New product - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: RalfSchooneveld
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 01:56:33 am
content: Hello new friends,I am a filmmaker from the Netherlands, and I am inventing a new product. I am hoping this product will make many lives easier for others, while earning myself an extra source of income.I have found the EEVblog videos on youtube while learning electronics, seeing as the fact as I used to have not even an idea of how anything technical worked before I came up with the idea for this new product.The first thing I have to do tomorrow is find a way to upload my huge high resolution picture on here. After you guys see the picture (which speaks for itself), I hope there might be people here to help me with it. Purchasing a patent will be € 5000,00 per year, and some people say it's a waste of time, but non the less, it doesn't exist, so to me it will be worth developing it. I am having a hard time finding the components that I need to start anywhere with building a first prototype.Anyway, if people here are anywhere near to the guy in the video, I might be actually ok.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 03:58:45 am
content: Hi Ralf, friendly advice... don't publicly talk about your patentable idea (that means here). Especially where you are in Europe,you can lose your patent idea by simply disclosing it in public prior to the patent filing. There is a bit more leeway in US/Canada.Also, it may be hard to patent this particular idea because there is substantial prior art (similar products in the market currently or in the past).However I suggest for you to not discuss / elaborate your ideas further here, and collaborate with local friends / engineers / patent attorneys -- or at least via PMs and not via public forum postings.

author: RalfSchooneveld
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 10:35:59 am
content: A bit disappointing to hear. Getting this thing made locally is already hard enough. But thank you for your advice.

author: RalfSchooneveld
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 10:46:51 am
content: Can any moderator delete my thread please?

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 02:31:28 pm
content: Your best bet is not to mention that you plan to Patent it, by all means post a sketch or photo of what you are aiming to achieve, the link says "power surge protector with LCD", is that your idea? It is a very generic title really I don't think anyone would want to "steal" your idea!If you want general advice on for example, what the best components are for doing certain tasks, then I can't see an issue, if you want someone to do the project for you, you might be better off somewhere like Freelancer.com or somewhere.HTH

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 03:07:27 pm
content: Quote from: Wilksey on April 06, 2016, 02:31:28 pmI wouldn't read too much into that. One of my patents is "Control of Computer Peripherals"! Yes, the name was chosen by the (very good) patent lawyer, to make it more difficult to steal the idea; security through obscurity.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 03:36:42 pm
content: That was my point, it's a generic title!

author: RalfSchooneveld
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 08:09:04 pm
content: To keep this topic productive for my educational use, I would very much like all of your opinion on the fallowing.So I ''invent'' a product. I want to make a prototype, and sell it in large quantities. How do I go about it? Is a patent necessary? What rights or perks do I gain with that? My idea was to register it, mostly because thats what i have been taught to do, I honestly have no clue what it is a bout. At the moment I am more concerned with making this thing, because I need it to ease and simplify my work on set or doing studio shoots, and so on.On the one side I want to develop it, and seeking out all the help I can. Obviously I don't want the idea stolen, because I could really use the potential money for paying off my company loans.I don't know what wisdom would be at this point.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 09:15:28 pm
content: Ralf there are a ton of considerations whether or not to patent. Patents give you some protection against your idea being stolen my someone else. More and more, patents are also used defensively -- in a crowded market where many companies have similar ideas, patents are used to deter others from suing you from infringing on their patents (because you can probably sue back using your patents). Patent detente.When considering a new product invention, it's always a good procedure to search for existing patents, because you don't want to get caught infringing on other people's patents.Unfortunately, from the little I know about your idea, it looks like there are already many existing products (and patents) for similar ideas. If it's solely for work, you might be better off just buying one of the similar products.You can still patent an invention if it is aimprovementover an existing patent. On the flip side, you may need to license and pay royalties to holders of existing patents -- if they allow you to license their invention at all.In general, if you have a new product idea, then you should work on creating a prototype. If the invention is outside your area of expertise, then you can either partner with someone or hire a company to develop the prototype for you. At the same time, you should work with a patent specialist to see whether you can patent the invention (and/or if you will be infringing on other people's patents).In some jurisdictions, you can file what is called a "provisional patent". It is a simplified filing to get your patent an early "priority date" on file. However patent laws are complex and a specialist from your area would be able to advise you on the best way to proceed.Patents aside, the process of bringing a new product to market can be bewildering. It takes a lot of time & effort (and money), not just perfecting the invention but on legal, marketing, sales, support, manufacturing, etc. You might be interested to take one of the many free entrepreneurship courses being offered from sites like Coursera or EdX.You are actually lucky being from the Netherlands -- your country is one of the centers for entrepreneurship, and there are a lot government and private sector resources from which you can draw on. Even though I am in Canada I have many friends and business colleagues from the Netherlands. (I can ask them about Dutch startup resources if you'd like).One of the best ways in thinking about a new product and entrepreneurship is to surround yourself with others with the same mindset. Maybe there are local meetups for startups, etc. Even if this particular idea is not patentable, maybe you will come up with other inventions in the future.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 05:58:34 am
content: All of the above ... and then some.Patents are indeed a significant topic. I would suggest you ask around to find yourself a decent patent attorney and have a chat with them.Also, the cost of patenting a device will increase as you look at covering several countries. There is no such thing as a truly 'World Wide' patent and you'll have to go through the exercise multiple times for multiple jurisdictions. In addition, there are some timing issues you will need to be aware of as well.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 08:36:55 am
content: One thing often overlooked is that patents are (roughly speaking) a way for you to stop other people making your design.Another consideration is that other people might patent something more or less similar to your design, and then stop you making your design. If you want to protect yourself against that, then all you have to do is publish in some journal of record. That is much cheaper and doesn't have to involve a lawyer.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 08:54:27 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 08, 2016, 08:36:55 amOnce a design is published, it cannot be patented. If you want a patent, get it first (or at least the application lodged) andthenyou can publish. ** Check with a patent attorney for details before taking any action.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 09:00:51 am
content: Also,don't make any patent application too specificin detail... be as 'vague as possible' that the patent body will accept (ask your lawyer). Too much detail, and someone else can 'use three screws instead of four' - and your protection becomes very fragile.Also look into a 'provisional patent' which gives you lot of protection for very little money during the first 12 months while you're getting your problems and filing in order.Innovation patentsare expensive, and need to be applied separately in each WIPO region.Application and acceptance only has to be filed once if accepted - not yearly.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 09:18:03 am
content: I mentioned it before but I don't believe one can file a provisional patent application in Europe (European Patent Office.)

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 09:19:46 am
content: aaah ok, didn't know that.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 09:41:47 am
content: Is your idea innovative enough to patent? Do solutions already exist? If not, have others not created this product because it is too niche or too simple to worry about creating it?I have never had to patent anything, but it sounds like a complete ball ache! So I would be damned sure it is worth going through the hassle and cost before committing to it!

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 10:59:55 am
content: Don't forget to include the costs ofdefendingorenforcinga patent.The case of Armstrong and his FM patent is a cautionary tale.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong#Death

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 03:49:23 pm
content: There is another school of thought on the subject - and that is along the lines of "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"The idea is that you don't fret too much about protection of the intellectual property and just get your widget out in the marketplace to make a strong presence and establish yourself asthesource of the widget. Others may copy the design - but you will be the name associated with the product and also be known as having 'the original widget'. Registering a trademark would be highly recommended (and that recommendation would apply no matter what).Whether this is even an option for you will be a function of exactly what the product is, the demand that it will attract and a few other parameters. As such, I'm not suggesting you travel this path - I only offer it as an alternative to consider.

author: RalfSchooneveld
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 02:37:41 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on April 08, 2016, 03:49:23 pmWell, to be honest, that is what I am doing now. I am looking for a person to pretty much guide me as to what to buy and how to assemble a prototype. Personally I would love it for Dave, or some other down to earth guy, to mentor me on this. But I have no idea if I could get to him, or that he would be interested in it.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 02:45:29 am
content: Another consideration. If you have a patent, and don't defend it, you lose the rights to the patent. Some big company can step in and start copying your product and you don't have the money to pay the attorneys to fight for you patent you are out of luck.As said before, better just to get the product to the market and flood it before it is profitable to copy it.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 04:06:43 am
content: QuoteNo, you cannot lose patent rights by not defending it. At least not in US/Canada and most likely not in Europe either. Maybe you're mixing up patents with copyrights?The danger of just forging full speed ahead is if you are (perhaps unknowingly to you) infringing on other people's patents. If you're not on solid legal ground, getting served by that "cease and desist" letter will ruin your day. Your business and all the money + effort you've sunk into it will be on the line.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 04:17:08 am
content: Quote from: ade on April 09, 2016, 04:06:43 amHmmm, perhaps you are right about my confusion. Here is a case against patents however:http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 05:22:53 am
content: QuoteHe's clarified over the years that patents may not be worth it for small businesses and inventors. At the time he calculated that you must expect a revenue of over $12 million for patents to make sense.I believe his dollar analysis was actually wrong, but regardless,I mostly agree with his conclusions.However, that doesn't mean an inventor should not do a patent search to understand the legal landscape, and develop a good business case.Also, patent laws in the US in particular has changed since the article was written in 1990. When Don wrote that article, the US was under the "First to Invent" system. Under this system, as soon as you disclose your invention (e.g., your product), no one else can obtain a patent for it. So for a small business, there was little reason to burden the high patent process costs.But as of March 2013, the US has switched to a "First Inventor to File" (FITF) system, similar to the system used in most other countries (Canada switched in 1989). With the FITF system, if you don't patent your invention, someone else might come along and successfully patent it.As the original inventor you may be able get this patent invalidated, but the burden (read: high costs) has now shifted to you. You may need to spend $500k just for the privilege of invalidating someone elses patent on your invention. And even if you win, you'll never get that money back.QuoteMaybe, maybe not. The legal world is full of unintuitive consequences. If you obfuscate how your product operates, then that also takes away a key legal defense in case of a patent lawsuit. I.e., you can't claim that you had prior art to a patent by providing an obfuscated product as proof. Prior art depends ondisclosureof an invention, and an obfuscated product is obviously not considered disclosure.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 06:02:27 am
content: QuoteYes, in China, no one apparently cares, especially students who have no skin in the game.But unfortunately elsewhere in the world, businesses get sued for patent infringement each and every single day.And when you are a business owner, and you've invested your life savings into the business, you will care.Deciding not to patent is one thing (possibly a smart move.) Deciding to "not care" and willfully infringe on other people's patents could be a very, very costly mistake.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 07:20:20 am
content: QuoteI do. And I encourage other inventors to care as well.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 07:21:07 am
content: Quote from: RalfSchooneveld on April 09, 2016, 02:37:41 amThere are many many guides to that available; more deal with the technical aspects, some deal with the business and commercial aspects.You are facing the classic problem: time vs money. In this case it is either your time learning how to do things, or your money paying for the expertise of someone that already knows how to do it.From a business perspective, you should also add in "market windows" and "lost opportunity costs", e.g. if you are X months "late" to the market for whatever reason, you will have "missed" the peak profit.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 07:25:47 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 09, 2016, 06:44:02 amThat's both wrong and irrelevant.Wrong: it is veryeasyto sue for patent issues. It is expensive to both win and defend such a lawsuit.Irrelevant: just the appearance of a lawsuit, whether or not it is justified, can and does have asevereimpact on a small business. At the very least it loses time and money that a small business does not have. At worst it destroys the small business.Of course, having a patent is not a magic talisman that wards off such a lawsuit.IMNSHO there are two easy reasons to justify patents. For small companies it can (rightly or wrongly) help investors have confidence before they invest. For large companies, a big patent portfolio is a convenient thing to "swap" with another big company along the lines of "if you don't sue me I won't sue you and we can both get on with making money". In the latter case what's in the patents isn't very important.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 03:01:39 pm
content: QuoteWell that is a whole separate discussion in a legal forum/blog, and the answer differs by jurisdiction. But basically, absolute proof is not required. A typical standard in law is that you "knowor should have known" that you are infringing on a patent. This "should have known" part allows circumstantial evidence to be presented.If I make a popular product, and you simply copy it, then I may argue in court that: a) my product is well known in the market and it should be obvious to anyone making a clone that they would be violating one or more of my patents; b) therefore you knew "or should have known" about my patents.Also, in practice patent disputes don't go directly to litigation.E.g., I see you are infringing on my patent and serve you with legal notice of my patent and demand that you to stop and/or to pay me royalties. You say "who the f* cares" and ignore my demand. I can now go to court with evidence of willful infringement. You cannot claim that you didn't know about my patent.If you sell your clone to the US market, then I might ask a US court fortriple damagesdue to the willful nature of the infringement. In Canada I might also ask for enhanced penalties. In other parts of the world, it might not matter because some jurisdictions don't have extra damages for willful infringement. Yet in other jurisdictions, willful infringement is not just a civil matter but can also bring out serious criminal charges.Again the point of my post is not to say that small inventors should get a patent -- but that they should not simply ignore or infringe on other people's patents.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 04:19:13 pm
content: To OP:Take what your lawyer tells you concerning patents with a huge grain of salt. Of course any lawyer will tell you that you must patent and you need to try to patent everything you do or you will be ripped off, yada yada. What they don't tell you are two things:- Of course they want you to patent - lawyers get paid for filling the applications, for filing the lawsuits and for defending them, they have a vested interest! It is bit like a life insurance broker telling you that insurance is extremely important.- Even if you obtain the patent (which is by no means a sure thing), a patent does not really give you any protection by itself. It is only a government-issued certificate that says you have invented something first and thus can claim some rights (which differ from country to country). However, unless you want to actually go to a court and sue the infringer (which could be overseas!), you will not gain anything from actually having the patent.The same thing applies if you only want to use the patent defensively - aka if someone sues me for violation of their patent, I will countersue for violation of mine. Assuming they are actually infringing your patent (most patent trolls don't because they aren't producing anything - they make their profits by shaking down others with lawsuits), you still have to be determined to go to court and actually sue.So when it comes to actually protecting your idea, the patents are most likely not what you want to do as the first thing. You would have to inevitably disclose your idea before you are even able to sell it. Then all that is needed is for someone to read your patent application and start producing the gizmo instead of you. If you are a startup, good luck suing them, even if you have a patent already - you aren't producing and selling anything yet, so you are unlikely to have money to do so ...Patents can be also used as a bargaining chip in business dealings, but that is another subject.@blueskull - You have obviously not heard about e.g. Apple aggressively suing others for their patents. Or one of the thousands of patent trolls. People and companies unfortunatelydo careabout their patents

author: RalfSchooneveld
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 05:30:24 pm
content: Thanks for you guys' opinion and input. Everything you guys have mentioned is what I was kinda thinking myself. In my opinion, patents and stuff, are kinda obsolete. Of course I cannot really say that until we all get basic income, because everybody needs to make money.At the end of the day, I just want to make a quality product that will last and be a good invest ment for filmmakers (that is mainly the people that I am targeting, because I myself am a filmmaker). On the one side, I don't care if people clone it, because I will always try to upgrade it to keep giving better products. But yeah, nobody wants to find out someone close to them, or who they know, stole your idea and is able to produce it because they maybe have better technical skills or something like that.I still have no idea how I would deal with that, if it would happen.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 01:20:52 am
content: I think that trying to out-innovate the competition is a good strategy. Keeping stuff secret works only until you release the product. If it is something that people want it is inevitable that someone will buy it, take it apart and start making cheaper clones. Trying to chase them with patents and lawsuits is a very expensive whack-a-mole game that doesn't work anyway. Good luck suing someone in China. Even if you somehow manage to do so or stop their product from entering your market through customs, the company will just disappear and the product appears again under a different name from a different manufacturer a week later. And you can start over again ... Better spend the time, money and effort improving your product instead.The CEO of Sparkfun had a good article on this when he tried to explain why they aren't trying to block competitors from copying their products.http://www.wired.com/2013/01/sparkfun-10-years/Of course, that may or may not be applicable to your case.Make better product, give people the extra value in support, updates, whatever that will make them come to you even if it is more expensive than buying a Chinese clone. That's pretty much the only way to win in this race.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 02:48:16 am
content: Quote from: SL4P on April 08, 2016, 09:00:51 amThat's incorrect about making small changes. There is a thing called "doctrine of equivalents", such that if something is different than the claim a patent, but functionally equivalent, it can still be infringing even if it doesn't violate any claim. But it is definitely true that you want to be as vague as possible (certainly in the application, and then negotiate with the examiner on what IP they will actually grant you).QuoteThis is incorrect and a very dangerous approach. Your provisional application must be at least as "fleshed out" as your actual patent application. If you do not specifically disclose even a tiny detail, you cannot claim the provisional filing date in the normal application. You absolutely cannot get a provisional on the idea and then flesh it out after the fact. It's usually a bad approach because if you get a provisional and then start to develop the product, it's almost guaranteed that you will make some changes or adjust some things - but you would be unable to claim them on the actual patent unless they were very specifically disclosed in the PPA.Keep in mind the above is for the USA - but it generally works the same in most of the rest of the world.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 02:50:28 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on April 08, 2016, 08:54:27 amIn theory the above is true. In practice, it's untrue.The patent office (at least in the USA) does not check the public domain for prior art. Their search is limited to what exists in the body of patents already granted. So if someone publishes a device and someone else patents it, the patent will probably issue... and then it is most definitely not a trivial matter for the person who published the device first to get the patent invalidated. It would take a long time and a large sum of money to do so - and even if the patent was overturned, profits earned by the patent holder during until the patent was rendered invalid would likely be untouchable.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 02:52:46 am
content: Quote from: RalfSchooneveld on April 09, 2016, 02:37:41 amSomething to keep in mind - you can't patent an idea. You can only patent an actual device - the implementation of an idea. So if you do not yet have a prototype, you have nothing you can patent. It makes sense, usually, to hold off until you have developed a working product before thinking of a patent, because there will be things you will change along the way - and you won't know what those things are until you build the product.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 03:05:54 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 09, 2016, 07:25:47 amI think patents work at all levels.If a small business owner spends $10-20k on a patent, then someone infringes on his patent... many infringers will be scared off by the threat of a lawsuit. Let's face it - if any of us here started to make some product and then get a letter from a law firm stating that it is in violation of patent #123, we would go and look at the patent and we would see that it does indeed infringe. Most of us would stop selling the device, or we would try to work out a licensing deal. If you say "LOL screw you!", you are now willfully infringing and that opens you up to a whole lot more liability. It can even make you personally liable, which means the patent holder could get a judgement and come after your home, your car, your personal bank accounts. So a patent can often keep the little guys in check.Medium guys usually have a lot more to lose - and a patent tends to be cheaper to license than to fight in court, unless the patent holder is being unreasonable or the company paid for a patent lawyer to provide an opinion. An opinion relates to the previous paragraph - it's not willful infringement if a competent patent lawyer writes an opinion that your product does not infringe.Also, the majority of patent suits are won not by the patent holders, but by the infringer. That's because often times, the patent was invalid from the get go. There is a company in the USA called Radiantz and they have a patent on using surface mount LED's on a flex PCB. I am not joking - that is one of the claims. It would never hold up in court, but it would take someone with the money to challenge the patent to fight them on it. So patents have value to medium companies too.As for large businesses, the win or loss of patents can amount to millions in revenues or costs, so they are worth it there too.There are a lot of stories of "someone made a tiny little change and got around my patent", or "they infringed anyway and they dragged it our in court until the patent holder went broke". In most of these cases, we are hearing one side of the story. In many of those cases, the patent was probably invalid or shoddily written or too broad. Most of them are, in fact. But this creates a myth that patents are worthless and only offer value to huge companies, which IMO is an incorrect generalization.The big problem with patents is that it doesn't stop some prick in China from knocking you off who doesn't give a shit about honor or integrity or about patent. And the Chinese gov't is complicit in protecting said pricks. And with sites like Alibaba and Aliexpress, consumers can pretty easily buy direct from China - and it becomes too expensive to actually stop that type of infringement.

author: obiwanjacobi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 06:52:12 am
content: Idea's are like a$$holes, everybody's got one.It's all about execution. Get a competent design / manufacturing partner and expect to get only 10% (or less).Or wait a couple of years while you learn the skills yourself.Or just throw it out there (open source) and see what comes of it and forget about patents...

author: ChristopherN
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 08:33:07 am
content: Another thing to consider is the market you want to reach.A product for filmmakers seems to target a very small market with a few thousand unit per year (correct me if I'm wrong). My guess would be that most of your sales will be generated by mouth to mouth marketing and a few key users that promote the product. It's way less likely that a clone will appeal to your potential customers once your brand is know in your industry.We are selling things and consulting to small industrial markets, it's mostly like that for us.If you plan on building a consumer product that will be sold in large quantities thats a different story. You want to patent the hell out of that for the reasons stated in other posts.A thing to remember is that there a different ways of protecting a product. A patent is used to protect the technical product itself. There are other forms of protection in different states around the world. For example, there is something called a Gebrauchsmuster here in Germany. Thats like a small patent that has to describe the product itself. You can get that by yourself and it's something like 40€ to register.Another thing to consider are design patents (or Geschmacksmuster in Germany). Design patents can protect the look of your product. This is what some of the larger Apple vs. Samsung cases were based on in Europe. You can get the design patent yourself and it's something like 60€ here in Germany. There is a treaty that protects design patents in the EU, but you may need to file that in each nation. Design patents are very useful for things like import bans and bans on trade fairs.Christopher

author: ChristopherN
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:00:37 am
content: Just to clarify on design patents in Europe:https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/gsm/register?DNR=M9506485-0001It's very common to protect technical things by design patent. The link shows an Hirose PCB to cable connector. This design patent prevents other from selling connectors with the same pin arrangement as the copy would look like the original.This makes it very easy to defend and enforce design patents. Basically everyone who is working in customs can just place the picture and the product in question side by side.A design patent can be very useful if you have specific interfaces or a certain way that connectors are arranged. You can block other from selling drop-in replacements which can be very useful. Another thing to protect could be your user interface or elements thereof.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:03:10 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on April 10, 2016, 03:05:54 amWhich brings us back to my points.In addition you missed the other way patents fail, even in the USA: big manufacturers simply carry on regardless or offer derisory terms to an individual holding a patent. See Armstrong and his FM patent.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:06:19 am
content: Quote from: ChristopherN on April 10, 2016, 08:33:07 amYes.(They might be called something else in other countries.)

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 11:48:57 am
content: QuoteThat's true for virtually every country. A US patent is not recognized in Canada. A Canadian patent isn't recognized in Germany. A German patent isn't recognized in Japan, etc. Cross-border filings are routinely done via agents.There are schemes like the EPC and PCT which makes it more streamlined for a patent application to be filed in several countries (including China), but the resulting patents are still national based. Also China like most countries is a signatory to all the major patent agreements (Paris, WIPO, TRIPS, etc.).There are, however, many problems with Chinese patent enforcement. It is a system, like many court systems in China, that is rife with loopholes and corruption.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 12:42:30 pm
content: QuoteMany innovations will have multiple components and may result in several patent claims. What sometimes happens is part of the invention become "settled" while other parts of the invention still needs to be "fleshed out" in additional design work.In this case, it may be beneficial to file a provisional application for the "settled" part, then continue to flush out the rest of the design. Further provisional applications may be made for other parts of the invention as they become "settled", or if changes are made to previously "settled" parts. When the invention is finally finished (assuming within a 12 month period), a non-provisional patent can be filed referencing all the earlier applications.This approach gives you the benefit of getting an earlier priority date for parts of the invention. The alternative is to defer filing until all aspects of the innovation has been finalized (but lose the earlier priority date), or to file several non-provisional applications along the way (expensive).

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 01:02:48 pm
content: Rather than talk hypothetically about this, here is my real life opinion on patents. I have had some success with products that I have funded, designed, developed and market myself. I deliberately did not patent them. Why? "Have you got a patent?" is pretty much the first question people ask me after they find out I'm an "inventor".Firstly, the markets I develop products for are fairly niche and of limited value as a whole, say $1m to $3m each, although I do not know that when I first develop any product, I'm a pesimist in this regard and my assumption on market size have been consistently < 10% of actual.Secondly, when developing a product as a one man band, do you really want to spend significant effort (ie your time) and funds on a patent when you could beinnovating?Thirdly, if you think you can get a global patent for $10k you are mistaken. Multiply that by ten.Fourthly, what exactly are you going to do if/when someone from China copies your product? Would you have the time and funds to defend and enforce that? I doubt it, and a cease and desist letter is hardly going to stop them.Finally, rather than lining the pockets of lawyers, assuming you can use the technology in your product, spend some time on other forms of IP protection. At the end of the day in a reasonably niche market, it's not hard to make it too expensive to attempt a direct rip off.Sure, I've since had look-alikes (not direct copies except in one case about ten years ago) encroach into my market but, there is also a significant non-tangible value to being there first, almost a brand value if you like.If you genuinely andrealisticallythink that you have a $5m+ market value then maybe attempting a patent has value, but please consider what I stated earlier: if spending money and time at this stage on hypotheticals like patents is going to risk not having any product at all, then don't bother. A real product with no patent is worth much more than a patent with no product at all (unless you're a patent troll).

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 03:57:37 pm
content: QuoteAs a counter-example, I was the technical lead on a startup where we developed a prototype, filed a patent, then raised US$54 million while perfecting the product. Was the patent worth it? Yes, in this case, since we were courting VCs for investment.One size doesn't fit all.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 04:57:33 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on April 10, 2016, 01:02:48 pmMore correctly, you would be getting anumberof patents that cover the world - but there are a couple of issues. The first is actually covering every jurisdiction on the globe. Virtually impossible. The second is that $100k would probably only cover you for major market nations. If you want to cast your net as wide as possible, the real number will be much more. This may not be a major issue if there is no real market for your product in a number of smaller countries.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 06:31:11 pm
content: Don't forget that the patent fees are not one-off. If you want to keep your patent, you need to pay maintenance fee every year too - for every country where you have applied for it.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 06:43:54 pm
content: Quote from: ade on April 10, 2016, 03:57:37 pmBy all means, if you want to get VC money, then a patent can be worth it. Not for protection/enforcement but as a carrot to dangle in front of the potential investors. VCs love patents, because even if the startup goes belly up, the patent could still be sold.On the other hand, relying on VC money early on (why would you otherwise rush to patent?) is a good recipe for getting royally screwed in your own startup. But that is another discussion, I am sure you knew what you were doing. As you said, one size doesn't fit all.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:11:00 pm
content: Quote from: ade on April 10, 2016, 03:57:37 pmThat is why I stated I fund my projects myself and the size of market.My recommendation is that if you possibly can avoid needing other people's money, do so, and particularly highly leveraged scenarios where you end up not being in control of your own destiny. I have had surprisingly little problem with unsolicted offers from people wanting to fund my projects but I have always turned them down. The thought of (a) giving away the results of my own blood sweat and tears and (b) giving them some control is not my idea of a fun way to work.The problem of needing someone elses money is not just about losing control, it's about yet more overhead in terms of time and effort on your part, and a patent is just part of that whole nonsense. That's time you could be using to develop your product.If you think success is measured by how much outside investment you can attract without producing anything (thinks: uBeam, Batteriser) then good luck to you, but personally that's not my bag. That is what "serial entrpreneurs" do these days I'm told, and that term's already becoming a badge of derision than a badge of honour as a result!

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:15:50 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 10, 2016, 04:44:52 amIncorrect. Patents have claims. Each claim is individually enforceable. You do not need to violate all claims or even multiple claims, just a single one is enough. Claims (should be) written such that that they start vague and get more specific. Violating any of the "chain" of claims is infringement.Quote"Knock off" colloquially means an unlicensed copy. Saying "that's not infringement" is wrong. If it violates any claim of a patent, it's infringement. I don't really know what you're trying to say in the second sentence. There is no such thing as "hard to sue". There is no test done by the court on whether you are allowed to sue. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Cases can be dismissed by summary judgement, but that's not going to happen unless it's literally an open and shut case.QuoteLike I said, the Chinese government is complicit through inaction and de-facto protection of this behavior. I am not talking about whether making infringing goods is legal in China. I am talking about whether it's legal to make those good and sell into a foreign market. There is no ambiguity, it is not legal. But the Chinese government doesn't do anything to stop it, and it could be easily argued they encourage it and enable it willfully.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:18:22 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on April 10, 2016, 04:57:33 pmThat was pretty much the point I was trying to make: I did spend quite some time a few years ago on it both studying it myself and engaging IP lawyers, who I'm happy to say pretty much agreed with my decision bearing in mind the market size and costs involved.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:19:00 pm
content: Quote from: obiwanjacobi on April 10, 2016, 06:52:12 amNot gonna happen.No company is paying a 10% royalty for anything (in general), especially something that isn't patented.That's asking a huge premium over what patented devices usually license for, but for something that has no protection at all. Like telling someone "hey you should start a coffee shop!" and then expecting 10% of their profits for having the idea. Not gonna happen.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:38:45 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 10, 2016, 09:03:10 amSure, that can happen but it's not the standard way of doing things. Again, people often put a lot of faith in the validity of the patent, but most patent infringement suits are won by the defendant (often by invalidation of the patent or some of its claims). So if an individual has a patent and goes to a big company and says they are infringing, the big company has a lot at risk. They aren't generally going to just say "ok, you win - we'll stop". But it's a mistake, IMO, to think that companies would rather litigate than pay royalties if they feel the patent is solid. Royalties are usually in the 1-5% range, and the risk of willful infringement is treble damages and potential loss of all revenue.Armstrong is an interesting case. They didn't just tell him to piss off and infringe his patent anyway - they came up with an alternate technology that they claimed did not infringe. Whether they were actually infringing never was settled as a matter of law, IIRC, because he died before it was decided in court, and his wife settled with RCA. But your point is an important one - a patent fight is like any other legal fight, the deeper the pockets of your opponent, the more difficult it's going to be (but the payoffs are larger too). Didn't Samsung get something approaching a billion dollar judgement against them to Apple? Big companies, big stakes, big risks, big rewards.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 09:45:22 pm
content: Quote from: ade on April 10, 2016, 12:42:30 pmMaybe it works differently in other countries, but in the USA a patent has a priority date for that patent. If one were to file multiple provisional applications and then reference them in a single patent application, they would only be able to claim priority to the date of the last provisional application, not seperate priority dates for each claim (or each set of claims) referencing a previously filed PPA.Of course, they could file (for example) 10 PPA's and 10 RPA's referencing those PPA's, but that would be extremely expensive, and there is a danger that previous claims and patents would be disqualifying prior art for later applications. Usually, that prior art would be a good thing since it would mean that part of the invention was already covered, but it would be a detriment in terms of lengthening the patent coverage date. It may be worth it depending on the IP in question, but IMO it wouldn't meet your previous post's objective of getting protection at a low cost.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2016, 10:08:12 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 10, 2016, 09:28:53 pmI don't think knock-off has a defined meaning. In colloquial US business conversation, it's used to refer to a copy of a product that's meant to confuse the consumer into thinking it's the original. But it's equally used to refer to a product that is not meant to confuse the consumer as to the brand, but rather copies the features/functions of something. Even if that "something" isn't protected in any way.Sure, it's legal for a Chinese company to export goods to a place where those goods violate IP law, but most of the platforms that enable the transactions (eBay, Amazon, Alibaba) have mechanisms in place to report counterfeit goods. It's not realistic that customs or border protection could intercept such goods, so it is really something national governments need to get on board with.The irony is that China has been under huge pressure to beef up their IP laws and enforcement - and they have. But not the way that helps anyone but themselves. They are allowing Chinese companies to claim IP that is already owned by others outside of China - but China does not let the actual inventors/developers claim the IP in China. Then they enforce that IP by blocking non-Chinese made goods from getting in.It will be an interesting conundrum in the years to come. China is moving up-market and a lot of these market controls are incompatible with an open global marketplace, which China will join at some point. But looking at (for example) websites, if they open up their markets - RenRen, Weibo and such are going to suffer, so they've created a disincentive for them to open the markets.Dangerous situation, long term.

author: ade
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 11, 2016, 01:03:15 am
content: QuoteNope, this is perfectly legal in China, unlike in most other countries.QuoteNope, most infringement suits are won by the plaintiffs. (In the US anyway). In fact 75% of patent trials that get to the jury are won by the plaintiffs. Latest data (see Figures 9 and 10):https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2015-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdfAnd that's not counting settlements won by plaintiffs before getting to trial, which I would think is the more common case.QuoteNope again.The US and most jurisdictions allow multiple priority dates for different claims.If Alice filed a provisional application with Claim 1 in January, another with Claim 2 in June, then a non-provisional application referencing both in October, then during examinationeachof Alice's claim will be assessed against theirrespectivepriority dates (January and June).Suppose now Bob had filed an application with Claims 1 and 2 in March, Alice's Claim 1 would survive but her Claim 2 would be rejected.See for example US patent 6,606,430 claiming several priority dates, from October 17, 2000 to July 17, 2001. Quoted below:Quote

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2016, 11:47:06 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on April 10, 2016, 09:45:22 pmIt does work differently.

author: RalfSchooneveld
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2016, 08:59:39 pm
content: Gentlemen, I once again thank you for all your input. It means allot to me.I have a question concerning 'Open source'. I have done some quick research about it and I am liking the idea so far. I even found a funny Lego video to explain it all.Does any of you have any experience with open source? This is relatively new for me, I only found out about open source because of this thread. I am also curious as to what you all think about how they explain it in this video.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2016, 10:14:11 pm
content: Quote from: RalfSchooneveld on April 11, 2016, 08:59:39 pmYou will get a lot of responses I am sure, but there is a glaring omission from that video. How are you going to monetise your efforts? It just says the house costs money to build, but it conveniently doesn't say how that open source architect pays the bills.My personal preference nowadays having given away designs over the years, is to avoid making my new designs open source other than to provide software and hardware interface specifications and examples. The reason originally was quite simple, and that is that my newer designs frequently use parts which required NDAs, but there are other reasons too. I find that nowadays in particular if you're not careful you end up with an army of armchair quarterbacks all with different opinions drivingyourproduct's direction. You have enough on your plate without unnecessary scope creep.One example I cite was providing OSX and Linux compatibility for one product from the outset as well as Windows. This was in response to a very few quite vociferous individuals who predicted little short of armageddon if I failed to support all these operating systems from day one. The truth is that the scope creep added a significant additional delay to release of the product when I could have been making money to reinvest in new stock to fullfill an already very full order book, and fund further development - like buying a Mac. If I had my time again, that could easily have waited.So in short, make sure you have a way to monetise whatever you do, and don't find yourself having to re-scope your product because of supposed "popular opinion" of a vociferous minority. Be clear in your own mind what you are doing at the outset, and only waver if you are absolutely sure it is right and it won't jeopardise your schedule. This is not a hobby, this is paying your bills.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 10:48:27 am
content: QuoteHoward, that assumes that the only way to make money on is to keep the everything secret and sell the licenses to use it. That's certainly one way to do it, but not the only one. Not since a long time.Ask companies like RedHat, SuSE or even Github how they are making money from open source. They aren't selling the code but services around it. Theoretically anyone can grab the same code and become a competitor, in practice it needs certain specialized knowledge and skills - which is what these companies are happy to sell you. Not everyone wants to become an expert on Linux servers, for example - so you pay a specialist to set it up for you. And whether or not the "code" is closed or open source does not really matter for the client at this moment - they are paying for the service. The code being open is an advantage from the support point of view, though - they are not locked in to a particular vendor and it also makes debugging of problems easier.This "give the code away and charge for services" model is getting to be a more and more prevalent, because the "code" is becoming a commodity (except in some domains requiring specialized knowledge/skills). There are only so many ways one can build a database or a webserver, for example, so you aren't going to make a killing selling those (unless you are Oracle - but that's more because of industrial inertia and corruption than because of the qualities of that software). And once that happens, there is no advantage to keep such code secret. In fact, it will only put you at a disadvantage because you are not going to get the bug fixes and security problem alerts from third parties which your competitors may be getting.Now, I am not saying that you must open source your products. That's is up to everyone's decision. It requires a different mental model where you must stop thinking about the possibility of someone else "ripping off" your code because it is out there free to grab but need to have a clear idea how do you outcompete them instead, so that the customer spends the money with you and not on a cheap clone.You must know exactly where is the added value which you are bringing. If all the value of your product is in that code, then you probably shouldn't open source it, because you will starve. On the other hand, if you have a sensible ecosystem around it and the code is not really *the thing* that is making the most money, it makes sense to open it up. It could bring you new business you wouldn't have had if the tools were closed and people weren't able to use them beyond what you have envisioned.Just look at the embedded development tools - thanks to gcc/gdb being open, it is a defacto standard compiler/debugger for embedded programming. You would be hard pressed to find tooling that doesn't support it. That, in turn, has made life simpler for vendors of debugging pods, analysers and what not, because they know that if they support this combo, they will be able to sell their product no problem. The same for chip vendors - they don't need to build and maintain their own compilers and IDEs anymore (which was never a profitable business), just use gcc and voila, problem solved. Win-win for everyone, except for the sellers of the proprietary toolchains ...Now when it comes to open sourcing hardware designs - that's a bit different story. With software it is simpler, with hw you may have those external constraints (like NDAs) which may prevent it. Fair enough. Concerning adding support for something like Linux in your product - just ignore those loudmouthed individuals.On the other hand, publishing an API/protocol/whatever is applicable to your gizmo so that a 3rd party can actually add that Linux/Mac/Android/whatever support for the device is a good thing (e.g. if you are making a piece of test gear, having it working with Sigrok is always a good bonus).Nobody can force you to support something you don't use and don't get paid for - just don't make it hard for others who would often do it even for free for you if the documentation was available. That's often the problem - most vendors make only a Windows driver for something and say they don't support anything else. Fair enough, but then they don't publish the interface/protocol of the device neither so that someone else can actually do the work without resorting to complex reverse engineering. And I am not talking about something super secret there where it could be kinda understandable but things like a wireless receiver for a gamepad (yay, Microsoft!).