From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Patent info request
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:01:39 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov8.094448.5081@udel.edu> berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.) writes:

>In article <1992Nov8.053154.1220@panix.com> oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>>In <bhayden.721143602@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>>
>>>berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.) writes:
>>
>>>>Both Carl Oppedahl and Bruce Hayden have told you that step one is
>>>>to get a patent attorney.  

Readers, you will soon see that Carl Oppedahl (that's me) did not say this.

>>I don't believe either Mr. Hayden or I said this.
>>Can the writer back this up with a quote?
>>Two quotes, actually.

>I'll give you three quotes.
>1)  "The first step in getting a patent is getting a patent attorney"
>     -Bruce Hayden 3 Nov. 1992 14:25:34 GMT

>2)  The guy did not ask for legal advice, he just asked what was
>    involved in getting a patent.  You said:
>"Anybody (including the poster here) who is making real-life decisions
>had better talk to a patent lawyer about all this."

>3) "Of course, the U.S. patent law does permit inventors to apply on
>    their own (without a patent lawyer).

>REMARKS:

>First of all, I was quoting Mr. Hayden directly.  Had you been following
>the thread, you'd have seen Mr. Hayden's article.  In fact, it is included
>in the references line of my article to which you responded.

First you said "Both Mr. Hayden and Mr. Oppedahl have told you the first
step is to get a patent attorney."  Now all you say is that Mr. Hayden said
it.  I guess you are sort of acknowledging having mischaracterized what
I said before.

Had you quoted directly from the two people you were dumping on, everyone
would have been better served.  Instead you paraphrased, and that had
the result of putting words in my mouth.

>Second of all, your two quotes above give the impression that there
>are only two alternatives since you define "on their own" to mean
>"without a patent lawyer."   

Yes, and what is a pity is that you were making a good point -- that
there is such a thing as a patent agent, and that using a patent agent
is distinct from applying for a patent pro se or hiring a patent lawyer.
You could have said that, without putting words in my mouth, and I would
have agreed with you.  

>>I have tried to imagine what made the commenter think that Mr. Hayden
>>or I said those things.

>Rather than using your imagination, go back and read Mr. Hayden's
>article.

>>disclaimers that all lawyers must necessarily place in their
>>writings.  I often will say something like "This is not legal 
>>advice.  For legal advice on this subject, see a lawyer."
>>But it would be wrong to try to stretch such a disclaimer into 
>>the sorts of things above which were being put into my mouth.

>The original poster simply wanted to know about the patent process
>and what was involved.  Mr. Hayden answered with the "step one"
>quote, and you answered with the "anybody...better talk to a lawyer."
>You further defined pro se application as "without a lawyer."

Just as I suspected when I said "I have tried to imagine ..."  Sure 
enough, what was being mischaracterized was my standard disclaimer --
the sentence I nearly _always_ put into a posting that someone
might take as legal advice.  I said what I always say, namely that 
my posting is not legal advice and that those who wish legal advice 
should contact a lawyer.

>>And it is true that patent agents cannot give "legal advice", but
>>can only represent inventors before the patent office.

>And it is true that the only place to get a patent is the patent
>office - that's what the guy was asking about.

So what Mr. Berryhill would have preferred, apparently, is that my standard
disclaimer should have been much lengthier.  I should have said
something like:

This posting is not legal advice.  Anybody who wants legal advice
should contact a lawyer, _except_ if the type of help you want is 
in the very small group of things a patent agent can legally do, in
which case you could go see a patent agent, but of course a patent
agent cannot help you with a trademark, nor with a copyright, nor with
litigating a patent, nor with determining whether or not someone
else's patent is infringed or is invalid ...

No, I decline to do this.  My disclaimers will continue to be brief.

Now, two important points:

1.  Mr. Berryhill is quite right in reminding us that there are such
things as patent agents.  For some fraction of our readers it will prove
to be helpful to be reminded of that option.  I can see how Mr. Hayden's
and my posts might have led some readers to miss that a patent agent
could sometimes be the way to go.

2.  This newsgroup is _not_ just about applying for patents.  It is about
intellectual property issues, which includes that but many other
subjects too.  And _most_ intellectual property issues (copyrights,
trademarks, trade secrets, and litigating and interpreting issued patents)
cannot be handled by patent agents. 


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2249 misc.legal:19715 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games:21061