Apropos of nothing, this is from Nuts & Volts 1993.

Essentially, getting a patent is pointless unless you are a large company. It costs too much to do the full research so it can't be contested, and overall, result in a net financial loss.

The Case Against Patents

Intro is Here. The link above is the full PDF of several documents

 

Dave Jones explains how to bring your product to market and why to avoid patents on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BL1O0xCcY

 

A major consideration today is whether you have the muscle (both the financial resources and the management will) to defend your patents, both in the issuing country and around the world. Few individuals do. The litigation costs can kill you, even if you're in the right.

 

Dave Jones explains how to bring your product to market and why to avoid patents on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BL1O0xCcY

Is Dave's underwear too tight?

 

Is Dave's underwear too tight?

Why don't you ask him yourself?

 

Why don't you ask him yourself?

Tom66,

Although I quoted your post, I didn't intend for my silly question to be directed to you. I thought Dave's delivery was rather intense and was attempting humor. Sorry if you were put off; no offense was intended to you, Dave, or anyone.

 

A major consideration today is whether you have the muscle (both the financial resources and the management will) to defend your patents, both in the issuing country and around the world. Few individuals do. The litigation costs can kill you, even if you're in the right.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The patent only gives you a right to sue. The article states that due to cost of law firms, in order to make a profit off a patent, one would need to sell $12 million worth of the product the patent is for in order to break even, at which point, the patent doesn't mean anything anyway, since you are already a millionaire.

The "obvious to an expert in the field" is especially applicable to any electronic circuit patents. Easily shot down.

There are still open patent conflicts between Unix and MacOS, as well as Microsoft and Apple over OS user interfaces. If THEY are unable to make anything out of a patent other than losses, the chances an average person would be able to is close to zero.

Not to mention that an idea doesn't even need to exist or function as stated to be granted. Too many people assume that since something is patented, it is "good".

 

Not to mention that an idea doesn't even need to exist or function as stated to be granted. Too many people assume that since something is patented, it is "good".

Stanley Meyers comes to mind ... as does Keely Motor Company.

 

There's a lot of interest in and controversy about the patenting of defective human genes. Patenting the outcome of either natural selection or creation (whichever suits an individuals' perspective)...? Makes ones' blood boil, perhaps.

 

The 24/7 ads of gimicks make millions,once you get
the attention of hedge funds. All the Items have all
kinds of claims,but they make millions of dollars.
Again It takes big backers that have to supply the ad
money.
The patent office and there rules and there researchers
opinions get In the way of the process. They some 90
day rules that works In the attorneys favor. If you have
had a first hand experience that has cost you money,
you will learn how to built a better mouse trap. Is there
a need for the product,will It sell,can you find a backer
to promote your product. Big business,the universities
and the government are patent machines.The congress
has changed laws to help wiggle a patent to fit lobbist
change a few words to make It fit.

 

If anyone is interested in the U.S. Patents, it's found http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/ as Title 35 U.S. Code

 

@ joe, R.C.A. t.v. had A.M. sound until congress got Involved
so that T.V.could have F.M. sound.In hind site you could say that
was good for the public at large,bad for F.M. Inventor,he took his
life.

 

Major EH Armstroing ...

His wife, however, got some cash from RCA after winning the patent battle over FM.

I wouldn't doubt Congress had their fingers in the mix. TV Channel 1 must have been one frequency no one wanted. I'm trying to remember if I ever saw an analog TV with Channel 1.

Back to the topic ... EH's patent fight certainly does fit the topic.

I found it interesting that EHA was able to describe how the audion valve worked, something De Forrest couldn't.

Thanks for bringing someone more revelent than Meyers and Keely into the discussion.

 

Patents once served to protect the inventor but nowadays it's the money that wins.

 

Patents once served to protect the inventor but nowadays it's the money that wins.

True...but isn't that the case with most things? Power wins and money means power.

 

T.V.A. - T.V.A. Power.

 

Patents once served to protect the inventor but nowadays it's the money that wins.

That concept pretty much ended when Edison hired a lot of lawyers to "get around" Tesla's patents.

Edison didn't create nearly as much as he stole. Tesla created a great deal. Tesla is the one that died penniless.

 

Patents don't protect the little guy. You need the wherewithall to fight and the resources (or a lawyer willing to win in order to get paid) to proceed with the fight.

Edison is a good example of superior resources when fighting Telsa.

Armstrong was uncompromising and faced a very long battle to the death. His widow worked the deal with RCA.

Only history is forgiving. Armstrong received the credit in the end.

I'm sure patent number US0000001, attached here, may have been copied. When I was looking at Armstrong's patents, I had to look at patent 1 ... just to see what it was about.

 

Major EH Armstroing ...

I wouldn't doubt Congress had their fingers in the mix. TV Channel 1 must have been one frequency no one wanted. I'm trying to remember if I ever saw an analog TV with Channel 1.

From: What happened to Channel 1

Our Channel 1 was still around, but it was moved back to the 44-50 MHz band that it had occupied from 1938 to 1940. In addition, there was a restriction on assigning Channel 1: It could only be used as a community channel, and power limited to 1,000 watts. Other television channels were for metropolitan stations, with a maximum power of 50,000 watts permitted. All channels, except Channel 6, were shared with fixed and mobile services -- a fact that left the television interest concerned about interference. The changes became effective March 1, 1946.

Channel 1 effectively died in 1946. Thanks, FCC