One of my earlier posts about the ignorance of copyright protection on the ideas embedded in software generated a couple of comments, albeit anonymous comments.
I will take another stab at this.
One of my earlier posts about the ignorance of copyright protection on the ideas embedded in software generated a couple of comments, albeit anonymous comments.
I will take another stab at this.
The Patent Pending Blog has a great post on the chances of success for independent inventors. The bottom line: 5% or so of the independent inventors that Bob Shaver sees actually winds up making money off of their patents.
This is why the first piece of advice for all independent inventors, especially first timers, is to do a business plan before spending money on a patent.
What I suggest is writing a business plan for a large company in the market that might like to license the invention. This hypothetical company needs to see a definable advantage to the product in their marketplace with their margins.
Using prior art patents as fodder for new designs is one way the patent system encourages and stimulates innovation. Educating the engineer on how to use the system to his or her advantage is not terribly difficult, but is rarely done.
Engineers tend to have little use for issued patents. From their standpoint, many patents are obscure, badly written legalese that serves only to grant the inventor another plaque and a check for $1000.
In the US, statute requires that the inventor(s) be identified on each patent application. Improper inventorship, especially when done with deceptive intention, can invalidate a patent.
A patent is a basic contract between the public (acting as the government) and the inventor. The inventor fully discloses his trade secret in exchange for a limited right.