Intellectual Property: How to Review a Patent Application

[TheSportsbot]

less is more. very nice job.

this is porn to me. no disrespect miss.

[LegalAdviceAid]

Great playlist of an Intellectual Property videos

[srJuliana903]

hookup now bit.ly\rm8R3i

[rlinventor]

The America Invents Act changes things: 1) not disclosing best mode will not cause you to risk losing the patent, 2) not correctly indicating the inventors will also not cause you the same risk (in Section 20 of the bill, all language referring to "deceptive intent" has been erased), 3) under First-to-File, your risk of disclosing your invention confidentially greatly increases. The new laws are bad for independent inventors and good for vested interests and those who intend to deceive.

[ThinkStage]

Very cool

To see more innovative videos like this or want to share your own ideas visit ThinkStageDOTcom

[supplierhq]

Conclusion:

Patent is only for big companies that afford big legal fee. Even your claim is granted, other companies can steal your idea. If you don't have millions of $ to sue them, just shut up and watch them making big $, and you get NOTHING.

So, why bother to spend $25k to hire a patent attorney to file your application when patent cannot really protect you?

Do you really think Apple will give you licensing fee if they think your patent is good for their new products?

[qdub11]

Thank You Katherine.........very well done.

[LawyerVideoMarketing]

nice video

[PatentUFO]

Great video!

[bigchrisrogers]

Thankyou

[StarfishBingo]

@bigchrisrogers

Check it:

w ww.an archa dia.co m

[jerthemessiah]

If the government objects to monopoly prices for new inventions, it should stop granting patents.

[StarfishBingo]

@jerthemessiah

Check it:

w ww.an archa dia.co m

[davidhleo]

21:45 depending claim

[davidhleo]

14:45 explanation of infrigment

[IamPrasanth9]

I have a major Doubt, what if the Attorney leaks my Idea, so some one else will get the patent, just before me, due to the attorney's cunningness.

I suppose all Patent attorney's will be having good links with corporate industries and big figures, so he will get a huge ransom, if he leaks some others Idea to these industries..so they will have the patent legally, as if they invented it.

So i suppose, If one has the Idea - one has to do all the work himself totally, finally contact a Attorney

[mojitobanana]

This woman is amazing! Thank you.

[kristyjoi]

The Railhead Manufacturing case that you mentioned in which the provisional application does not satisfy 112, is that a typical case or an extraordinary case? How often are patents invalidated based on 112 support in the provisional or is it that the patent invention is no longer novel after relying on the non-provisional filing date rather than the provisional filing date?

[mjribes]

Very informative! Thank you for posting this.

[1888junkteam]

excellent work!

[jcsteuart2]

First, great discussion. Really helped me clarify my understanding of how to read a patent / from a drafting perspective.

Question RE: Public Disclosure -

As the internet continues to capture and catalog every comment and thought that we all have, how will the courts determine if the published ramblings of the masses constitute a "publication" of the idea, thereby preventing patenting and inhibiting the incentive for the hard work of bringing the idea(s) to market?

Thank you.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "if they want to make money from it, then they have to sell it and that means sharing it with the public."

Are you sure? No one has ever made any money from a trade secret?

google. com/search?q=patent+%22trade+s­ecret%22

"trade secret protection requires the protected information be kept secret. Therefore, if you patent a trade secret, once the application or patent is published, it will no longer be protected by trade secret laws."

[Piscivorus]

When someone has a great idea, that's great. They should be recognized for it. If they want to keep their idea a secret, then they should keep it to themselves. But, if they want to make money from it, then they have to sell it and that means sharing it with the public. Nobody should expect to have a monopoly on the production of anything that is sold in the free market. That's why it's called "free".

[suziestew]

Excellent....

next lesson?

thank you for posting...

any other web sights or other series of educational material?

blessings,

suziestew

[Piscivorus]

Abolish the patent system completely. There is no good reason for it.

[SneakyWhoami]

How about just a big reform:

1) No patents for mathematical algorithms (this rule exists but is ignored)

2) patents should be cheaper (innovators don't always come from big business, although they perhaps usually do, who knows?)

3) Patents should last only for a brief period (single digits in years); say, long enough to forge brand recognition and trust.

Can anyone tell me of an example where a patent does any good for your country in the 21st century? Cite reputable references.

[Piscivorus]

No because it's a slippery slope. If we allow patents at all, then those who benefit from it the most will always have an unfair advantage, as the various tycoons of the 19th century did. The patent website even says that patents DO NOT grant anyone the right to make, use, sell, or export anything, it ONLY gives you the right to exclude others from doing so. So, a patent is no less than a legal right to infringe upon everyone else's right to utilize their own labor and capital however they want.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "unfair advantage"

Presumably, the same would go for any type of law. The United States has laws, and therefore it is susceptible to corruption. Yet, the United States is less corrupt than most other nations.

nationmaster. com/graph/gov_cor-government-c­orruption

[Piscivorus]

No because some laws at least make sense. IP laws only make money. Corruption doesn't come from simply having laws, it comes from how laws are created. But "less corrupt than most other nations"? hah! The USA has been the world leader in corruption since the end of WWII. But the US has been corrupt from the start because of two things: A) The federal patent system and B) the Constitutional restriction of Congress to issue money solely as gold and silver coin- no paper or digital fiat.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "The USA has been the world leader in corruption since the end of WWII."

Why do you think so?

[Piscivorus]

@hitssquad "Why do you think so?"

The endless pursuit of Wealth and power.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "The endless pursuit of [...]"

...might not be exclusive to humans living in the United States. In my question to you, I was referring to your own reasoning behind your conclusion that the US is more corrupt than any other nation?

What evidence are you gong on? This evidence?:

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Corruption_Perception­s_Index

You are positive that the US is more corrupt than Somalia, Myanmar, Iraq, Haiti, and Afghanistan?

[Piscivorus]

My conclusion isn't based on any data. I merely generalized. If I'm wrong, oh well. I could care less about comparing the US to other nations. Talk about a low bar.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "a patent is [...] a legal right to infringe upon everyone else's right to utilize their own labor and capital"

Isn't that what any other private deed to property does? If you privately own a given piece of land, doesn't that give you the right to infringe upon other's rights to use that same piece of land?

[Piscivorus]

@hitssquad "Isn't that what any other private deed to property does? If you privately own a given piece of land, doesn't that give you the right to infringe upon other's rights to use that same piece of land?"

As the owner, you are the only one who has the right. But ownership is only necessary for tangible things which can only be physically used by one person at a time. Ideas are not tangible things. You cannot deprive anyone of an idea by using it yourself. Ownership of ideas is unnecessary.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "ownership is only necessary for tangible things"

You're contradicting yourself. Previously, you said that the reason IP is no good is that it restricts the rights of others. Now, you say that TP (tangiible P) is okay, even though it restricts the rights of others. Under that one test of yours, both fail, but you claim that TP should be given a pass anyway, even though it fails.

Can you produce any non-fallacious reasons why IP might not be okay, while TP is okay?

[Piscivorus]

Our tangible property does not [infringe] on other people's rights. That is a fallacy you are perpetuating here.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "Our tangible property does not [infringe] on other people's rights."

It does, as much as IP does. If I own a piece of land, it restricts your right to utilize your own labor and capital however you want, in that I can restrict you from building a factory on my land, and I can restrict you from working on my land.

[Piscivorus]

But that only applies when I'm on your land. If I'm on my land, you can't restrict me at all. In the case of IP law, it's as if you own the whole planet; the whole universe!

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "that only applies when I'm on your land."

It does indeed. What is "my land" used to be part of the commons. You used to be able to travel on it, build factories on it, work on it, etc., until I confiscated it from the commons. Now that it is my private land, I restrict you from doing what you used to be able to do upon that land. I have restricted your rights.

[Piscivorus]

You're missing my point. First of all, you don't restrict anybody's rights, the government does. In the case of TP, the government must necessarily restrict my rights in order to grant you TP rights. But your TP rights don't restrict my TP rights. In the case of IP, my patent doesn't give me the right to use an idea. It only gives me the right to prohibit you from using it, thereby infringing upon your TP rights. And it's totally unnecessary.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus

Indeed. When you are marketing only your own IP, I can't restrict you.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "Ideas are not tangible"

Ideas require capital in order to develop them into marketable products. If one company spends all the capital required to develop a product, and fails to secure IP protection, other companies get to ride for free.

I the real world, otherwise-good ideas that are not IP protected are simply never never brought to market by anyone. No one gets the benefits from them. No one can ever use them.

IP protection allows good ideas to benefit the world.

[Piscivorus]

Everything you said- bullshit. It's only because of IP rights that companies spend billions researching new technology to monopolize. It's their right to do whatever they want with their capital but that's no justification for IP rights. It's only because if IP rights that good ideas get locked up in corporate filing cabinets for decades. Without IP rights, there would be no need to secure IP protection.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "It's their right to do whatever they want with their capital but that's no justification for IP rights."

If they couldn't protect the novel resources created with those billions of R&D dollars, then the R&D would not get done in the first place and thus the world would never be able to benefit from the would-have-been-created novel resources.

Are you saying that none of the drugs or chemicals that have been marketed in the world had any value to society?

[Piscivorus]

IP rights are not the only motives for R&D. Necessity is the mother of invention. There are thousands of inventions that we don't benefit from right now because of IP rights. Anyone can do R&D. Without IP rights, everyone would be free to R&D anything. And it's very likely that people will occasionally discover the same thing at the same time. That would pressure people to bring their ideas to market asap rather than later, or never. Thus the world would benefit much better then it does now.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "discover the same thing at the same time."

Simultaneous invention invalidates patents. One reason is that it implies obviousness.

techdirt. com/blog.php?tag=simultaneous+­invention

The US is a "first to invent" (rather than "first to file") nation.

google. com/search?q=first+to+invent+p­atent

[hitssquad]

How does IP-law reward marketing delays?

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "There are thousands of inventions that we don't benefit from right now because of IP rights."

Please name some of them.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "I don't know of any [stifled patented-inventions] but I know they exist."

Then what makes you think they exist?

(You are aware that patents are made available for public search and view, yes? Inventors do not patent things they intend to keep secret.)

[Piscivorus]

Then you're free to do your own homework, if you're truly interested.

[hitssquad]

How would that tell me why you think they exist?

[Piscivorus]

I believe this to be true because I've obtained a lot of facts over the years from many reputable sources. Unfortunately, I didn't cataloged those sources incase I need to prove it to someone on youtube. Just google the phrase "unused patents" and you'll see that I'm right.

[hitssquad]

Unused patents can be sold:

whynot. net/ideas/3553

"Part of the reason for so many unused patents is that firms do not realise that their patents may have value to others. The patent itself may be of little use to the firm that invented it (the invention may have been 'accidental') and therefore they just sit on it unaware that others might like to use it. Some companies are now realising this and are offering unwanted patents for sale through patent auction websites."

Problem solved.

[hitssquad]

Really? Examples, please.

How does hiding useful concepts, instead of developing and marketing them, help maximize company profits?

[Piscivorus]

Well they can't hide useful concepts _instead_ of developing and marketing them or they'd have nothing to hide. The answer to your question is simply your question in statement form. To maximize profits, companies roll there products out slowly over time on a schedule. They stretch the schedule out as long as possible in order to make as much as they can from each idea and in a highly regulated, IP dominated mixed-market like we have now, it easy for companies to collude and coordinate it.

[hitssquad]

Yes. We're saying the same thing. The R&D that benefits the world gets done because of IP rights. If there were no IP rights, the R&D would not get done, and the world would therefore be poorer.

[Piscivorus]

No. R&D would still get done but, by the cumulative contributions of all companies and individuals rather than just one.

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus [collectivised R&D]

What would be the incentive for any individual company to contribute?

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common­s

How would collective R&D be different from collective agricuture?

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

"farming was organized into communes and the cultivation of private plots forbidden. This forced collectivisation substantially reduced the incentives for peasants to work well."

[hitssquad]

(collectivised R&D, cont.)

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Droughts_ and_ famines_ in_ Russia_ and_ the_ USSR

"The second Soviet famine happened during the collectivisation in the USSR. In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities caused a famine which affected more than 40 million people, especially in the south on the Don and Kuban areas and in Ukraine, where by various estimates from 5 to 10 million may have starved to death (the event known as Holodomor)."

[Piscivorus]

Question 1: Money

Question 2: I didn't say "collective R&D". I said "cumulative contributions".

[hitssquad]

@Piscivorus "Money"

Any individual company gets the money from marketing the product of the R&D, whether or not he contributes to the community R&D effort. What, then, is the individual incentive to cintribute to a community R&D effort?

[hitssquad]

"patents should be cheaper"

More money spent up-front usually saves litigation costs later. Besides that, patents are already dirt-cheap. How would you suggest reducing the prior-art search costs, or reducing the need for highly-capable experienced engineer-attorneys to serve as patent examiners?

robertplattbell. blogspot. com/2007/10/careers-in-ip-law. html

If you are suggesting increasing the government-subsidies for patents, please consider that already 95% of patents are worthless.

[asbusu]

I don't think "Evil Infringer" is a proper choice of words. Especially since both inventors are going through patent attorneys.

[SneakyWhoami]

And as it is hard to research patents. Researching a patent is a 7-day job, and furthermore a patent can appear on the very day before you launch your product.

Sometimes patents just don't mention the thing you're thinking of building in any reasonable combination of words.

So sometimes the evil infringer will have done their very best to not infringe any patents, and still been trapped.

[kanadali]

can you patent an idea?

I have tons of them... Can I really patent them???

[SaxenaSaxenaSaxena]

They need to be novel i.e. the combination of features of your idea should not be found in a single document on any patent applications database e.g the UKPO. Your idea should have an inventive step that is not obvious to a person of experience in your industry, with ordinary skill. Your idea must have a relevant industrial application and preferably - for you, at least - be commercially viable. Also, it must not fall into an excluded category e.g. discoveries, surgical methods, offensive etc.

[SneakyWhoami]

In principle it can't be patented if it is obvious - but I hear in America they let you patent any old thing. I hear Microsoft has a patent for putting a networked computer in a car, for example. Not only is it obvious, there was prior art, so it really shouldn't be patented at all. Not to bash Microsoft, it was the first example to jump into my head.

I think that basically all you need to get a patent in America is A LOT OF MONEY. All the other requirements are only "guidelines".

[A23Angelo]

NIce man i needed this little lesson thankz a lot..

[joethom13]

Very good inputs.

I have a question and i woould appreciate if someone answers it. If i am a inventor of a idea bud don't want to patent it. I have no problem if anybody copies my idea but i don't want to be in a situation where somebody patents the same idea and does not allow me to use it.

[SaxenaSaxenaSaxena]

That's what a patent is for though - to prevnt your idea being copied and patented by a rival. If you were serious about that not wanting to happen you would patent your idea, as long as it fulfilled the above criteria.

[brucebuddha]

I think it will make sense for us to do a Provisional patent to start to market our product.

[Lokiinnova]

Very good input to inventors !!!