Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.
Moderators: Michelle, Scrupulous, Roger Brown, citizen
Why Do You Invent?
by DSlackman » Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:50 pm
-
DSlackman - Green Belt
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:06 pm
Why choose such a difficult business when there are so many easier ways to go?
D
D
by minnesotainventor » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:44 am
-
minnesotainventor - Blue Belt
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:53 pm
If the patent laws change (as what is pending now - patent reform bill) inventors as a profession will not be as prevalent. Only the corporations with the large backing will be in the inventing or patent stealing business.
Here is some information I received recently for your review:
"PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007:
There are two bills under the title of the "Patent Reform Act of 2007" that are being voted on right now in Congress.
One already passed the House, bill H.R. 1908, and the other one is in the Senate and is on the verge of being voted on anytime, now. The Senate's version of the same bill is titled S. 1145 and all indicators look like it will pass.
The rights granted to "individuals" as stated in the U.S. Constitution will be expunged.
The U.S. Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, states in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 that Congress shall have the power: "to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The patent laws regarding how individuals will obtain patents and the patent process are being fundamentally changed which will impede independent inventors. This is being done with little or no input from inventors, inventor organizations, or the invention community at large.
KILL BILL! S. 1145:
With a couple of mouse clicks and a few minutes of your time, you could make the pivotal difference (the tipping point can be as few as 100 people contacting their senators to turn the tide) to Kill Bill!: S. 1145. I've made this really easy for you to reply to your senators. I've created a sample email guide/outline, and an EZ, simple and quick way to find your Senators and congressmen. This information can be found at the INVENTORS' VOICE TM blog at inventorsvoice.blogspot.com
FIRST-TO-FILE:
Any one of the issues in bill "S. 1145", alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system that could negatively affect inventors from being granted a patent. Many of the proposed changes in the two bills are tied-in to the worldwide "first-to-file" system. This first-to-file "package of issues" , along with the infringement issues, will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200-year old patent system, the U.S. "First-to-Invent" which favors the creator i.e. inventor.
ELIMINATING THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD:
If you've ever played tennis, it would be as if the inventor's side of the tennis court was designed on a pitch (a slant), but multinationals would have a normal level court. Who do you think is going to win the tennis match when the court has been designed with the idea that it's not a level playing field? With these proposed bills, this is what would happen - the gutting of the U.S. patent system."
*** I hope this does not pass. Our country is founded on invention and we currently (somewhat debatable now) have the most powerful economy than the rest of the world? What has been our advantage over the rest? We give inventors the first to invent advantage, not the first to file. When our patent office will release within 18 months the disclosure of the invention so other countries can see the technology, start producing or using it prior to the patent being issued give even the large corporations pushing this no right to stop someone who was making or producing the invention prior to it being issued.
This is a very sad state of affairs if this gets pushed through by legislators who like the title and never look into the deeper effects of what they may pass. On the cover...why should the U.S. not be like the rest of the world? Again...why should our economy not reflect the rest of the world? We are getting closer without this passing...we will get there faster if they do.
I hope this information helps. I have not seen too much written about it here. Sure wish Donny D. would talk about it.
Steve
Here is some information I received recently for your review:
"PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007:
There are two bills under the title of the "Patent Reform Act of 2007" that are being voted on right now in Congress.
One already passed the House, bill H.R. 1908, and the other one is in the Senate and is on the verge of being voted on anytime, now. The Senate's version of the same bill is titled S. 1145 and all indicators look like it will pass.
The rights granted to "individuals" as stated in the U.S. Constitution will be expunged.
The U.S. Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, states in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 that Congress shall have the power: "to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The patent laws regarding how individuals will obtain patents and the patent process are being fundamentally changed which will impede independent inventors. This is being done with little or no input from inventors, inventor organizations, or the invention community at large.
KILL BILL! S. 1145:
With a couple of mouse clicks and a few minutes of your time, you could make the pivotal difference (the tipping point can be as few as 100 people contacting their senators to turn the tide) to Kill Bill!: S. 1145. I've made this really easy for you to reply to your senators. I've created a sample email guide/outline, and an EZ, simple and quick way to find your Senators and congressmen. This information can be found at the INVENTORS' VOICE TM blog at inventorsvoice.blogspot.com
FIRST-TO-FILE:
Any one of the issues in bill "S. 1145", alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system that could negatively affect inventors from being granted a patent. Many of the proposed changes in the two bills are tied-in to the worldwide "first-to-file" system. This first-to-file "package of issues" , along with the infringement issues, will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200-year old patent system, the U.S. "First-to-Invent" which favors the creator i.e. inventor.
ELIMINATING THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD:
If you've ever played tennis, it would be as if the inventor's side of the tennis court was designed on a pitch (a slant), but multinationals would have a normal level court. Who do you think is going to win the tennis match when the court has been designed with the idea that it's not a level playing field? With these proposed bills, this is what would happen - the gutting of the U.S. patent system."
*** I hope this does not pass. Our country is founded on invention and we currently (somewhat debatable now) have the most powerful economy than the rest of the world? What has been our advantage over the rest? We give inventors the first to invent advantage, not the first to file. When our patent office will release within 18 months the disclosure of the invention so other countries can see the technology, start producing or using it prior to the patent being issued give even the large corporations pushing this no right to stop someone who was making or producing the invention prior to it being issued.
This is a very sad state of affairs if this gets pushed through by legislators who like the title and never look into the deeper effects of what they may pass. On the cover...why should the U.S. not be like the rest of the world? Again...why should our economy not reflect the rest of the world? We are getting closer without this passing...we will get there faster if they do.
I hope this information helps. I have not seen too much written about it here. Sure wish Donny D. would talk about it.
Steve
by CriterionD » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:49 pm
-
CriterionD - Blue Belt
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:23 pm
- Location: Tempe, AZ
I have never understood the notion that the proposed reform act does not benefit inventors, nor have I ever heard a good argument for that notion. Generally, by decreasing a dependency on litigation, the proposed reforms benefit those who are not as well suited to win in court. Meaning they benefit inventors by decreasing the undue benefits inherently held by large corporations.
I agree that an initiative or two should be added to the reform act to help offset any negative affect that "first to file" may have on an inventor - and as far as I am aware this may very well happen since congress has been very reluctant to pass this bill as is (it has been in the works for years). The main negative effect is simply that an inventor, under first to file, must either learn how to write a good provisional patent app themselves or pay an attorney/agent to do so for them before they can attempt to actively market their invention to both customers and investors, and ideally as soon as they possibly can. Initially, coming up with either the money to pay an attorney/agent or the time to write a good provisional patent is not easy for many inventors.
But, patents are inherently meant to protect the first inventor under the assumption that a patent is filed immediately or shortly after invention. The US largely already operates on a "first to file" system in that "first to invent" does not often come into play at all in court according to my understanding (in terms of establishing a true priority date) - but when it does come into play in court the system can benefit large companies that have better means to litigate. And, its not like first to file, even as proposed, would give large companies the legal ability to steal ideas and inventions.
It is worth noting that currently - you can invent something, and file for a patent. A large company may become aware of this, and file for a patent months after you do. You might be the first inventor, but if the large company can come up with some sort of evidence that they invented the product before they believe you did - they can take you to court, and if they have a good enough attorney which they likely do, they may be able to win a case and see that your patent is invalidated. Even if they can't win the case, they can make life that much tougher for an inventor.
According to my understanding, a switch to "first to file" largely negates such a possibility.
I agree that an initiative or two should be added to the reform act to help offset any negative affect that "first to file" may have on an inventor - and as far as I am aware this may very well happen since congress has been very reluctant to pass this bill as is (it has been in the works for years). The main negative effect is simply that an inventor, under first to file, must either learn how to write a good provisional patent app themselves or pay an attorney/agent to do so for them before they can attempt to actively market their invention to both customers and investors, and ideally as soon as they possibly can. Initially, coming up with either the money to pay an attorney/agent or the time to write a good provisional patent is not easy for many inventors.
But, patents are inherently meant to protect the first inventor under the assumption that a patent is filed immediately or shortly after invention. The US largely already operates on a "first to file" system in that "first to invent" does not often come into play at all in court according to my understanding (in terms of establishing a true priority date) - but when it does come into play in court the system can benefit large companies that have better means to litigate. And, its not like first to file, even as proposed, would give large companies the legal ability to steal ideas and inventions.
It is worth noting that currently - you can invent something, and file for a patent. A large company may become aware of this, and file for a patent months after you do. You might be the first inventor, but if the large company can come up with some sort of evidence that they invented the product before they believe you did - they can take you to court, and if they have a good enough attorney which they likely do, they may be able to win a case and see that your patent is invalidated. Even if they can't win the case, they can make life that much tougher for an inventor.
According to my understanding, a switch to "first to file" largely negates such a possibility.
by Levi Porter » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:13 am
-
Levi Porter - Brown Belt
- Posts: 891
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:37 am
If an inventor is working on something, nearing enough information to file, and a large company finds out about it and files immediately, then the original inventor would have absolutely no recourse.
In this example, the "first to file" completely demonstrates that it is geared for the big guy.
For those that enjoy the power of Corporations over the freedoms of individuality....
Welcome to the New World Order
Please forfeit your United States citizenship immediately!
In this example, the "first to file" completely demonstrates that it is geared for the big guy.
For those that enjoy the power of Corporations over the freedoms of individuality....
Welcome to the New World Order
Please forfeit your United States citizenship immediately!
by Road Show » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:57 am
-
Road Show - Brown Belt
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:39 pm
- Location: SoCal
To answer your question "Why choose such a difficult business when there are so many easier ways to go?", DSlackman, I did not choose such a difficult business, it chose ME! I have been designing products "in my mind" all my life. Whatever line of work I've been in, I have never once NOT had ideas for products that would help accomplish a task better. I have designed, once again "in my mind", furniture that isn't available, but yet consumers need. This is based on an understanding of what consumers respond to and what their needs are. Such as a computer desk that appeals to a woman's need for an elegant solution vs. a man's tendency toward functionality. I have merely given in to my nature of being, at least in my mind, a problem solver.
Regarding the debate over "first to file" vs. "first to invent", I tend to side with "first to file". Our current situation is that 97% or more of patents never make money for the inventor. Does this sound like the inventor is making out? Personally, I think ANY change would be for the better.
Take a good look at what we've seen on this website, and on a lot of the shows that are cropping up. What you see is that there are a lot of folks who have no idea on how to manufacture or market a product of any kind, who come up with an idea they believe will make them a multi-millionaire, who, at worst, will get scammed for thousands of dollars by "invention assistance" companies, will voluntarily invest large sums of money borrowed against their home/retirement account in the belief that making a prototype and filing a patent improves their chances for success in the marketplace. Hell, if you ask me, it is the current "first to invent" that has independent inventors "duped" into believing that they can make their American dream come true merely by thinking up a new product, then working toward a patent. A "first to file" system will put the independent inventor on notice that they need to be a bit more tight lipped and business-like in their endeavor in order to succeed, but their reward for so doing is that those "big bad" corporations won't be able to artificially manufacture evidence of having been "in development" on the idea in order to invalidate the patent for a product they wish to produce.
In short, it is my opinion that a majority of the independent inventors currently seeking patent protection for their ideas would not benefit from EITHER system. There's just going to be a lot more opportunity to place the blame for failure on external conditions if we move to a first to file system.
Regarding the debate over "first to file" vs. "first to invent", I tend to side with "first to file". Our current situation is that 97% or more of patents never make money for the inventor. Does this sound like the inventor is making out? Personally, I think ANY change would be for the better.
Take a good look at what we've seen on this website, and on a lot of the shows that are cropping up. What you see is that there are a lot of folks who have no idea on how to manufacture or market a product of any kind, who come up with an idea they believe will make them a multi-millionaire, who, at worst, will get scammed for thousands of dollars by "invention assistance" companies, will voluntarily invest large sums of money borrowed against their home/retirement account in the belief that making a prototype and filing a patent improves their chances for success in the marketplace. Hell, if you ask me, it is the current "first to invent" that has independent inventors "duped" into believing that they can make their American dream come true merely by thinking up a new product, then working toward a patent. A "first to file" system will put the independent inventor on notice that they need to be a bit more tight lipped and business-like in their endeavor in order to succeed, but their reward for so doing is that those "big bad" corporations won't be able to artificially manufacture evidence of having been "in development" on the idea in order to invalidate the patent for a product they wish to produce.
In short, it is my opinion that a majority of the independent inventors currently seeking patent protection for their ideas would not benefit from EITHER system. There's just going to be a lot more opportunity to place the blame for failure on external conditions if we move to a first to file system.
by Levi Porter » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:34 am
-
Levi Porter - Brown Belt
- Posts: 891
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:37 am
Sorry to all for my outburst. 
The first to file seems that it could equal the first to steal.
I am glad you are here DSlackman
I can relate with Road Show about why I'm inventing. I am a thinker, I think that naturally leads to inventing.
Cheers!
Levi
The first to file seems that it could equal the first to steal.
I am glad you are here DSlackman
I can relate with Road Show about why I'm inventing. I am a thinker, I think that naturally leads to inventing.
Cheers!
Levi
by DSlackman » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:24 am
-
DSlackman - Green Belt
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:06 pm
Road Show:
I suspect your situation is not unusual. While some people have a single idea that they try to turn into a product others are drawn to the process of inventing / creating / problem solving by their nature.
re. Patent Legislation
Last year I sent a letter to all of the members of the House committee reviewing the proposed legislation at that time. I did this on behalf of the local inventor group I belong to. I received no substantive response.
I suspect your situation is not unusual. While some people have a single idea that they try to turn into a product others are drawn to the process of inventing / creating / problem solving by their nature.
re. Patent Legislation
Last year I sent a letter to all of the members of the House committee reviewing the proposed legislation at that time. I did this on behalf of the local inventor group I belong to. I received no substantive response.
by brack » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:05 pm
-
brack - White Belt
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:08 pm
I haven't yet chosen the profession. I just have 30-40 ideas on paper, some products, some websites, some piggybacks, etc. Three I am pursuing at the moment.
But why do I have them? Why do I write them all down? I believe its my purpose. For the first time in 7 years I feel a direction, I feel a pull, I feel an untapped joy. I believe I was created for bringing ideas to an "idealess" and "same as always" world.
Right now though, I'm focused on the greatest invention I'll ever create. He's 3 in March.
http://www.in1second.com
But why do I have them? Why do I write them all down? I believe its my purpose. For the first time in 7 years I feel a direction, I feel a pull, I feel an untapped joy. I believe I was created for bringing ideas to an "idealess" and "same as always" world.
Right now though, I'm focused on the greatest invention I'll ever create. He's 3 in March.
http://www.in1second.com
by bottleslingguy » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:29 pm
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
People should keep in mind, along with inventing, you need to scourin the USPTO website and get an idea how that end works too. I think a lot of people make the mistake of coming up with an idea without ever learning how the IP field works. Then when their idea is ready to serve they expect the hard part is done when it has just begun.
by DSlackman » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:44 pm
-
DSlackman - Green Belt
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:06 pm
Maybe we invent in the hopes of creating something as worthwhile as this...
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/82
D
Inventors Create the Future
http://ilinventor.tripod.com
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/82
D
Inventors Create the Future
http://ilinventor.tripod.com
11 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2