I think the majority of U.S. Utility Patents include the word "method" in the title such as "Apparatus and method for reducing the magnitude of...", the reasoning being that if you can't get an infringer on the physical invention you can go after the method.

Patents are useful for impressing customers, protecting rights if you can afford to do so, and making money by doing patent searches, writing patent applications, and suing infringment. Often the best protection against theft of an invention is to keep it a secret.
I begin thinking realistically as we begin to talk I realize things with my cumulative method and devices, are not most likely something I could easily enforce in court so both you and @Papabravo gave gave me clarity. Now I think run like a drunk Monkey if it does seem to prove value and hope no one will pickup on it till I can cash out.
Even better is to get the idea into the market first, and then be prepared to move on to the next new-new thing about a microsecond after the copycats show up. The reason is that you will bankrupt yourself trying to enforce the patent while the infringer with deep pockets will tie you up in court for decades. Read Don Lancaster's piece on "The Case Against Patents". Then get back to us with your thoughts.

https://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf

You'd be better off selling hard drugs on the steps of a police station. The one in Salt Lake City comes to mind.
Yup, thumbs up.

Kv
 

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
780
You can copyright the documentation that describes a method but anybody can use that method. Much like a cookbook that can be copyright protected anybody can use it to make cakes that they can sell. Copyrights don't protect methods. Patents do that.

I think the majority of U.S. Utility Patents include the word "method" in the title such as "Apparatus and method for reducing the magnitude of...", the reasoning being that if you can't get an infringer on the physical invention you can go after the method.

Patents are useful for impressing customers, protecting rights if you can afford to do so, and making money by doing patent searches, writing patent applications, and suing infringment. Often the best protection against theft of an invention is to keep it a secret.
The reason I feel as I do I researched similar patents, I made a Water Leak Detector / Lint Detector device, I researched the idea and came back with GE hold patents on a frost detector and the combination of the Lint/water detector didn’t have enough separation to keep me out of court with GE, but I needed to make sure it had no value so I made 50 devices to beta test the market. At the end of it $500 spent. But thousands of dollars was learned at the end. It went down in flames. Although, home security companies later adopted a water detector 40 years later.

kv
 

djsfantasi

Joined Apr 11, 2010
6,414
What’s the cost for patenting a process or method? I started to register the process name as a trademark but ran into exorbitant fees. Should I have pursued a patent instead? I went the trademark route to establish IP and believing the fees were realistic?
 

Thread Starter

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
780
What’s the cost for patenting a process or method? I started to register the process name as a trademark but ran into exorbitant fees. Should I have pursued a patent instead? I went the trademark route to establish IP and believing the fees were realistic?
I think my thoughts have ran their course, anyone who can answer this is welcome to lean in, I’m ok with it.

I do know like any attorney, the process of their cost are directly influenced by how much time they spend on the research to show for your interest a patent or possible litigation to protect it. That is open ended time spent, they will tell you one thing then give you another, much of it is to cover their own interests first and yours second in the end they don’t lose unless you do, then their credibility has been compromised. After that they just want some money to pursue what they think is possible. Much of that is on the attorney who we should trust have our best interest, they at times could be questionable unless they show success in litigation from past cases and you have enough money to retain them.

kv
 
Top