hello how to put in public domain a totally new sustainer aproach , that nobody can

[Joe Gwinn]

thank you all , many usefull information!
I digged a bit on prior art thing , and read many texts were says that one person can patent the idea already published and it may succeed a lot because patent people may not have access to the publication and the person that grab the idea from that publication does state nothing about the article to patent people so it gets patent granted, and then the person that published for public domain spends a lot of money trying to prove that it is his idea and may not succeed so i will tell my friend to save is idea and when have resources patent it him self, i can tell hes sustainer is kinda cool ,will open many door to people with imagination because of the many functions it have

This isn't quite right. There is a middle ground between obtaining a patent and doing nothing if one's intent is to keep the idea in the public domain.

I was just reading the Nobel Lecture of Theodor Hänsch (who invented the optical comb, which allows one to measure the frequency of optical signals), and he commented that he held publication up until his patents were filed because by German Law, publication prevented subsequent patenting.

[David King]

As has been previously stated the US patent office is seriously underfunded and poorly equipped to do the comprehensive research required to establish what previous art exists. It's my understanding that in Europe, patent protection is actually undertaken by the patent authorities after a patent has been granted. The owner of the patent only need to bring the infringement to the the attention of the patent office and they carry the legal burden. The result is the you pay more up front in Europe but you get higher level of protection at no cost to you. Meanwhile it's in the patent office's interest to fully verify a new patent's validity from the start as they may be called on to defend it in court at their own expense.

[Joe Gwinn]

As has been previously stated the US patent office is seriously underfunded and poorly equipped to do the comprehensive research required to establish what previous art exists. It's my understanding that in Europe, patent protection is actually undertaken by the patent authorities after a patent has been granted. The owner of the patent only need to bring the infringement to the the attention of the patent office and they carry the legal burden. The result is the you pay more up front in Europe but you get higher level of protection at no cost to you. Meanwhile it's in the patent office's interest to fully verify a new patent's validity from the start as they may be called on to defend it in court at their own expense.

The US went to the European system about a year ago.

In the US, it used to be that the patent went to the first to invent, and patent applications were secret until granted. This worked well enough in the days when it was practical for a patent examiner to be a reasonable expert in whatever was then being patented, but fell apart in the latter part of the 20th century.

Now, it's first to file, and patent applications are published for public comment and rebuttal before any patent can issue. This allows industry to provide the expertise, instead of depending on patent examiners.


I had not heard the part about the European patent office having to pay for defense of patents. Wouldn't they just do a cursory job, crying poverty?

[David King]

Joe, That's an excellent point and I found no evidence of my earlier claim after a quick perusal of wikipedia.
Patent prosecution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I often hear of European courts dragging apple, microsoft et al into courts on anti trust cases but apparently not over patents.

[bbsailor]

Joe G.

I have always believed that the laws of physics cannot be patented. The patents granted however, are for a specific implementation of a design to utilize those laws of physics in a unique or novel way.
Is my understanding accurate, too simplistic or now subject to an evolving U.S. patent system?


Thanks for your keen insight.

Joseph Rogowski

[Joe Gwinn]

I have always believed that the laws of physics cannot be patented. The patents granted however, are for a specific implementation of a design to utilize those laws of physics in a unique or novel way.
Is my understanding accurate, too simplistic or now subject to an evolving U.S. patent system?

That's generally correct. More generally, it is not restricted to physics -- one cannot patent laws of nature or mathematical theorems.

Software used to be unpatentable, but is now patentable, and it's not clear that this is such a good idea. This from the US Patent Office:

101_training_aug2012.pdf

[David Schwab]

Everything I searched looked like preamp stuff to me.
Fernandes Sustainer FSK-101 Humbucker Pickup Kit Black | Musician's Friend
This looks like it should be made by EMG.
When you get into preamps, you're talking amplification.
Guitar tech at the least.
But, hey you guys want it on here go for it!
T

The sustainer is a pickup coil, with an amp attached to it, so it works like a driver. But generally you can switch them into pickup mode too.

And EMGs are pickups also, right? Should they be in Guitar tech?

If you don't know anything about them why are you saying what they are or are not?

[David Schwab]

I had a sustainer sent to me for repair once. While it was in the mail, I took the opportunity to study their function so I wouldn't be going into it blind when it arrived. It showed up with a cracked bobbin. Unable to find a replacement, I sent it back. That's as close as I ever got to getting inside of one. It's interesting stuff, and a good topic. I'm anxious to see this.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28206[/ATTACH]

Why wouldn't you have just glued the bobbin? A little CA would have fixed it right up.

[John_H]

Why wouldn't you have just glued the bobbin? A little CA would have fixed it right up.

The owner was going to sell it installed in a guitar. I really couldn't trust the repair under those circumstances. He sends me oddball stuff for rewinds pretty frequently. He'll find a bobbin, and send it back someday.

[treco]

The US went to the European system about a year ago.

In the US, it used to be that the patent went to the first to invent, and patent applications were secret until granted. This worked well enough in the days when it was practical for a patent examiner to be a reasonable expert in whatever was then being patented, but fell apart in the latter part of the 20th century.

Now, it's first to file, and patent applications are published for public comment and rebuttal before any patent can issue. This allows industry to provide the expertise, instead of depending on patent examiners.


I had not heard the part about the European patent office having to pay for defense of patents. Wouldn't they just do a cursory job, crying poverty?

this sound interesting

[Rick Turner]

As has been pointed out, all you have to do to put something into the public domain is to publish it or show it publicly or sell it, and one could do the publication part right here. Note that the term "publish" can mean literally that...in any reasonably widely read media appropriate to the field of invention.

There are a couple of patents out there for which I had publicly disclosed the "invention"...one of which was the large area passive hum canceling coil...patented by Illich and used by John Suhr. I'd proposed that over at the MIMF about a decade before Illich patented it. Another one was the veneering of a "developable surface on a guitar top" which I did in 1980 on some of my Model 1s, and for which Ned Steinberger got a patent circa 1989 (assigned to Gibson) or so not knowing of what I'd done. Hence both patents are on shaky ground, and in fact, Gibson lost a major point in their suit against Brian Moore Guitars because of my prior art. The Illich patent...which I should review...may have some valid points in how he uses RC circuits to get the harmonic content of the humcancelling coil to match the single coils pickups. But the idea of bucking hum passively with a dummy coil that is a different size (smaller as with Alembic...circa 1971...or larger as I proposed) than the primary pickup coil is public domain.

Another interesting invalid patent would be Ralph Novak's fanned fret one...unfortunately for him, it was done about 350 years ago in England on an instrument called the "orpharion", and there's one in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Also...please note that patents are not forever. You now have 20 years...it use to be 17. And if you want to make dough on a patented invention, you should understand that every year that goes by without your producing and marketing it or licensing it, that patent becomes worth less to any investors or potential manufacturers. A classic example of this is Rick Huff's fantastic Skyway "Trem" (a term I hate because they are really vibratos). Rick has been dithering around with this thing making basically irrelevant "improvements" while losing year after year of protection of how it actually works.

[David Schwab]

...one of which was the large area passive hum canceling coil...patented by Illich and used by John Suhr. I'd proposed that over at the MIMF about a decade before Illich patented it.

Yep, it was Nov 2, 2000:

Dummy coil area counts, too. You can enlarge the area picked up by the dummy coil and reduce the number of turns..... A series dummy coil made the same size as the perimeter of a control cavity and wound with fairly large wire might cancel a fair bit of hum with minimum effect on tone.....Just a thought.

I was intrigued by that and saved the post to a text file.

Illich filled for his patent in 2005.

[neshel]

So what happened with this?

[Mick Bailey]

On the subject of patents - some things are best not patented, but protected by other means. Anyone seen a patent for the Coca Cola recipe?

When the Splenda sugar molecule was patented the inventor regarded the patent as a big mistake. He referred to it as being a blueprint for others to steal. Just a minor tweak and you have a new product, but all the information to do so was in the patent. So a consideration has to be how easily can the original design be changed to effectively create a brand-new product? If it's easy to create a derivative product then there's maybe little to gain from patenting an idea in the first place.

[Leo_Gnardo]

When the Splenda sugar molecule was patented the inventor regarded the patent as a big mistake. He referred to it as being a blueprint for others to steal. Just a minor tweak and you have a new product, but all the information to do so was in the patent. So a consideration has to be how easily can the original design be changed to effectively create a brand-new product? If it's easy to create a derivative product then there's maybe little to gain from patenting an idea in the first place.

It depends on your budget, and the need you may feel to protect "all similar developments." This came from a fellow I knew who described himself as a drug peddler - not the street corner kind - a company salesman who brought samples & literature to doctors, pharmacies & hospitals from the 1950's-80's. He said when a big pharma company came up with a new drug, they patented it PLUS all similar molecules thereby short-circuiting other companies' attempts to patent something similar. Dozens, sometimes hundreds of patents, they had the budget for it unlike a small company or individual.