Pat, why, how, how much, and strength?

[Grelinette]

I open this new debate because this topic seems interesting to me on a site like econology which is teeming with projects, ideas, tips and innovative constructions which must make envy of potential investors in search of potential ideas. lucrative! ...


It also raises a lot of questions and it seems that there are many pitfalls to be avoided, possible tricks to make a patent more solid, or on the contrary "destroy" a patent filed and made public. There are also, it seems, a lot of misconceptions on the subject.

Several posts on econology have addressed or raised this subject with comments that seemed to me sometimes curious. I even imagine that some posts presenting an innovative idea are intended to precisely "test" the innovative side of the idea in order to improve it in order to patent it ... which would, in fact, be the means of making a possible patent. worthless ...

Let's take an example :

"Monsieur X", (loyal Internet user coming to drag his mouse on econology ) Has an idea seems innovative and plans to file a patent:

1. Who is this Mr X? (Individual, student, professional, business, team, association, ...)
1. Why apply for a patent?
2. His idea is patentable?
2. What is the instruction ?
3. What should he do and not do?
4. Jargon to use and to avoid: system, principle, process, method, device, etc. Each word would not have the same value.
5. Are there any tips? (the envelope Soleau, recommended to oneself, the publication on a website, ...)
6. How much it will cost, deposit, afterwards?
7. What can he do his patent?
etc ...

I imagine that among the many budding "geniuses" who come to econology, many of them are interested in the question!

[Ahmed]

Here many questions ...

A patent is a legal document that attests to the authorship of a new device, innovative and capable of industrial application. It's kind of limited property right in time, during which the inventor enjoys exclusive of said device, he operates himself, whether he sells or leases it ...
The patent does not attest to the technical value of the protected process.
Another patent of interest is to protect against patent holders competitors: it is easier to defend with the backing of such a document.

In practice, true inventions are rare, most are only improvements that exists and therefore easy to destroy or circumvent.
As a result, it is often more efficient (and much cheaper) to use the "registered model" procedure, even if it means diverting it from its true purpose.

Another strategy, valid for very complex products, is not to preserve patent for the design secrets.
The crucial part is located at the end of the patent, it is the "claims" which must circumscribe as well as possible all the possibilities of "derivative" patents ... this is therefore the domain of the lawyer and not that of the inventor, too. great as it is!

The best protection remaining, paradoxically, to have a patent without interest, which puts totally immune from attack, as poorly written as it is!

Finally, an idea can not in any case be subject to a patent!

[Janic]

ahmed hello

As a result, it is often more efficient (and much cheaper) to use the "registered model" procedure, even if it means diverting it from its true purpose.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that INPI, formerly the National Institute of Intellectual property, became Industrial Property. Fortunately other international designations WIPO, EPO remain attached to the designation of intellectual property.
Indeed intellectual property is "free" and transferable by inheritance. This is where we see that the patent is a smokescreen intended to make money for those who live on it, but only provides derisory and subjective protection since the State is not committed.
At most it is effective when the invention of little or no interesting odds and industrially.
For example Pascal Ha Pham's Robiplan is not likely to overshadow the big wind, but assuming an innovation that would make old wind turbines obsolete, then he would not be out of the inn to protect his invention against the power of sharks in industry and finance.

[dirk pitt]

I think for an individual, there is no interest in embarking on a process patent.
if a guy actually invents something he "thinks" is awesome "and he" believes "it doesn't already exist, the best thing he has to do is start broadcasting it himself on the way up. a company or a micro-enterprise. if it has no interest or if it already exists, it will not have wasted too much time or money in the patent process. and if it interests people and it really corresponds to a need not covered by some existing business, he can make a little money while waiting for competitors to try to copy it, or even he will have his business bought out if there are some subtleties not easy to copy .

[phil53]

It is certain that for an individual that has no interest to file a patent. This costs and offers an illusory protection.
IF an industrial found the idea interesting it could easily circumvent the patent and file others. This is the number that matters.
Unless it's really the great thing which has no relation with what exists. But it is very rare;
By against the company that employed me filed in several as my proposals. And sometimes things without aparent interests have been patented because it entered the company's strategy. From my point of view it is the least innovative ideas that have brought me bonuses, the best were not even considered.

[Grelinette]

Thank you for your answers.

I would come back later to give you my opinion on the matter because I have a lot of questions on the subject.

Meanwhile, in a nutshell, here are the reasons that led me to open this debate:

I continue to work on the prototype of the carriage with electric assistance, mainly to simplify and make more reliable parts of the hybridization system.

Lately I'm going to see the blacksmith who made me the hardware changes and asked him to make me a device to improve a part of the system, and I handed him the sketch.

A few days later an "investor" contacted me to tell me that he had seen my plans at the ironworker he also works with, and asked me if I had filed a patent for part of the device!

The system seems to me such a commonplace (especially since it is only a detail of the assembly) that I have not at one time imagined that this could be patented. Anyway, the question does not arise because I do not have the means to get into this financial adventure; the prototype of the hybrid carriage having been a sacred path of financial fighter!

After intelligence after the INPI, the establishment of a patent application file is quite expensive: plans, prior art search, drop folder made by a specialized firm and filing in France, Europe, and ... annuities, etc ...

In short, I met this "investor" and I explained to him the operation of the system and its destination (the hybrid carriage) ... and the galley is on the rise, he left in the wake to see a design office to have them done. plans in view of a patent filing ... He seems to believe it, and, to be sure, he is very efficient in business! (he runs a big company).

Apart from the fact that he told me to trust him and he sees in the device in question very many possible applications for the general public, we have not signed anything and I admit I hurt to follow businessman who darkens 100 on time!

That said, I told myself that it would still wise to protect me a minimum cost. So I filed a Soleau envelope (€ 15) and every time I make a change to the process, I send my plans recommended by the Post Office! (About 5 euros recommended by Internet with a few clicks. The postmark being, it seems, legal evidence to date a documentet therefore prove a certain anticipation, though, it seems to me questionable, I you say why).

So, a priori, even if I get "overtaken", I hope to at least keep the possibility of continuing my work and my research on the device in question and of manufacturing it later.

Now I also tell myself that it would be useful to find a system to remain master of a possible patent application by a third party which could see pass the system.

For example, a customer ironworker who saw the plans hang in the shop, an employee of the research department who made the plans, an expert in a particular subject with which I discussed for technical information, if this investor may be more sharks than he in the air ... it begins to make a few people who could take everyone to court if the system actually proved patentable!

I have some ideas to keep hold of any patent that may arise, but it seems a bit risky and uncertain ...

I'll tell you more as soon as I have some time.

Do you have any ideas or advice?

[Janic]

Hello
the deposit of a soleau envelope must precede the disclosure of the system otherwise it is possible to demonstrate the anteriority by the possible "pricker", except, for example, if you have made plans on a software, that being proof of its existence earlier. However if the "businessman" does not want to share the invention (or then it is necessary to sue on expensive lawsuits) that becomes his right. You should never divulge an idea before its protection with a patent or intellectual deposit before a notary. Even the ironworker has to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

[Grelinette]

By doing a search on the net, I found this site (there are others on the same topic):

http://www.copyrightdepot.com (questions answers : http://www.copyrightdepot.com/faq.htm )

I wonder what is the point of this site and if the arguments are reliable! Has anyone ever used this type of service?

It is mentioned that it allows "to defend your rights against a copier in court" ...
I do not see another use besides anticipation date of creation, and therefore, as Soleau envelope INPI "to date with certainty the creation of your work and to identify you as author"And consequently be able to manufacture and sell his invention personally only .

just about the envelope Soleau INPI the opinions that I have collected are shared. Some claim that it is useless, others say that in court a Soleau envelope, service INPI, to validate that you are the author of creation and continue to operate without invalidate the patent that a competitor could have filed for the same creation.

That said, I posed the question to a lawyer who did not answer me:

"An owner of a Soleau envelope creates a business which exploits a creation described in said envelope, even if a patent is subsequently filed by a competitor.

Nothing then prohibits reselling the business, then creating another on the basis of the same Soleau envelope since it is nominal, and so on. This “diverted” use of the Soleau envelope therefore amounts to “selling operating licenses” in the form of a “turnkey” business, without going through a patent filing.

Of course, this does not give exclusive exploitation rights and does not protect against possible competitors who take up the idea and also exploit it, but would make it possible to compete with a patent without being worried. "

[phil53]

If your contact at a company and he believes it, that's different. I advice you to agree with him.
You make a kind of contract.
That would be best for you, minimal risk and you continue the adventure with a partner
You can reasonably claim between 0,5 and 3% of the price of your factory system

[Grelinette]

... You can reasonably claim between 0,5 and 3% of the price of your factory system

That is to say ?...
In this case, it is a device involved in the control chain of the hybrid carriage, which could improve other existing materials, not necessarily vehicles. I say no more not close the door to a possible patent.

The "strategy" of this investor is to patent the device in a very generic form and to sell manufacturing licenses. The "0,5 and 3% of the factory price" would therefore be applicable on the price of a manufacturing license?

I remain fairly cautious and skeptical about this very ambitious "global strategy" which consists in protecting a device for all possible and imaginable applications.
It also seems very risky because it seems simple enough to turn a generic device rather than a finished product.

Reflection is nevertheless interesting.