Patents?

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

If a fellow has an idea, and he knows it's not world changing, and never intends to make money off of it, asking his best friend to sign a legal document before handing him a beer is a weird move.

If a fellow has an idea that might change the world, and he might want to make money off of it, it's an uncomfortable thing that's usually worth doing, from a business perspective. Friends will forgive weird moments when the next beer is of a higher quality in your fancy new man cave...

Patent law, and those who use it to protect IP doesn't equate to "money hungry". They're both based in the fundamental belief in a human being's right to own personal property. This belief is foundational to Western Society. If you think that laws designed to protect your right to own property is grounded in greed, well, my guess is that is in direct conflict with many other values you hold.

I disagree that laws to protect IP stifle innovation. Few things have motivated people like exponential growth of value. You can call that value different things - like wealth, money, fame, changing the world, making people's lives better, etc. But when your ideas can create large changes, you are much more motivated to perfect them and share them. We don't get to choose how someone cashes out that value. But protecting their right to generate it is a very strong incentive to innovate.

I agree with your assessment of the narrow protection that some patents may offer. I am not saying a fellow may not have legal recourse. I am saying that the potential reduction in value, created by all the things you pointed out, become much more likely with a narrowly defined patent. A patent can be useful as a barrier of entry to a potential competitor. But to actually enforce the legal protections of a patent, a couple things have to be true: You have to be able to afford it; and the entity you're going after has to have something to award you in the event you "win". This is why getting a patent for an idea that will only ever be worth 5000.00 is not money well spent. Even if someone infringed on your IP rights, and you sued and won, all you can win is what you can convince a judge it's worth.

I don't share the view that a thirst for money is a net negative with you. Pretty much all of the absolutely incredible changes in human well being over the last few hundred years are a direct result of a person's legally protected right to acquire capital, and use it to fund innovation. The wealth created has lifted half of humanity out of abject poverty, starvation, and disease. Is everything perfect? Heck no. But it's hard to ignore these facts.

Also, as an aside - the lawyers seem to get a really bad rap among the common folk. Everyone thinks they're the ones sucking us all dry. I heard a great analogy the other day - "Lawyers are the coders of society." Think about it - We all have ideas, and thoughts, and desires, and the way we want the world to be. Lawyers just takes all those abstractions, and create a framework to organize and execute them. Most people think "Lawyer = ambulance chaser". I agree we have become over-litigious in America. But trial law gets conflated with business law too often. There are millions of lawyers who simply take our ideas, and make them more concrete. If we have a problem with the work the lawyers are doing, we ought to be looking at our ideas they're putting into code.

Good business lawyers can bill at 300-700.00 an hour. Or more. They can't make that kind of money by reading and editing the details of a contract with no benefit to their customer. They have to be capturing or extracting value. The only way for that value to exist is for someone to create it. The only way for value to be created in large quantities is for us to believe in the right of a person to own it. If we start to erode those rights, you will diminish the desire to innovate.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong. Just looking at things for what they are.

Not to disagree or off track this thread but I see it like this, business law is the only law in America where you can sell “your property” to someone else and still own it. If I sell my car or my home, I don’t then have legal recourse to tell the person who buys it, that they can’t sell it without my permission. Or that they can’t design their next home similar to my own. If that’s not money driven I don’t know what is. And with lawyers, most laws are created with sub sections or “loop holes” that only they can de“code” as you so elegantly put it. This was done to be sure that you have to be able to afford the same rights as someone else. Not everyone has the same amount of money as the next guy but should still have the same fundamental protections. If you can’t afford a true patent lawyer believe me, you’ll lose to the guy who can afford the attorney every time. So no my beliefs on intellectual property do not relate at all to my belief that I have the right to protect my home or my kids. Sorry Kyler you are definitely a smart guy but in this instance, there is no amount of debating here or in private that will convince me that business laws are not written to favor a wealthy educated man instead of the normal every day guy who just has a good idea. Once you sell something, the business is yours but the product is not. And just because someone improves it and patents the improvement still doesn’t mean they can make it and sell it because it still steps on the claims of the existing product. So your improvement gets patented then you stop the originator from selling the improved version UNLESS you both reach a licensing agreement. Aka you both make money off of it. The whole system is designed for monetary gain. Which is great. You can’t live without money right? But how many times has the person who created an idea actually make the best, safest or most reliable version of the product? I shouldn’t have to pay some guy a bunch of money because I make a better version of something he “created” and honestly most of the companies with the money to get the patents, didn’t create the idea. Per patent law to obtain a patent you must be the inventor, and the idea must be nonobvious… go read some of the patents as they relate to saddle hunting and tell me you believe these companies created that idea and that it wasnt already in existence on this site or in other similar use situations before they started (patenting and) selling it…
You will never convince me that it’s actually created to protect everyone and not just “coded” to favor those with more expendable means.. That’s where I will end my input for this so that we do not off track this thread.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

If a fellow has an idea, and he knows it's not world changing, and never intends to make money off of it, asking his best friend to sign a legal document before handing him a beer is a weird move.

If a fellow has an idea that might change the world, and he might want to make money off of it, it's an uncomfortable thing that's usually worth doing, from a business perspective. Friends will forgive weird moments when the next beer is of a higher quality in your fancy new man cave...

Patent law, and those who use it to protect IP doesn't equate to "money hungry". They're both based in the fundamental belief in a human being's right to own personal property. This belief is foundational to Western Society. If you think that laws designed to protect your right to own property is grounded in greed, well, my guess is that is in direct conflict with many other values you hold.

I disagree that laws to protect IP stifle innovation. Few things have motivated people like exponential growth of value. You can call that value different things - like wealth, money, fame, changing the world, making people's lives better, etc. But when your ideas can create large changes, you are much more motivated to perfect them and share them. We don't get to choose how someone cashes out that value. But protecting their right to generate it is a very strong incentive to innovate.

I agree with your assessment of the narrow protection that some patents may offer. I am not saying a fellow may not have legal recourse. I am saying that the potential reduction in value, created by all the things you pointed out, become much more likely with a narrowly defined patent. A patent can be useful as a barrier of entry to a potential competitor. But to actually enforce the legal protections of a patent, a couple things have to be true: You have to be able to afford it; and the entity you're going after has to have something to award you in the event you "win". This is why getting a patent for an idea that will only ever be worth 5000.00 is not money well spent. Even if someone infringed on your IP rights, and you sued and won, all you can win is what you can convince a judge it's worth.

I don't share the view that a thirst for money is a net negative with you. Pretty much all of the absolutely incredible changes in human well being over the last few hundred years are a direct result of a person's legally protected right to acquire capital, and use it to fund innovation. The wealth created has lifted half of humanity out of abject poverty, starvation, and disease. Is everything perfect? Heck no. But it's hard to ignore these facts.

Also, as an aside - the lawyers seem to get a really bad rap among the common folk. Everyone thinks they're the ones sucking us all dry. I heard a great analogy the other day - "Lawyers are the coders of society." Think about it - We all have ideas, and thoughts, and desires, and the way we want the world to be. Lawyers just takes all those abstractions, and create a framework to organize and execute them. Most people think "Lawyer = ambulance chaser". I agree we have become over-litigious in America. But trial law gets conflated with business law too often. There are millions of lawyers who simply take our ideas, and make them more concrete. If we have a problem with the work the lawyers are doing, we ought to be looking at our ideas they're putting into code.

Good business lawyers can bill at 300-700.00 an hour. Or more. They can't make that kind of money by reading and editing the details of a contract with no benefit to their customer. They have to be capturing or extracting value. The only way for that value to exist is for someone to create it. The only way for value to be created in large quantities is for us to believe in the right of a person to own it. If we start to erode those rights, you will diminish the desire to innovate.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong. Just looking at things for what they are.

But I do agree with you that there are times and products/ ideas that should be protected or are at least earth shattering enough that the true inventor deserves to be well compensated for that idea. I do not feel like that’s what is accomplished with the USPTO as they do not do their due diligence when issuing patents. I know first hand that they check it against “existing art” aka other patents and the few things the applicant provides them with. They are not going to search websites and forums to know what is truly new or non obvious, or what has been released to the public far prior to its patent filing. I realize you weren’t saying something is right or wrong as well and I appreciate your input on the subject, however I don’t share the same kind regard for how the USPTO operates. They would rather issue the patent then let people hash it out in court, rather than do their due diligence before issuing patents. Think about this, if you wanted to rezone your property, the local government has a public hearing to take in other opinions and facts about the surrounding area instead of allowing their “professionals” and the applicant hired professionals to tell them what the zoning should be and why. But when you apply for a patent you can keep it unpublished for 18 months and by then the patent review attorney has all but made his decision. If one of us tried to call and dispute the nonobviousness of the claims they won’t accept it. They won’t let you speak with the reviewer before he issues the patent unless you are the applicant or their rep…. Why do you think that is? Why do all other normal agencies operate in the sunshine have public hearings ect, (not talking about national defense as they would obviously need to be secretive for security) but the USPTO doesn’t have to operate similarly? One word my friend: MONEY

 

[Treehopper2]

all due respect to both you and stalker, this is bad advice.

get anyone you talk to to sign an NDA prior to any exchange of information.

Leaving immediate family aside, I wouldn’t recommend talking to anyone without an NDA about your idea, no matter how good of an ole boy they are. And no matter how casual the conversation is.

intentionally or not, it is incredibly easy for someone to extract or destroy all monetary value of your intellectual property. Having a sound NDA in place prior to any transfer of information will offer some protection against that happening.

If you have a great idea and think it’s worth investing in a patent I wouldn’t share it with anyone on here NDA or not.
I have seen people on this forum patent ideas straight from DIY conversations and claim they came up with it when they clearly didn’t and if you have been here awhile I’m sure you have seen this happen.
I have personally seen people block other companies pending patents under assumed names all along stepping on other’s throats just to move forward with their agenda with a smile on their face and acting like everyone’s buddy.
I’m not directing this towards anyone In this thread I’m just saying be careful who you trust money change’s folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyler1945]

One word my friend: MONEY

This was the general concept I was getting at - Lawyers write laws to build a system for us to operate on, with OUR ideas, feelings, and aspirations. I use OUR collectively, and loosely. We can argue over how much influence on the system that "rich/well educated" - I prefer the term "front row" - versus "the common man" or "back row" have. But what isn't up for debate really, is that for better or worse, our system reflects our society. And the influence each of those "sides" has. Which gets back to my original point. Western Society has recognized that favoring capital over labor has done more to change the trajectory of humanity in the last few hundred years, for what we generally agree is the betterment of all humanity. That doesn't mean one is better than the other, by who belongs in each category. Or that the collective decision to lean this way is "right". It just means 8 billion people generally agree. Why do I think that? We can split the atom and the cell, and we're all still here. Maybe we don't actually feel that way - and it would go a long way to explaining a lot of populist uprisings over the last 20 years. I think the next step in this part of the conversation gets us too political. I'll bow out at continuing that part in public for the sake of people reading thread and moderators.



Also, I share your feelings for the USPTO, but for very different reasons. Their operating mode makes complete sense to me, given the priors. That doesn't mean I like it. It just IS.

The state can't pay good lawyers to search for prior art because WE PAY THE STATE. And we don't value searching for prior art. So the state remains an uncompetitive player in the labor market. Because we all generally agree that the state shouldn't be incentivized by capital. Because we believe that private property should. And so patent lawyers, especially good ones, keep you from wasting your money to file a patent that may not offer you the protection you want.

I've been through that process on two occasions. I spent a lot of money on the search, and ultimately declined to follow through with applications in both cases. Why? In one case - the patent would offer very narrow protection, and in the other, the long term prospects for financial gain were not large enough to justify the cost to pay for US and International (A whole nother can O worms) protection. From my perspective, the lawyer SAVED me money.

I think all of this is useful to anyone considering patenting something. A lot of people have a lot of naive ideas about the way our system really works. And the more they get to see how the sausage is made, the less likely they are to get in over their head. Even though we see some of this stuff differently, the details that matter can be teased out by someone looking to go down this road. I think it's worth continuing a detailed look at this. If it helps one fellow stop wasting money, or even better, go for it and hit it big, it was worth all our few minutes of pontificating.

 

[kyler1945]

there is no amount of debating here or in private that will convince me that business laws are not written to favor a wealthy educated man instead of the normal every day guy who just has a good idea.

This is done on purpose, because capitalism.

 

[kyler1945]

If you have a great idea and think it’s worth investing in a patent I wouldn’t share it with anyone on here NDA or not.
I have seen people on this forum patent ideas straight from DIY conversations and claim they came up with it when they clearly didn’t and if you have been here awhile I’m sure you have seen this happen.
I have personally seen people block other companies pending patents under assumed names all along stepping on other’s throats just to move forward with their agenda with a smile on their face and acting like everyone’s buddy.
I’m not directing this towards anyone In this thread I’m just saying be careful who you trust money change’s folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I generally agree, and I probably should've emphasized the "don't talk" part of what I said, over the "unless" part.

And yes, you've pointed out the ugly underbelly of favoring capital the way we do.

I wish people would stop thinking in terms of black and white, good and bad, and right and wrong when it comes to business. Start thinking in terms of tradeoffs, taking long or short positions, and that the sum of a man, or a corporation, or a product, or a way of life is usually a lot of positive mixed with a lot of negative. Truly good or positive things are never actually all positive - they're just more good than bad on balance. Capitalism is no different because it's just a manifestation of the human spirit - the good and evil that cuts through the heart of all of us.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

This was the general concept I was getting at - Lawyers write laws to build a system for us to operate on, with OUR ideas, feelings, and aspirations. I use OUR collectively, and loosely. We can argue over how much influence on the system that "rich/well educated" - I prefer the term "front row" - versus "the common man" or "back row" have. But what isn't up for debate really, is that for better or worse, our system reflects our society. And the influence each of those "sides" has. Which gets back to my original point. Western Society has recognized that favoring capital over labor has done more to change the trajectory of humanity in the last few hundred years, for what we generally agree is the betterment of all humanity. That doesn't mean one is better than the other, by who belongs in each category. Or that the collective decision to lean this way is "right". It just means 8 billion people generally agree. Why do I think that? We can split the atom and the cell, and we're all still here. Maybe we don't actually feel that way - and it would go a long way to explaining a lot of populist uprisings over the last 20 years. I think the next step in this part of the conversation gets us too political. I'll bow out at continuing that part in public for the sake of people reading thread and moderators.



Also, I share your feelings for the USPTO, but for very different reasons. Their operating mode makes complete sense to me, given the priors. That doesn't mean I like it. It just IS.

The state can't pay good lawyers to search for prior art because WE PAY THE STATE. And we don't value searching for prior art. So the state remains an uncompetitive player in the labor market. Because we all generally agree that the state shouldn't be incentivized by capital. Because we believe that private property should. And so patent lawyers, especially good ones, keep you from wasting your money to file a patent that may not offer you the protection you want.

I've been through that process on two occasions. I spent a lot of money on the search, and ultimately declined to follow through with applications in both cases. Why? In one case - the patent would offer very narrow protection, and in the other, the long term prospects for financial gain were not large enough to justify the cost to pay for US and International (A whole nother can O worms) protection. From my perspective, the lawyer SAVED me money.

I think all of this is useful to anyone considering patenting something. A lot of people have a lot of naive ideas about the way our system really works. And the more they get to see how the sausage is made, the less likely they are to get in over their head. Even though we see some of this stuff differently, the details that matter can be teased out by someone looking to go down this road. I think it's worth continuing a detailed look at this. If it helps one fellow stop wasting money, or even better, go for it and hit it big, it was worth all our few minutes of pontificating.

This was well put my friend. I agree especially with the reasoning behind the USPTO limited search criteria (although that still favors the more financially fortunate) and I feel like we did well to avoid making it turn into politics. It is well worth mentioning that it is easy to get in over your head with patents and ideas without hiring someone who specializes in patent law. And it gets expensive fast with multi thousand dollar retainers and $500 per hour billing. My experiment was the other way. I had a lawyer reach out to me concerning a product. So we hired our own and as you said he researched it and said I have legitimate grounds to fight the cease and desist however once the amount of time and money were to go into it, I could not justify the cost verses the gain to continue making this particular product. I realize at the end of the whole “suit” I could recoup my losses however, how much money would I have to spend initially to have it drag out in court for a long time before a ruling and pay out could be reached? I have better things I could be spending that money on. And it has caused me to change a few other things to preemptively prepare for future issues that may arise. Honestly the whole process is sickening to me though.

 

[kyler1945]

Another thing to consider: if you have a good idea or an improvement, you don’t have to go the route of a patent. You can approach a producer, competitor, or someone with the cash to fund it, get them to sign an NDA, and see if there really is some there there. Compensating you for your ideas can come in many forms.

this route requires setting your ego aside. But it could very well set you up nicely to not have to pretend you’d be good at a starting or running a business.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

A

This is done on purpose, because capitalism.

Although if you truly read up on capitalism, that’s not what we have, we have limited capitalism because the USPTO is in fact a government entity designed to regulate what can be sold by whom without financial gain to someone else. By definition government regulation is the opposite of capitalism

 

[Weldabeast]

U know, for saddle hunters

Patent pending