[sdiy] reamp/patenting in US

[Theo]

This explains why its more difficult and expensive! to get a patent here in
the Netherlands.
The patent office (supposedly) does a through search to verify that the idea
is indeed patentable and the patent will most probably hold in court.
This may as it should be, but it makes getting a patent utterly expensive.
Unless you expect making a awful lot of money from the idea, its not
feasible to file a patent.

Theo



From: Dean Stiglitz <deknow at deknow.com>

> i don't know how having a foriegn patent already changes things...but as
far as a US patent, my experience comes from working on saxophone designs.
>
> >>  Lincoln,
>
>  >>  As far as I know you must use a lawyer. However, some lawyers will
let you
>  >>  do all of the grunt work to save money. You do the research and most
of
>  >>  the
>  >>  writing then the lawyer waves his magic wand and signs the paperwork.
I
>  >>  did
>  >>  it this way for one patent. The price wasn't too bad.
>
> you do not NEED a laywer to file a patent...but it is probably advisable.
>
> <rant mode on>
>
> the problem with the us patent system, is that being awarded a patent by
the patent office is not the end of it.  the patent office does not make it
illegal for someone to infringe on your patent, it allowes you to sue
someone that does infringe on the patent.  in the course of the court case
(that you bring with your own money), the court may find your design
"unpatentable" for any of the legit reasons (the most slippery being that
"the design is obvious for anyone skilled in the art")....an obscure
referance by someone else before you filed your patent (or before you can
prove you designed it) can lead the court to find your patent invalid.
>
> basically, you file your patent, and wait for someone else to infringe
upon it.  you then take them to court, and they claim your idea isn't
patentable.  my understanding is that 2/3 of the time a patent issue gets to
a court, that the idea is found not patentable.
>
> the reason for a lawyer is to:
> 1.  determine that in your and the lawyers mind that the idea is
patentable (a search of patent archives is a good place to start...but you
should also look at anything that is remotely similar to your patent, even
if it's an obscure academic paper written 20 or 100 years ago).
>
> 2.  to make it seem like your patent is defenable.  you would like a
would-be infringer to aproach you to license the patent instead of ignoring
it.  the more defendable the patent appears (the name of a well known patent
attorney on the application does make it look more defendable), the more
likely the infringer is to license or buy the patent...they would also like
to protect their product from being copied, so if the patent appears
defendable, they will want to have rights to it so they can defend it...if
they ignore your patent, they cannot try to stop someone from making a
competing product.
>
>
> i worked on some saxophone designs a while back, and did begin the process
of patenting them (i think i was about 2grand into it), when i realized that
if anyone was going to steal my designs, it would probably be yamaha...and
their history is that of not licensing, but for you to take them to court.
i decided it wasn't worth it.
>
> <rant mode off>
>
>
> deknow
>
>
>
>