Patent vs Open source - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Raj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 04:39:07 am
content: So, I might have a joystick mechanism, small enough to fit in a joycon game pad, can be a drop in replacement. with less parts than usual game pad joystick and it's resistant to wear. I know the problem has already been solved by PSP's hall effect based joystick but this one is different.The only problem, just by having one look at it, an engineer can copy it.I am just a small fry with minimum money, but since Indian government subsidize getting patents, I can apply with ease but can't contest violations.Would you bother with the patent?Or would you have it as "trade secret" until someone reverse engineers it?Or just make it open source?Do also know that, I might take this no where and the idea dies with me, like many other ideas. Also, I might not be smart enough to even complete a prototype myself, and need help of an actual engineer.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 04:54:41 am
content: How do you know that it works without a prototype?In any case, patents are only worth anything if you are willing to defend them. If someone wants to copy the invention, they will unleash the army of lawyers that will figure out how to bypass your patent.

author: Raj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 05:01:48 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on July 12, 2021, 04:54:41 amI know it cause that method has been used in other industries (funny enough, I'd have to check if it hasn't been patented already).Also, It's the software that I struggle with, than mechanics and hardware.Army of lawyers is exactly why I don't want to bother with patents.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 05:27:27 am
content: A patent by itself does not grant you any protection. You still need to hire lawyers to actually enforce your patent by suing anyone that tries to use it. Without the layers the parent is just an expensive way to post something on the internet for everyone to see. That being said parents are not useless because putting in a patent before anyone else does can help out later if the business takes off.If you just want to make some money off the idea then the easiest way might be to approach a relevant manufacturer such as Alps or Bourns and sell them the idea and let them manufacture and market it.As for getting your part in the next generation of portable gaming consoles, that might be tough. The reason these classical spring mechanism driving potentiometers designs are so widely used is because they are cheap to mass produce. The mechanics are a simple assembly of plastic parts and springs, no exotic materials or precision manufacturing required, the potentiometer is also just a plastic part with a carbon track inside. Electronics for interfacing it are also simple because it just needs to read a analog voltage from the pot. When they have to make literally many milions of these things shaving one cent off a analog stick module can save 100s of thousands of dollars. So for this reason they won't go for the best performing design, but rather the cheapest design that performs good enough.

author: Raj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 05:39:52 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 12, 2021, 05:27:27 amWell...my design is no different and can be made using double shot injection molding machine. Only thing different about it is the spring type, 5 ultra cheap secret sensors and a driver IC.Maybe, a "preorder kickstarter" is the way to go. Just make it available when you're sure enough that you'll make money out of it.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 05:43:13 am
content: No matter what you do, it will take an engineer about 30 seconds to figure out what your "secret" sensors are and copy the design if they want to. I would not be surprised in the least if a joystick using the same basic design was already patented by Atari, Williams or Gottlieb in the early 80s, they tried just about everything. Pots, optical, Hall sensors, etc.

author: retiredfeline
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 06:11:53 am
content: You may think it's novel but it may fail the novelty test at the examination test, i.e. not obvious to a trained practitioner. You may not have seen it implemented even though it's already covered by a patent claim somewhere because not everything that is patented goes to market. Maybe it's cheaper to make some other way so that embodiment is never used.

author: Raj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 06:16:04 am
content: Quote from: retiredfeline on July 12, 2021, 06:11:53 amIndeed, I too might be surprised if no one used that method as of yet

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 06:29:08 am
content: If patents are cheap to get where you live, it might be a nice exercise to try and get one. Then, it might be an advantage to your portfolio, for example at a job interview.It's not your job to look for similar already existing patents, the patent office will do that anyway.A patent is just a proof that you are the one who claimed that idea first. A patent doesn't mean it really works as described, it doesn't automatically makes you rich, and it doesn't automatically forbid others to use the same idea.It is your job to exploit your idea commercially, and it is your job to protect your patent by suing others. To do that you'll need hard work, good connections, deep pockets and plenty of luck.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 07:07:55 am
content: Quote from: Raj on July 12, 2021, 04:39:07 amIF you open source it properly, the open source custodians can use their leverage in an actual infringement in comparison to one person who might hire an uninterested lawyer.A good thing about Open Source is that you get to name the widget. Inevitable derivatives are often named with a calling-back to the original eg: Arduino -> *duino etc.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 07:13:37 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on July 12, 2021, 06:29:08 amUSPTO just grants all properly submitted patents and lets the courts decide who is correct. Given the number of patents submitted, they can't realistically do a thorough check on each one. This system allows only contested patents to be checked.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 09:13:33 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on July 12, 2021, 06:29:08 amNo. They will just patent it. It is YOUR job to research whether a patent is actually new or not. The patent office doesn't care and they won't check. That is why you can find many patents describing the same device. It is up to the lawyers to figure out who is first and which part is actually new. A long time ago I had a client who filed a patent which was also granted. On top of that the client hired someone to asses the novelty of the patent; it turned out nothing was new in the patent. IOW: getting the patent was a huge waste of money.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 09:37:20 am
content: Step 1: Patent offices will be happy to take your money and file your patent, after a not-very-thorough prior art search. A patent agent working on your behalf would be more thorough but more $.Step 2: License your product in the penny-pinching consumer product arena. Make $0.005 per device sold. Minus taxes.Step 3: Manufacturers like your idea, bypass your patent with their very similar but different design, you get nothing.Step 4: Copy-cat manufacturers like your idea, copy it, don't care about patents (probably not enforced in their country in any meaningful way), you get nothing.Step 5: Pay legal costs to fight the above and block imports breaching your patent, get your day in court. more $ (never ending).Unless you already have deep pockets at step 1 and a very profitable invention, don't waste your time and money on patents.Also, in general, I would avoid consumer products.Target industrial products where profit margin has better potential, use the patent $ to buy necessary approvals CE, UL etc and be good at what you do.That's arguably a better barrier to the competition than a patent, per $ spent.IMHO.

author: retiredfeline
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 09:46:14 am
content: Another thing is jurisdiction. Your government may subsidise patents in India. But that doesn't give you a patent in other jurisdictions. If you hope to sell to other jurisdictions, you have to file there. Which gets expensive quickly.

author: sandalcandal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 10:24:01 am
content: A patent isn't just for trying to sue copy-cats.It's a bit BS but the nature of the game is that just saying you have a patent can open up doors. Both personally for yourself by being able to have it on your CV or if this were a larger/more serious commercial venture then VCs or other investors wouldn't bother throwing their money at something that isn't "protected" by patents.If you can get a patent affordably, even if it's only locally in India then I think it's "better than nothing" and potentially helpful. Even if you aren't even trying to enforce it still gives some precedence to help ward off and defend against potential patent trolls. It could also help open the door to local small business/entrepreneurial funds or government grants. Much better than standing around "naked".I think when people (that know what they're saying) say a patent isn't worth it they mean: the cost of filling the patent for an idea (in that country) is not commensurate the business potential (maximum revenue) of that idea. There are definitely cases where it can worth it however: if it's heavily subsidised/encouraged locally or as part of a significant corporate venture.There are often questions asked to the nature of "why youdon'thave a patent" rather than "how do you intend to enforce your patent". Obviously the second won't come at all without the first question. Imagine someone telling you "I have this cool, new and innovative product idea, can I have some of your time/money for it? Oh and by the way it I'm not patenting it." vs saying "and yes I've got a patent for it." The consumer doesn't really give a toss as long as they get a good product but anyone else involved putting resources (time or money) in is going to feel a bit less secure.---I wonder if it's possible to patent something then opensource the licence to that patent? best of both worlds for your case? I can imaging there being some resentment in the purist, hard-line opensource community.

author: kosine
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 11:25:29 am
content: Patent fees are actually quite cheap. Here's the current UK price list:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/patent-forms-and-fees/patent-forms-and-feesThe expense comes from hiring patent agents, but you can do quite a lot yourself in the early stages.Online searching is free.www.espacenet.comhas a pretty comprehensive system. Everything is cross-referenced, so with a bit of digging you can build up a family tree of relevant prior art. You'll probably find a few dozen patents related to your idea, so there's quite a bit of reading to be done. But it won't cost you anything to find out whether your idea is worth pursing.If you do think it's worth going ahead, then an initial application is cheap and only requires a description and drawings to be filed. Once you've read up on the prior art you'll have a good idea of what you need to prepare, and it's entirely possible to write these yourself. You will need an agent to draft the claims and proceed with the formalities, but that doesn't need to be done for another 12 months. (Although you need wheels in motion after about 10 months to meet the deadline.)So for the investment of a little bit of time and effort, you can at least stake your claim and enjoy a year to work on the project. Just make sure you describe every possible variation of your idea in your application! Ultimately it's the claims that matter, but these can only be derived from what's in the description. So include everything relevant. Even if your description and drawings are a bit amateurish, as long as the claims are done professionally, you'll be OK.In other good news, applications aren't published unless you request it and pay the relevant fee. So if you haven't publicly disclosed your idea during that application year, you can actually file again and restart the clock. (It's slightly risky because someone else could have filed for the same invention shortly after you did, but if the idea is not obvious, then it's unlikely. A calculated risk, but still a valid option that is sometimes made use of.)Note that going international is considerably more complex, and you will need professional assistance to do that. But again, it doesn't need to be done for 10-12 months from the filing date of your local application.So basically, when you're ready, go file an application yourself and use the following 12 months wisely. Ideally you want to get to market as soon as possible after filing, so only file at the last minute if you can. Making a decision on the costs of a full patent are much easier if you're already making money on the idea.Good luck with it!

author: Raj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 01:16:44 pm
content: I think I should make a prototype first then see how to go about from there.Apparently patents aren't helpful for small inventors, since getting it involves lots of research and other hassles even if it's cheap.After getting it, companies will still use your design against you.Better to kickstart with enough orders to make even than to patent stuff.

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 02:13:27 pm
content: Have a little experience in patents having over 30 granted in the US (few more outside), been an expert witness in infringement cases, and given a few presentations on patents where I was employed.Here is the US the patent law changed a number of years ago in 2013 from 1st to invent to 1st to file. Be diligent and careful who/where you discuss the concepts with, and start the filing process early.In the US your patent becomes public knowledge, this is to foster more development in general, and you are granted specific rights for a specific time frame for making the patent public.Do your research into prior art as this is the 1st attack on your patent in a infringement case, also do not exclude anyone that contributed, this will void the patent. Same goes for including someone that didn't directly contribute. A large company where I was employed decades ago, many of the managers would include themselves on the patent because it looked good on their personnel file, not realized they just voided the very patent.Don't expect significant direct income from your patent, larger companies use patents as bartering tools to license usage in exchange for licensed usage of another patent. Smaller companies or individuals don't have much leverage, and it's rare to see them benefit from an infringement. As mentioned many unscrupulous companies will just copy and ignore your patent and go ahead with business as usual, and many countries will impede an infringement case and protect the infringing company. I have a couple patents that are in massive infringement worldwide and informed my prior employer (I'm retired), they decided not to pursue because the cost and length of time involved doesn't make a good ROI business case.Edit: Forgot to mention that generally when you are employed with company you signed an agreement for employment that the company owns anything you conceive or develop. Thus any patent they are assigned to the company and you are the inventor, but have no real rights since the patent is assigned to the company. This right to everything you conceive or develop has been challenged many times, and often in favor of the individual. Recall the general ruling was that if the IP concept/idea/development was done without any company involvement, outside company facilities, without any company equipment/materials and completely outside any company technology/business area, then the company has no rights to the IP. The company HR uses this "agreement" as a bullying tool into forcing individuals into "thinking" they are 24/7/365 employees, and thus can't do anything outside for their own benefit. If you are a highly creative individual in areas outside your direct employment field consider having your own specialized employment agreement which outlines specific IP ownership and rights. So when you are employed to develop audio amplifiers and you invent cold fusion at home your employer can't claim any rightsIf you really want to protect your idea, a Trade Secret is probably better since it's not public disclosed. Recall long ago Tektronix had a Trade Secret on the delay transmission line T type coil which allowed them to have a bandwidth advantage over HP, took HP over a decade to equal the TeK scopes bandwidth due to this and the brilliant Ft doubler amplifier. This wasn't easily understood without the information Tek possessed in the Trade Secret and thus prevented it from being easily duplicated.Anyway, just a few more things to consider if you decide to protect your idea.Good luck and keep us informed of your progress.Best,

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 05:11:12 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on July 12, 2021, 05:27:27 amAH, I do not agree with this. Let me explain why though.Whereas defending a patent if some competitor infringes can be very expensive - so forget about it if you're a lone dev or a small company - it does grant you one kind of protection: being able to exploit your concept while making sure no one else can patent it and further prevent you from exploiting your own concept! That can be every bit as problematic, if not more, as the first case. So patents are still worthwhile for this. They can also give some added value to one's resume and to a company's portfolio.There are other means than patents for this kind of protection of course, including open-sourcing, as the OP mentioned. Or publishing a paper about it, and have it presented in public, or published in a journal. That gives you priority over the ideas with a defined date, at least in many countries. Patents still have one benefit over this: they are not published until the patenting process is sufficiently advanced, but the initial filing date still holds for priority. So that can give you a while - typically a few months - to start exploiting your idea before other people can do the same. So that gives you a small time window to delay any competition, if your idea is really interesting and being on the market first would make a definite difference.Just my 2 cents.

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2021, 07:33:19 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on July 12, 2021, 07:13:37 amThis isn't exactly true in either case, the US Patent Office will do a cursory look for prior art, the applicant should have already done a more thorough prior art investigation. Between the two often some things will arise that the Patent Office will challenge some of the patent claims, then the applicant will be required to defend the claim with supporting evidence. This is usually a give and take struggle with claims and the patent office. Generally a thorough investigation is when an infringement is filed, the defendant will do a thorough investigation to try and come up with prior art, after you've been successful in prosecuting the infringement the the patent is much stronger because of this investigation. A case Honeywell filed against Minolta regarding the AutoFocus technology Honeywell developed and patented followed this path. The courts awarded Honeywell Triple Damages due to the flagrant infringement by Minolta, Minolta tried unsuccessfully to claim Honeywells patents were served by prior art by themselves and others. Honeywell had approached others, and were put off until Honeywell won the case against Minolta, then all the other camera OEMs ended up paying for past royalties and got usage licenses for future sales. Think this was the first case held remotely by video conferencing.Best,

author: rfclown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2021, 02:39:00 am
content: It depends on what you want to get out of this. If it's money, I don't think the patent route is best for an individual. With a patent you divulge the details, and if you can't defend it, you've just given away your idea (and spent time and money giving away the idea). If you would like to be able to say, "I have a patent" (for a resume or just a personal accomplishment), then you have to pursue a patent.For whoever said that the patent department doesn't do prior art searches; I have 9 issued US patents and I think I had to defend every one against supposed prior art. Several of the US patents were also awarded Worldwide or European patents, and I don't recall any of those needing additional defense against prior art (or anything else). All my patents are assigned to "Motorola". I got a check and a nice dinner out of it (and I get to put it on my resume). I had one invention that Moto didn't feel anyone could figure out, so they gave me a Trade Secret award for that. I got the same check and nice dinner, but can't point you to documented proof. If someone else can't figure out the invention, why put forth time, effort, and money to divulge it?If you don't want to get rich off of the idea, and just want to see the idea not die (and not let anyone else patent it), publish it. Motorola did that also. If we disclosed an idea for a patent, and the patent committee decided not to pursue a patent application, but wanted to block someone else from patenting it, they would "publish" it (in an obscure journal that I don't know how anyone outside the company could see). If there are magazines for electro-mechanical stuff that pay for articles, you could publish and make a few bucks off the deal (instead of spending money with a patent to reveal your idea). I read Nuts & Volts. They publish articles from whoever. You'd need to actually make the thing to show it works.If you want to make money off the idea... I just don't know. Maybe what Berni suggested about approaching a company with the idea. Without making one you don't even know if you have anything yet. Even if you do make one, since what you have is a drop in for something that already exists, you've got a hard road to make money off of it.Read mawyatt's replies; he seems to have more patent experience than any replies to far.

author: retiredfeline
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2021, 02:46:23 am
content: Some large multinationals use the patents they are granted for trading with other multinationals. They essentially meet with piles of patents and cross-license them to each other. That's what my patents (and those of my colleagues) were used for.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2021, 02:40:21 pm
content: Hello been writing and procecuting electronics patents since 1970s.The Chinese will Knock it off if its any good, go sue them in China....(:-:)Takes few years and ~ $2000 to apply, after grant you loose the patent if you fail to pay "maintaince" fees to PTO.The better patent offices are the EU EP, Germany, Japan.The US PTO is very bad in searching so US patents typically are hard to enforce.Litigation is ~ $1M and 3-6 years to get the case to court. (not to win)So, an individual and small firm have no chance to fight a large infringer.Your best solution is to protect by fast dev and deploy and keep ahead of the competition.Just the ramblings of an old retired EEBon Chance,Jon