Suppose a product was using a technology before a patent ?

Skybuck Flying · Aug 8, 2005

"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...

"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42F74B67.9060105@nospam.com...

Winfield Hill wrote:

This would mean they didn't make a public disclosure of the
invention
(unless of course the invention was apparent to anyone studying the
product, but you specified that it was kept a trade secret). So
they
couldn't seek to invalidate the patent based on their secret info.

Trade secrets are only protected against wrongful appropriation. 35
U.S.C. 102(g) allows for patentability of an invention derived by
independent discovery or reasonable reverse engineering of a
pre-existing invention that has been "concealed" by another inventor.

In (a) the law says otherwise but then in your part (g) that could be an
exception.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

At page 102 (top left corner)

"
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to
patent.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or
patented
or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country,
before
the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
"

These are only conditions...

So a lawyer could say:

"The patent should not have been granted in the first place".

But your text is from this section:

"
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135
or
section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the
extent
permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof
the
invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed,
or
concealed, or

Ok I think (1) only applies to an interference... meaning somebody else
has
also filed for patent and it's still pending etc or conflicting with an
unexpired patent etc...

So this doesn't apply to a trade secret I guess

(2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was
made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned,
suppressed,
or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this
subsection,
there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception
and
reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable
diligence
of

I think it depends on how (g)(2) is interpreted.

"another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it."

This line can be interpreted in two ways:

1. "another inventor who had not abandoned or suppressed or concealed it."

2. "another inventor who had not abandoned, not suppressed or not concealed
it."

Normally people mean the second.

But a smart lawyer would simply claim that the first one is ment.

That means suppressing and conceiling an invention is allowed.

And let's be reasonable.

The United States Of America probably allows concealing of an invention. It
is not required to patent an invention.

So it's reasonable to assume that the first one is ment

Otherwise it would violate with trademarks anyway so that's not logical.

The sole purpose of a trade secret is to conceil an invention...

Bye,
Skybuck.

Winfield Hill · Aug 8, 2005

Skybuck Flying wrote...

It does say the following line:
"In determining priority of invention under this subsection"

Isn't that all obsolete now, didn't we recently follow the rest
of the world and change from first to invent, to first to file?

--
Thanks,
- Win

Jim Thompson · Aug 8, 2005

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:11:07 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
<nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

The sole purpose of a trade secret is to conceil an invention...

Bye,
Skybuck.

And also, perhaps, to _conceal_ it ;-)

The critical point is SALE.

If a product was _sold_ containing an embodiment of the invention
before patent filing (actually before recorded/witnessed notebook
entry), then the patent is invalid.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Keith Williams · Aug 8, 2005

In article <dd7n99$b6o$1@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, nospam@hotmail.com
says...

"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6126bb46cbfbc5989b5e@news.individual.net...
In article <dd7it4$bt4$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, nospam@hotmail.com
says...

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dd7f4a0ipe@drn.newsguy.com...
Joerg wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use
technology
Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

Typically, if the manufacturer has proof that it was produced before
then there is evidence of prior art. No chance for the inventor
since he
invented something that already existed. Usually it's the same if
the
disputed technology had merely been published before filing.

But, if as Skybuck stipulated, the invention was secretly contained
within
the product, not advertised or discussed by the manufacturer in
brochures,
manuals, etc., and not apparent to a product user, or to one studying
the
product, it's hard to see how it could be declared a
publicly-disclosed
prior art, and used to overturn the new patent. This is one of the
reasons
for open disclosure of inventions, or alternately for defensive
patenting.

http://www.iabusnet.org/templates/main/articlesdisplay.cfm?ID=325

Let's see that text has a section about this:

"
Bars preventing U.S. patenting of patentable inventions:

2. Pre-invention conduct. before the applicant's invention, another:

a. has public use or knowledge of the invention in the U.S.;
"

I think the "bars" means here "rules"

Bar == obstruction

From Webster on-line:

2 : something that obstructs or prevents passage, progress, or action:

Yes so in this context something=rules or law

No, a "bar" *is* the obstruction. "You're barred from obtaining a
patent if..."

as a : the destruction of an action or claim in law; also : a plea or
objection that effects such destruction b : an intangible or
nonphysical impediment c : a submerged or partly submerged bank (as of
sand) along a shore or in a river often obstructing navigation

--
Keith

Keith Williams · Aug 8, 2005

In article <h9ref1p8lam3i2gtuhv5q19p8m7odfso9t@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:11:07 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

The sole purpose of a trade secret is to conceil an invention...

Bye,
Skybuck.

And also, perhaps, to _conceal_ it ;-)

The critical point is SALE.

If a product was _sold_ containing an embodiment of the invention
before patent filing (actually before recorded/witnessed notebook
entry), then the patent is invalid.

That's not really true. In the US (not the rest of the world), there
is a one-year timer that starts when "commercial gain[*]" is made from
the invention. Once that timer expires you are barred from a patent.

[*] Commercial gain may be only a promise of sale, without even
disclosing the invention.

--
Keith

Aug 8, 2005

This discussion is getting a bit muddled because several different, but
related, issues are being discussed.

Skybuck originally set up a scenario in which
- a manufacturer was secretly producing some
product which used technology Z before a
patent describing technology Z was filed;
and then
- the inventor sues manufacturer for patent
infringement.
(a) The manufacturer's defense is that he was
producing / selling the products well before
patent application; or
(b) The manufacturer argues the patent is invalid
because long before the patent application was
filed he was selling products secretly using
this technology.

Starbuck asked would win this lawsuit the inventor/patent holder or the
manufacturer? The trivial answer is - there's no way to know until
the judge or jury rules.

In order to give a more considered answer more facts are needed.
- In the scenario the "manufacturer was producing some
product which used technology Z". Is Z a process or
a material? If Z is a process, is it a method of
doing business?
- The patent describes technology Z. Does it claim
technology Z?
- Do all the acts in this scenario take place within the
United States?

First, if the patent only describes but does not claim "Z", then there
is no infringement.

Now, addressing question (b): If the technology is a process secretly
conducted by the manufacturer and maintained as a trade secret, then
the use of the technology generally does not constitute prior art. See
35 USC 102, the list of prior art includes (i) known or used by others,
(ii) patented, (iii) published, (iv) on sale, and (v) patent
application filed. Clearly ii, iii, and v do not apply in this
scenario. Regarding (i), the courts have ruled that a properly
maintained trade secret is not considered "known or used by
others." (iv) is a bit more tricky, but again so long as the public
has no access to the technology, it should not be considered prior art.
So manufacturer's defense (b) should not prevail. Of course if the
"technology" escapes the four walls of the manufacturer the
situation is entirely different.

Now, regarding question (a): generally, in the United States, prior
use is not a defense to infringement. There is an exception however.
35 US 273 specifically provides an exemption for a method of doing
business:

It shall be a defense to an action for infringement with
respect to any ... [business] method in the patent being
asserted against a person, if such person had ... reduced
the subject mater to practice at least 1 year before the
... filing date of the patent... and commercially used
the subject mater before the filing date of the patent.

So, if the "technology" is a business method, the prior use defense
might work. I am not aware of case law defining "business method."
The exception has only been in the law for about 5 years.

None of the foregoing should be construed as legal advice; it just a
general discussion of patent law.

Richard Tanzer
patent agent

Jim Thompson · Aug 8, 2005

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:50:58 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:

In article <h9ref1p8lam3i2gtuhv5q19p8m7odfso9t@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:11:07 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

The sole purpose of a trade secret is to conceil an invention...

Bye,
Skybuck.

And also, perhaps, to _conceal_ it ;-)

The critical point is SALE.

If a product was _sold_ containing an embodiment of the invention
before patent filing (actually before recorded/witnessed notebook
entry), then the patent is invalid.

That's not really true. In the US (not the rest of the world), there
is a one-year timer that starts when "commercial gain[*]" is made from
the invention. Once that timer expires you are barred from a patent.

[*] Commercial gain may be only a promise of sale, without even
disclosing the invention.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Skybuck Flying · Aug 8, 2005

<mr_reznat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123513214.402021.234470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

This discussion is getting a bit muddled because several different, but
related, issues are being discussed.

Skybuck originally set up a scenario in which
- a manufacturer was secretly producing some
product which used technology Z before a
patent describing technology Z was filed;
and then
- the inventor sues manufacturer for patent
infringement.
(a) The manufacturer's defense is that he was
producing / selling the products well before
patent application; or
(b) The manufacturer argues the patent is invalid
because long before the patent application was
filed he was selling products secretly using
this technology.

Starbuck asked would win this lawsuit the inventor/patent holder or the
manufacturer? The trivial answer is - there's no way to know until
the judge or jury rules.

In order to give a more considered answer more facts are needed.
- In the scenario the "manufacturer was producing some
product which used technology Z". Is Z a process or
a material? If Z is a process, is it a method of
doing business?
- The patent describes technology Z. Does it claim
technology Z?
- Do all the acts in this scenario take place within the
United States?

First, if the patent only describes but does not claim "Z", then there
is no infringement.

Now, addressing question (b): If the technology is a process secretly
conducted by the manufacturer and maintained as a trade secret, then
the use of the technology generally does not constitute prior art. See
35 USC 102, the list of prior art includes (i) known or used by others,
(ii) patented, (iii) published, (iv) on sale, and (v) patent
application filed. Clearly ii, iii, and v do not apply in this
scenario. Regarding (i), the courts have ruled that a properly
maintained trade secret is not considered "known or used by
others."

It doesn't say "trade secret" it clearly says invention !!!

It doesn't say:
"
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the trade secret was known or used by others in this country,
"

It says:
"
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country,
"

The invention which is claimed by a person CAN be known by others, namely
the trade secret holders !

It's the person who could not have known a probably kept trade secret !

However he is not the true inventor. The true inventor remains the trade
secret holder !

Not only that but the trade secret holder can even prove it thanks to his
products, process or whatever it is that uses it.

Suppose the formula of coca cola is reinvented by someone.

According to this court's decision that re-inventor can patent it and simply
take over the bussiness from cola coca... or simply ruin the company by
demanding that cola-cola no longer be produced etc.... ?

(iv) is a bit more tricky, but again so long as the public
has no access to the technology, it should not be considered prior art.

Define access

I have internet access without access to the actual internet infrastructure.

I as many before me have had access to coca-cola soft drinks without knowing
the coca-cola formula.

I do not have access to stealth bombers does that mean the technology can be
patented and the american army sued ?

So manufacturer's defense (b) should not prevail. Of course if the
"technology" escapes the four walls of the manufacturer the
situation is entirely different.

Now, regarding question (a): generally, in the United States, prior
use is not a defense to infringement. There is an exception however.
35 US 273 specifically provides an exemption for a method of doing
business:

It shall be a defense to an action for infringement with
respect to any ... [business] method in the patent being
asserted against a person, if such person had ... reduced
the subject mater to practice at least 1 year before the
... filing date of the patent... and commercially used
the subject mater before the filing date of the patent.

So, if the "technology" is a business method, the prior use defense
might work. I am not aware of case law defining "business method."
The exception has only been in the law for about 5 years.

None of the foregoing should be construed as legal advice; it just a
general discussion of patent law.

Ok,

Bye,
Skybuck

Del Cecchi · Aug 8, 2005

mr_reznat@yahoo.com wrote:

This discussion is getting a bit muddled because several different, but
related, issues are being discussed.

Skybuck originally set up a scenario in which
- a manufacturer was secretly producing some
product which used technology Z before a
patent describing technology Z was filed;
and then
- the inventor sues manufacturer for patent
infringement.
(a) The manufacturer's defense is that he was
producing / selling the products well before
patent application; or
(b) The manufacturer argues the patent is invalid
because long before the patent application was
filed he was selling products secretly using
this technology.

Starbuck asked would win this lawsuit the inventor/patent holder or the
manufacturer? The trivial answer is - there's no way to know until
the judge or jury rules.

In order to give a more considered answer more facts are needed.
- In the scenario the "manufacturer was producing some
product which used technology Z". Is Z a process or
a material? If Z is a process, is it a method of
doing business?
- The patent describes technology Z. Does it claim
technology Z?
- Do all the acts in this scenario take place within the
United States?

First, if the patent only describes but does not claim "Z", then there
is no infringement.

Now, addressing question (b): If the technology is a process secretly
conducted by the manufacturer and maintained as a trade secret, then
the use of the technology generally does not constitute prior art. See
35 USC 102, the list of prior art includes (i) known or used by others,
(ii) patented, (iii) published, (iv) on sale, and (v) patent
application filed. Clearly ii, iii, and v do not apply in this
scenario. Regarding (i), the courts have ruled that a properly
maintained trade secret is not considered "known or used by
others." (iv) is a bit more tricky, but again so long as the public
has no access to the technology, it should not be considered prior art.
So manufacturer's defense (b) should not prevail. Of course if the
"technology" escapes the four walls of the manufacturer the
situation is entirely different.

Now, regarding question (a): generally, in the United States, prior
use is not a defense to infringement. There is an exception however.
35 US 273 specifically provides an exemption for a method of doing
business:

It shall be a defense to an action for infringement with
respect to any ... [business] method in the patent being
asserted against a person, if such person had ... reduced
the subject mater to practice at least 1 year before the
... filing date of the patent... and commercially used
the subject mater before the filing date of the patent.

So, if the "technology" is a business method, the prior use defense
might work. I am not aware of case law defining "business method."
The exception has only been in the law for about 5 years.

None of the foregoing should be construed as legal advice; it just a
general discussion of patent law.

Richard Tanzer
patent agent

So I could patent the formula for Coke Syrup? And then sue Coke for
infringing?

Or is there something different about product using "technology"? I
guess the ambiguity is the word "using".

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesnt necessarily represent IBMs positions,
strategies or opinions.

Del Cecchi · Aug 8, 2005

Skybuck Flying wrote:

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dd7ag506p1@drn.newsguy.com...

Skybuck Flying wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

The manufacturers defense is that he was producing/selling the products
well before patent application say 3 years.

The manufacturer claims the patent is invalid because he was selling
products using this technology long before the patent was filed. (But
kept it secret from competitors )

This would mean they didn't make a public disclosure of the invention
(unless of course the invention was apparent to anyone studying the
product, but you specified that it was kept a trade secret). So they
couldn't seek to invalidate the patent based on their secret info. I

Why not ?

It's no longer a trade secret, somebody else has re-invented it.

The manufacturer could step forward and disclose their trade secret.

The secret is in the products itself which is prove of prior art yet nobody
noticed it

By disclosing their trade secret they should be able to prove that they are
infact the original inventors.

Surely that has to count for something in court

Preferrably invalidating the patent

suppose they could use the pre-existing invention in their product to
protect their right to continue manufacturing that product, but they
might be prevented from incorporating the patented technology into
another product or even from substantially improving and rebranding the
original product. This is one reason the trade-secret approach is bad.

I remain skeptical

Bye,
Skybuck.

You ask for information then argue with the answer?

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesnt necessarily represent IBMs positions,
strategies or opinions.

Keith Williams · Aug 8, 2005

In article <vptef1hg4jtal592041t2m4ecpa4jrrg16@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:50:58 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

In article <h9ref1p8lam3i2gtuhv5q19p8m7odfso9t@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:11:07 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

The sole purpose of a trade secret is to conceil an invention...

Bye,
Skybuck.

And also, perhaps, to _conceal_ it ;-)

The critical point is SALE.

If a product was _sold_ containing an embodiment of the invention
before patent filing (actually before recorded/witnessed notebook
entry), then the patent is invalid.

That's not really true. In the US (not the rest of the world), there
is a one-year timer that starts when "commercial gain[*]" is made from
the invention. Once that timer expires you are barred from a patent.

[*] Commercial gain may be only a promise of sale, without even
disclosing the invention.

I was referring to "A" _produced_, before "B" applied for letters
patent.

Ok, that is a little different, though if "A" kept the widget as a
trade secret, "B" may still be able to get and defend the patent.

You are referring to the first producer applying for the patent.

--

Keith

Alex McDonald · Aug 8, 2005

Del Cecchi wrote:

You ask for information then argue with the answer?

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn't necessarily represent IBM's positions,
strategies or opinions."

Newsgroup search on "skybuck flying"; 5,970 hits. Most of them
scattered across just about every newsgroup; a lot of them as erudite
as this recent one entitled "How to use a battery to kill
effectively?";

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/570e11245514b15b?dmode=source&hl=en

Oh dear. It's a troll.

--
Regards
Alex McDonald

James Beck · Aug 8, 2005

In article <MPG.1d614e7d7a99abc1989b61@news.individual.net>,
krw@att.bizzzz says...

In article <vptef1hg4jtal592041t2m4ecpa4jrrg16@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:50:58 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

In article <h9ref1p8lam3i2gtuhv5q19p8m7odfso9t@4ax.com>,
thegreatone@example.com says...
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:11:07 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

The sole purpose of a trade secret is to conceil an invention...

Bye,
Skybuck.

And also, perhaps, to _conceal_ it ;-)

The critical point is SALE.

If a product was _sold_ containing an embodiment of the invention
before patent filing (actually before recorded/witnessed notebook
entry), then the patent is invalid.

That's not really true. In the US (not the rest of the world), there
is a one-year timer that starts when "commercial gain[*]" is made from
the invention. Once that timer expires you are barred from a patent.

[*] Commercial gain may be only a promise of sale, without even
disclosing the invention.

I was referring to "A" _produced_, before "B" applied for letters
patent.

Ok, that is a little different, though if "A" kept the widget as a
trade secret, "B" may still be able to get and defend the patent.

I don't see how anyone can defend a patent on an "invention" that
has already been produced. Prior art is prior art, that fact that the
original inventor choose to protect the invention by using trade secret
agreements is not even a factor. The worse thing is that the original
inventor now has his technology outed by an also ran.

Jim

Colonel Forbin · Aug 8, 2005

In article <dd75qh$j9v$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I have a simply question really.

Simplistic (but often correct) answer:

He who has the most money generally makes the rules.

Dennis M. O'Connor · Aug 8, 2005

"Del Cecchi" <cecchinospam@us.ibm.com> wrote ...

I remain skeptical

Bye,
Skybuck.

You ask for information then argue with the answer?

He's a cross-posting troll. I've kill-filed him.
--
Dennis M. O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com

Skybuck Flying · Aug 8, 2005

"Del Cecchi" <cecchinospam@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3lpeg2F13n9klU2@individual.net...

Skybuck Flying wrote:
"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dd7ag506p1@drn.newsguy.com...

Skybuck Flying wrote...

Suppose a manufacturer was producing some product which use technology
Z
before a patent describing technology Z was filed.

The inventor sues manufacturer for patent infringement.

The manufacturers defense is that he was producing/selling the products
well before patent application say 3 years.

The manufacturer claims the patent is invalid because he was selling
products using this technology long before the patent was filed. (But
kept it secret from competitors )

This would mean they didn't make a public disclosure of the invention
(unless of course the invention was apparent to anyone studying the
product, but you specified that it was kept a trade secret). So they
couldn't seek to invalidate the patent based on their secret info. I

Why not ?

It's no longer a trade secret, somebody else has re-invented it.

The manufacturer could step forward and disclose their trade secret.

The secret is in the products itself which is prove of prior art yet
nobody
noticed it

By disclosing their trade secret they should be able to prove that they
are
infact the original inventors.

Surely that has to count for something in court

Preferrably invalidating the patent

suppose they could use the pre-existing invention in their product to
protect their right to continue manufacturing that product, but they
might be prevented from incorporating the patented technology into
another product or even from substantially improving and rebranding the
original product. This is one reason the trade-secret approach is bad.

I remain skeptical

Bye,
Skybuck.

You ask for information then argue with the answer?

A possible answer... don't know if it follows the law and is legal

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesnt necessarily represent IBMs positions,
strategies or opinions.

Skybuck Flying · Aug 8, 2005

"Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:1123518250.523820.310230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Del Cecchi wrote:

You ask for information then argue with the answer?

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn't necessarily represent IBM's positions,
strategies or opinions."

Newsgroup search on "skybuck flying"; 5,970 hits. Most of them
scattered across just about every newsgroup; a lot of them as erudite
as this recent one entitled "How to use a battery to kill
effectively?";

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/570e11245514b15b?dmode=source&hl=en

Oh dear. It's a troll.

"I don't believe trolls"

Skybuck Flying

--
Regards
Alex McDonald

Aug 8, 2005

Skybuck -

Chaper 2100, especially section 2132, of the Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) provides a good explanation of the terms in 35 USC 102
(prior art). The MPEP provides the relevent case law. The MPEP is
available on the patent office (USPTO) web site.

Richard

Colonel Forbin · Aug 8, 2005

In article <dd7dh4$tvf$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why not ?

It's no longer a trade secret, somebody else has re-invented it.

The manufacturer could step forward and disclose their trade secret.

The secret is in the products itself which is prove of prior art yet nobody
noticed it

By disclosing their trade secret they should be able to prove that they are
infact the original inventors.

Surely that has to count for something in court

The patent and copyright systems are protectionist legislation intended to
try to enforce some degree of fairness over profit from intellectual
property and innovation. Nobody ever claimed they were perfect.

The obvious point of patents is to protect an inventor who has
invested a great deal of capital to develop an idea into an invention
with some practical use which might be sold at profit from scalpers
who simply copy the design without having to invest any of the R&D
capital and can thus undercut the price of the inventor who needs
to recover these costs through sales.

At this level, it's the same notion as forbidding the counterfeiting
of money. Why earn it when you can just print what you need?

Someone said the notion of patents was to encourage inventors to
disclose ("open source") their inventions, but I do not believe this
to be the case. The system is merely an artifact of a capitalist
economic system intended to serve as a check on free market exploitation.

If there is any "purpose" to the patent law, it is to encourage invention
in the first place by providing some degree of insurance that an inventor
will have the first shot at profiting from the invention.

The prolonged fight between DeForest and Armstrong with respect to
radio technology should provide a valuable lesson.

The philosophical issue of fairness remains open. If party "A"
invents something which is later completely independently discovered
and developed by party "B," should B be denied the opportunity to
profit from his invention simply because A discovered it first?

The general gist of patents is to deter copying, so it clearly falls
short in such a case. B did not copy A, yet B may not be able
to profit merely because A was first to register his invention.

A free market mentality would say, let the market decide, but
that clearly isn't "fair" because it often simply depends on who
can undercut the other on price.

Thus the system can never be universally fair.

That's why lawyers get paid so much.

No human society has ever fully resolved the notion of how to fairly
reward human labor and inventiveness.

What if A invented an idea, but had a really crappy implementation,
but B independently (or not) implemented the same idea in a much
more efficient way?

The case of Teller vs. Ulam is another excellent example. Evidently
Ulam first came up with the notion of radiational coupling as the
way to create the hydrogen bomb, but Teller developed the concept
into a workable design. Thus, who should "own" this dubious piece
of intellectual property?

Skybuck Flying · Aug 8, 2005

"Colonel Forbin" <forbin@dev.nul> wrote in message
news

pMJe.52410$zY4.11379@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

In article <dd7dh4$tvf$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Skybuck Flying <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why not ?

It's no longer a trade secret, somebody else has re-invented it.

The manufacturer could step forward and disclose their trade secret.

The secret is in the products itself which is prove of prior art yet
nobody
noticed it

By disclosing their trade secret they should be able to prove that they
are
infact the original inventors.

Surely that has to count for something in court

The patent and copyright systems are protectionist legislation intended to
try to enforce some degree of fairness over profit from intellectual
property and innovation. Nobody ever claimed they were perfect.

The obvious point of patents is to protect an inventor who has
invested a great deal of capital to develop an idea into an invention
with some practical use which might be sold at profit from scalpers
who simply copy the design without having to invest any of the R&D
capital and can thus undercut the price of the inventor who needs
to recover these costs through sales.

At this level, it's the same notion as forbidding the counterfeiting
of money. Why earn it when you can just print what you need?

Someone said the notion of patents was to encourage inventors to
disclose ("open source") their inventions, but I do not believe this
to be the case. The system is merely an artifact of a capitalist
economic system intended to serve as a check on free market exploitation.

If there is any "purpose" to the patent law, it is to encourage invention
in the first place by providing some degree of insurance that an inventor
will have the first shot at profiting from the invention.

The prolonged fight between DeForest and Armstrong with respect to
radio technology should provide a valuable lesson.

The philosophical issue of fairness remains open. If party "A"
invents something which is later completely independently discovered
and developed by party "B," should B be denied the opportunity to
profit from his invention simply because A discovered it first?

The general gist of patents is to deter copying, so it clearly falls
short in such a case. B did not copy A, yet B may not be able
to profit merely because A was first to register his invention.

A free market mentality would say, let the market decide, but
that clearly isn't "fair" because it often simply depends on who
can undercut the other on price.

Thus the system can never be universally fair.

That's why lawyers get paid so much.

No human society has ever fully resolved the notion of how to fairly
reward human labor and inventiveness.

What if A invented an idea, but had a really crappy implementation,
but B independently (or not) implemented the same idea in a much
more efficient way?

The case of Teller vs. Ulam is another excellent example. Evidently
Ulam first came up with the notion of radiational coupling as the
way to create the hydrogen bomb, but Teller developed the concept
into a workable design. Thus, who should "own" this dubious piece
of intellectual property?

You you troll lol

Not meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu are thezzz trolllll

Suppose a product was using a technology before a patent ?

Skybuck Flying

Guest

Winfield Hill

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Keith Williams

Guest

Keith Williams

Guest

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Skybuck Flying

Guest

Del Cecchi

Guest

Del Cecchi

Guest

Keith Williams

Guest

Alex McDonald

Guest

James Beck

Guest

Colonel Forbin

Guest

Dennis M. O'Connor

Guest

Skybuck Flying

Guest

Skybuck Flying

Guest

Guest

Colonel Forbin

Guest

Skybuck Flying

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor