Let's talk patents!

[Steve Conner]

Sadly, the whole story of a little guy getting rich selling his brilliant idea to a company is basically a myth. Ideas are a dime a dozen.

I've done it. The idea flopped, I didn't get particularly rich (I was about 7 grand better off at the end of it all, so given the time spent, I would have done about as well flipping burgers) but I didn't lose any money either, and it sure was a learning experience.

No little guy should ever pay for a patent out of his own pocket. It's insanity. See Don Lancaster's famous The Case Against Patents.

I ended up working in a R&D department, and in my own personal work with amps and effects I follow Lancaster's guidelines and just publish everything.

[Lpone]

I read that very interesting. I had to smile though after reading the evils of patents etc this little bit at the bottom of the document.... "Copyright c 1998 by Don Lancaster..." :lol

[Bruce Johnson]

The patent attorneys that I worked with in my corporate jobs always said that a patent is only worthwhile if you expect to bring in a million bucks a year in revenue from a product that relies on the technology in the patent. If not, the cost of defending it will outweigh the value of the protection. If your product revenue is smaller than that, you're better off taking steps to keep your technology secret, rather than exposing it in a patent. If you're not prepared to defend your patent, then you've just spent $5K on a nice certificate to hang on the wall and brag about.

I personally have 13 US Patents and a couple of foreign ones. All were paid for and are assigned to large companies that I worked for. Many are expired now, and only a few of my inventions went beyond the prototype stage. I got small bonuses and recognition within the company, but that's it. That's the nature of being a corporate inventor. In my last job, I worked directly with the company's patent attorneys evaluating inventions from the whole R & D department and helping to write the claims.

In the corporate world, patents by the R & D staff are often encouraged just for company image. For example, one defense company that I worked for was trying hard to show the Army that they had serious R & D capability, in order to be considered for larger development contracts, not just build-to-print work. So, they paid my little group of wacko engineers to come up with wacko new product ideas to pitch to the Army. Hardly anything we invented ever made it into Army inventory, but we showed them them that we could out think the bigger guys. Today, that company has grown much bigger and is doing well.

In a more recent job, the game was to impress the stockholders. A big highlight of the annual stockholder meeting is showing off all the previous years' patents from the R & D department.

[Bruce Johnson]

I read that very interesting. I had to smile though after reading the evils of patents etc this little bit at the bottom of the document.... "Copyright c 1998 by Don Lancaster..." :lol

Lpone, you do understand that a Copyright is a whole different thing from a Patent, right? A Copyright costs just about nothing to get and does provide some protection for little guys at low cost. But you can't copyright a pickup's technical design.

[Steve Conner]

So, they paid my little group of wacko engineers to come up with wacko new product ideas to pitch to the Army.

That sounds like a fun job.

I have a bunch of failed patent applications, mostly to do with work I did during the telecoms boom, and one pending one. As far as I know none have ever been granted.

With the idea I previously mentioned, the patent office took a wad of our money, waited several months, and then told us that the idea had already been patented by RCA in the 1970s. (They never figured that out until the "substantive search" phase.)

[Lpone]

"Lpone, you do understand that a Copyright is a whole different thing from a Patent, right? A Copyright costs just about nothing to get and does provide some protection for little guys at low cost. But you can't copyright a pickup's technical design. "

Hi Bruce.

Yep I understand and I thought about it after my post and came to the same conclusion, still thought it mildly amusing though.

I must say I found I found Don Lancaster's idea to publish the work in full rather than patent very enlightening and almost radical. But I guess it makes sense. I suppose once the work is published no one can patent and claim as their own? and you still make money by reputation. Win-win. Course like Don Lancaster said you must be an expert in the field to avoid I guess infringing somebody else's patents?

I did not get why he said that after publishing you have to wait for work to come to you, he explained something along the lines of getting future work this way. Not sure that seeking out work wouldn't work as well.

Don