Patents. A challenge...

[Sock Puppet]

In the spirit of sticky threads, might I start a Pickup-Patent hunt?

Here's a start then:

http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat5525750.pdf

S.

[DrStrangelove]

pickup patent search terms

If you go to the US Patents & Trademark Office search engine over at
http://www.uspto.gov
useful search terms are:

for TITLE or ABSTRACT
guitar pickup
instrument pickup
instrument transducer

for INVENTOR or ASSIGNEE
blucher
dimarzio
stich
AGI
lace
fender
suhr

DiMarzio is forthright about which pickups are patented
and lists patent numbers on his site.

Just for grits and shins, try patent 5354949 at either USPTO.gov or pat2pdf.org

-drh

[Wired]

Chris Kinman has 2 or 3 patents. They make interesting reading. Should be easy to find. http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

I can't find any new patents for Lace. I saw their new pickups at the NAMM show and they are pretty different!

[DrStrangelove]

Frequently mentioned patents

Sometimes it's easier to narrow your search to the "prior art" patents
that are most frequently referenced by later/derivative works.

So far, I found these get a lot of pixels:

2896491,July 1959,Lover
4283982,August 1981,Armstrong
4501185,February 1985,Blucher
4809578,March 1989,Lace, Jr.
5111728,May 1992,Blucher et al.
5168117,December 1992,Anderson
5389731,February 1995,Lace
6271457,August 2001,Hudak

The first is the original PAF doc.

-drh

[David Schwab]

In the spirit of sticky threads, might I start a Pickup-Patent hunt?

Here's a start then:

http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat5525750.pdf

Kevin Beller has a few patents, both with Duncan and one without:

5148733 (trem bucker)

355207 (JB Jr)

7166793 This one is a stacked single coil size pickup.

As an aside, I met Beller once back in '95. He seemed like an cool guy... said if I wanted anything custom wound to give them a call... even one off pickups.

Here's my patent list:

Fender:

6291759
4885970
3177283
2817261
4220069

Gibson:

6372976
4026178
6392137
2896491 (Lover)
2087106 (charlie christian pickup)

Duncan (Seymour, not Beller)

4524667

Kinman

7022909
5668520
5834999
6103966

Lace

4809578
6897369
6111185
5831196
5767431
5684263
5641932
5464948
5438157
5430246
5336845

Beauchamp (Ric frying pan/horseshoe pickup)

2089171

Willi Stich (aka Bill Lawrence)

3902394
5376754
3916751
5789691
4364295
3711619
3915048

Bartolini

3983778
3983777

Burns

3249677

Dan Armstrong

4283982

DeArmond

2909092
2612072

Rowe

3541219

DiMarzio

5908998
5811710
5530199
5399802
4501185
4442749
4320681
4133243

Zwaan (Q Tuner)

5354949

C W Russell (1939)

2262335

Aaroe

4372186

Resnick

4878412

[jonson]

allways found this one interesting

There a few hundred once you start searching but allways found this one interesting and must have given Seth Lover food for thought. RE 20070.

[tbryanh]

An idea cannot be patented, only your method of doing it can.

A large number of patents are bogus.

The patent office is mostly a record-keeping office. They generally let industry fight it out to see if a patent is valid, otherwise it sits there uncontested.

The patent office generally does not decide if a patent is valid unless it is extremely obvious that it was already invented or is not novel.

Take the wheel for example.

If the patent office already recorded a patent for someone for inventing the wheel, they would not record a patent for you for this. It would be extremely obvious that the wheel was already invented. And, it they hadn't recorded a patent for someone else yet, they still would not do it for you. It would be extremely obvious that inventing the wheel is not novel.

A patent search to see if the "invention" already exists or is similar to one that already exists is required before a patent can be issued. But the patent office does not do the search. They require that the person applying for the patent to do the search.

Bottom line: If you are not "inventing" the wheel, you fill the paperwork out correctly, and you pay the fee, you get your "patent."

Most of the protection for electronic circuits comes from copyrights, not patents. The foil patern on a printed-circuit board is unique and can be copyrighted as art. Most companies copyright their artwork on their PC boards because it is easy to prosecute someone who copies it. When someone duplicates their PC boards, it is blatently obvious.

[NightWinder]

Someone here mentioned patenting the alphabet? Holy shit!! LOL Hilarious! I wonder if you can?

[Wired]

Most of the protection for electronic circuits comes from copyrights, not patents. The foil patern on a printed-circuit board is unique and can be copyrighted as art. Most companies copyright their artwork on their PC boards because it is easy to prosecute someone who copies it. When someone duplicates their PC boards, it is blatently obvious

A great idea.

[rocket]

How long are patents valid?

[DrStrangelove]

How long are patents valid?

http://www.fda.gov/cder/about/smallbiz/patent_term.htm

pre-1995, 17 years
post-1995, 20 years

In practical terms, a patent is a legal right to sue someone.

For us, it's documentation on pickups.

No worries.

-drh

[Joe Gwinn]

pre-1995, 17 years
post-1995, 20 years

But with one note: the 17 years was from date of grant, while the 20 years is from date of filing, which was about 3 years earlier back when the law was changed.

[DrStrangelove]

But with one note: the 17 years was from date of grant, while the 20 years is from date of filing, which was about 3 years earlier back when the law was changed.

That's an important distinction.

If a litigious company wants to impede someone's developing market share by filing a questionable patent on prior art, there's the tool to do it.

Dimarzio v. Kinman was a good example.

-drh

[Joe Gwinn]

That's an important distinction.

If a litigious company wants to impede someone's developing market share by filing a questionable patent on prior art, there's the tool to do it.

That was not the reason, though. The issue was "submarine patents", where the applicant would cause delay after delay, making change after change, all in secret (applications were secret then), only emerging after twenty years, after a goodly sized industry had grown up, and then the now inventor would go around and demand outlandish sums of money.

Congress did two things to put a stop to this abuse of process. First, changed the term to 20 years after original filing. Second, they required applications to become public after 18 months.

Dimarzio v. Kinman was a good example.

Hmm. I bet they would have found the weapons ... whatever is close at hand.

[David Schwab]

Dimarzio v. Kinman was a good example.

Kevin Beller just took this prior art a step further....

7166793

He even has the laminated core from Kinman.

But as long as you can show you improved on a previous patent, you can get a new patent.