Lots of

JimIvey

Quote

ValuePr...

Thanks, but I think I will remain optimistic that most manufacturers are not twirling their moustaches in anticipation of ripping off everyone who comes through the door without first wrapping their invention in Kevlar. You continue quibbling over definitions of "idea" and "intellectual property."  I rarely mail myself anything.  I wish I could mail myself to Bermuda.

Patents for truly unique INVENTIONS are a wise idea; for developing new products such as our FPCL, a provisional patent is more than enough as well as some "inventor's log" that keeps track of the steps taken in the development of your products, and perhaps some trademark protections. If you are truly worried, you get two witnesses to sign their understanding of the function of the product  and have their sigs. notorized.  Ironclad protection if you find yourself before the Supremes?  Naw.  But good enough.  

You seem convinced (or vested in maintaining the myth) that industrial crooks are lurking behind every potted geranium. I'm not convinced of that. I would guess they are behind every 120th geranium, so you have to be a little cautious...not paranoid.  Product developers'  protection is the same one writers enjoy. When they send the Great American Novel out to agents and publishers, why don't the agents and publishers just steal it? I think you, as a patent attorney on the hunt for business are playing to a naive fear that many "inventors" tend to have (and to which many forum inquiries play), and that is that everyone is out to steal their prized inventions. Your vitriol is misplaced. I am simply pointing up that MOST products MOST "inventors" come up with are not WORTH bothering to patent.  If your business relies upon volume, more power to you I guess.  Don't mean to step on your professional toes, just to shed a little sensible light.

I am not a lawyer.  I don't even play one on TV.  And you, apparently, know little about sales and marketing. I can't make a legal pleading here, but you (in fine lawerly fashion) are refusing to answer my direct: How, after spending 3- 5 years and at least $10,000 on a patent (and we are not even factoring in his time, travel, and other expenses), will the inventor of the FPCL will recoup that on a product that best case, MIGHT sell a total of 10,000 units over its effective lifespan (3-5 years, maximum) garnering him or her a 3% per-unit royalty--the same deal the "inventor" will get without a patent?

Unless we are simply concerned with vanity, let's see YOU argue the sense of that one to a economics or marketing class.  

I dunno, I'm no expert.  Maybe the large, well-respected, old manufacturing firms greedily snatch up any un-patented idea that comes to them, routinely stealing in this way. My gut tells me this is unlikely.  Unless each of these companies has its own Thomas Alva on staff, and can count on his productivity after poisoning the well that way, it seems  risky way for such manufacturers to conduct bidness. But again, I dunno.  Maybe that's exactly how they do it, and they then pay off reporters and others to keep it from being known.

Since I readily admit my own ignorance, I guess I will go well, ignorantly forward and rather than approaching  every contact in industry as if I am facing a N. Korean borderguard across the DMZ, I'll stick with the old salesman-Vaudvillian's tactic of giving 'em a heck of a show and leaving 'em wantin' more.

Best,
Mike

ValuePr...

Eric:

The debate ongoing with Jim, revolves around patents, not IP law, which I agree seem interchangeable in his perspective: if you want to protect your intellectual property, (the only thing to do is) you get a patent; if you get a patent your IP is protected.

You seem to be arguing against issues not made.  Of course patent attorneys are not experts on whether one SHOULD get a patent, but rather whether you CAN get one. Jim seems of the opinion that anything you come up with SHOULD be patented if it can be. Period.  Good for his business, I am sure.  Nothing wrong with Jim drumming up business, but let's not hang some sort of Crown of Noble Causes on him for it.

I wasn't aware there was some question as to whose decision to patent or not is. Unless the inventor is a minor child or in some other way deemed legally unable to make such decisions for him/herself, of course the decision to patent or not is his.  I don't even believe Jim was saying inventors and product developers should be forced to obtain patents.  My argument is and remains: MOST products do not need, require or warrent a patent. Though you will almost never go wrong with a patent search as long as it only costs a few hundred $$.

An inventor who gets a patent, then starts building the things himself is, just like (I believe the number is) 3-out-of-5 other startups doomed to fail within the first 5 years, regardless of what the patented invention is.  Bill Gates did not "invent" a new operating system so much as he tweaked an existing one and then went to work on the MARKETING.  While it's true he offered a better product, his true genius is in the MARKETING, not the gadgetry.  

Can you show me where I blamed patent attorneys for business mistakes made by inventors?  Of course, Jim would say NOT getting patented IS a business mistake. I would counter that not EVERY new product NEEDS to be encumbered by the time and expense of patenting before it's marketed.

I appreciate the plug for your business (I think you should work on the language a bit--it's confusing--Can you tell us what you DO in 10 words?), and wish you the best in your business.  That doesn't mean I will stop questioning the patent agent/attorney's patent (ahem) assertion that if you develop a product the ONLY way to go is spending 3-5 years and $5,000- $10,000 getting a patent.  While I certainly don't begrudge you all the business you can sweep up, I'm not here to drum up business for you guys.  Unless you want to start paying me, of course.

Best,
Mike

JimIvey

This is the last time I'll repeat myself.  I've answered all your questions to date.  If you have more questions, go back and read what I've already written.


I'm not quibbling.  Quite simply, "intellectual property" is a property right enforceable in court -- any, not just the Supreme Court.  An "idea" is -- quite simply and clearly -- not.  I have no personal stake in this -- this is the law, pure and simple.  If you think ideas, in and of themselves, ought to be protected, talk to your congressperson and see if they'll work to change the law.


None of that will protect you anywhere.  There's no such thing as a "provisional patent" and proving you invented first is meaningless outside an interference proceeding the in the USPTO.  "Good enough?"  Well, it's not better than nothing at all, but perhaps nothing at all is "good enough" for your purposes.


I'm convinced or vested in no such myth/belief.  But when you say you're "protected", what exactly do you mean?  And, how many of your cartoonish villians do you need to destroy the economic viability of your business?

In addition, you "guess" at 1 in 120.  How many times have you approached someone about a licensing deal?  What's the size of your sample for your statistical estimate?

Of my clients, I'd say about half a dozen or a little more had tried that route.  I don't think any have succeeded, but one might be getting some traction now.  Just meeting and greeting, I've probably met and spoken face-to-face with about a dozen more.  I think I've met one or two how have had success doing that -- with and without patents (but with no less than a trade secret).

My own very rough estimate is that, out of 100 potential licensees, you'd find at most five and perhaps zero licensees and at least 10 and perhaps as many as 25 of your cartoonish villians.  The vast majority will simply tell you "don't call us; we'll call you."  

A reasonably common question from potential licensees is "what kind of protection can you offer me?  I don't want to pay for this and then find my competitor doing the same thing the next day."  I'd say half or more ask that.  Well, what's your answer?


"Your business" as in my business?  Nope.  I don't rely on volume and I'm not even really marketing here.  I can only write 1-2 patent applications per month, and I'm quite backed up at the moment.

And, perhaps this time you'll read this:  not all inventions warrant a patent application.


Vanity is entirely irrelevant (at least it ought to be).  I don't tell people whether to get a patent, only how to.  Whether to get a patent is purely a business decision and not a legal one.  My job is to tell people what sort of legal rights they can acquire, for how much, and with what sort of odds of success.  Whether that is justified by the potential market is entirely a business decision to be made by the client.

Let me say this one more time before forever holding my peace:   not all inventions warrant a patent application.

However, your assumption that the deal isn't at all affected by the presence of a patent is not a fair one.


For what it's worth, that's a good approach that most inventors fail at.  However, without more (at least NDAs or a plan to show and tell very little -- focusing on results and not on the hows and whys -- without an NDA), you may be risking more than necessary to get the deal done.

Regards.

Isaac

Quote

JimIvey

Y'know, some business people seem to say "intellectual property" when they really mean "intellectual capital."  Of course, the two are not synonymous.

And, to be clear, IP includes patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and to some degree unfair competition.  As far as I know, those are the only recognized property rights in intangible assets.  In the examples discussed so far, copyrights and trademarks aren't directly applicable for obvious reasons.

Regards.

Isaac

Quote

ValuePr...

Quote

ValuePr...

Quote

Isaac

I generally avoid online discussions of this type because they often degenerate into the type of name calling and motive impuning that discredits all of the participants.  This one discussion did not start there, but it seems to be heading there.

I'm going to touch on some of the less heated parts of the discussion as probably my last post to this topic.  

Practitioners avoid using the term "provisional patent" in preference to terms like "provisional application for a patent" because the application actually generates no rights other than a preservation of a priority date for a future patent application.  I think the distinction is important because the purpose and effect of provisional applications is often misunderstood.  In fact some lay critics have accused practitioners of blurring the distinction between provisional applications and patents as a means of parting inventors from their money.

IMO someone attempting to license a product that cannot be protected against competitors faces an uphill battle.  You may be able to solve the problem of having Sears rip you off by using an NDA, but Sears cannot stop Snap On from copying the tool.   Such a situation makes a royalty deal less attractive.  In cases where the details can be kept secret even after the product is public, potential ripoffs by the competition may be less of an issue.

That's not to say that the numbers might not work out so that a company does not care about being copied in the market place as long as it is first to market and can make the initial loot.   You suggested that such a situation occurs some of the time, and in your most recent posts you assert that it is the case most of the time.   Maybe the major point of the disagreement here is about the frequency of which your strategy is usable.