Posted by daestrom on July 31, 2009, 1:45 pm
Ulysses wrote:
>> Ulysses wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> For further reading that doesn't get tooo technical
>>>> Copyright Basics (text of a Copyright Office Circular 1):
>>>> http://twovoyagers.com/metamorphosis/copy_bas.txt
>>> Thanks. Speaking of other fish I did patent searches a couple of times
> in
>>> the past and just gave up. The way I understood it it was up to me to
> be
>>> certain my patent application didn't infringe on any other patent that
>>> already existed and it seemd the only way to do that was to go to
> Washington
>>> DC and do a search at the Patent Office and even then there could have
> been
>>> a different heading that I could have overlooked. Right now I'm
> pondering
>>> about how to protect a "discovery."
>>>
>>> And then there's the "recording from cable/satellite TV" dilemma. This
> one
>>> I don't get. It's OK to record a movie or whatever to watch later but
> in
>>> doing so it appears to me that it is a copyright violation. The
> companies
>>> that sell the TV service provide recording devices. The way that makes
>>> sense to me is that if I pay the satellite company and record a movie
> for my
>>> personal viewing and don't charge anyone to watch it at my house and
> don't
>>> make copies and sell them then I should not be breaking any law. I
> would
>>> think that the actors/producers etc would get their royalties from the
>>> subscription payments paid to the distributors, i.e. cable and satellite
>>> companies.
>>>
>> PMJI, *that* issue was brought up in congress some years ago. Fred
>> Rogers (of children show fame) testified before congress that taping of
>> his show such that it could be played back at another time by parents
>> and children together seemed like a great idea to him.
>
> I'm guessing that would be Mr. Rogers. That would be an example of someone
> who actually wants to entertain kids and is not being greedy. He probably
> already gets paid well and gets lots of fringe benefits.
Yes, "Mr Rodger's Neighborhood" is still on the air in reruns. But he
worked for public broadcasting, so I doubt his pay was stellar. I'm
sure he did it because he believed in the value to children. Sadly, he
passed away a few years back.
daestrom
Posted by Morris Dovey on July 31, 2009, 10:11 am
Ulysses wrote:
> I did patent searches a couple of times in
> the past and just gave up. The way I understood it it was up to me to be
> certain my patent application didn't infringe on any other patent that
> already existed and it seemd the only way to do that was to go to Washington
> DC and do a search at the Patent Office and even then there could have been
> a different heading that I could have overlooked. Right now I'm pondering
> about how to protect a "discovery."
Ulysses...
Give some of the on-line search engines a try. My patent attorney
suggested I do a preliminary search with
http://www.google.com/patents
and I just did a Google search on 'free patent search' and found a
sizable number of others. IIRC, IBM Corp has a search engine and patent
database that seemed fairly decent.
Doing a patent search is a real grind. The trick is to /not/ give up
until you're reasonably certain that what you have doesn't appear to
depend on prior art. Keep a log of any "iffy" prior patents so you can
come back to them later!
This month I/we finished a search. At the attorney's suggestion, I did
my own search starting about a week before his staff's start, and we
agreed that if either of us found a "show-stopper", we'd notify the
other and his billable time would end at that point. (FYI, neither of us
found anything, and his bill for the search was US$860 - not cheap, but
nowhere near as high a number as I've seen bounced about on the web).
AFAICT patent attorneys are like any other group of people, ie half of
'em fall into the "below average" catagory. I'm convinced that it's
worth the effort to do a patent /attorney/ search to eliminate the
"below average" and "average" groups, and then choose from the remainder
based on cost and ability to fully understand your invention, so that
they can formulate the strongest and broadest possible claims for you.
Good luck!
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Posted by Ulysses on July 31, 2009, 2:16 pm
> Ulysses wrote:
> > I did patent searches a couple of times in
> > the past and just gave up. The way I understood it it was up to me to
be
> > certain my patent application didn't infringe on any other patent that
> > already existed and it seemd the only way to do that was to go to
Washington
> > DC and do a search at the Patent Office and even then there could have
been
> > a different heading that I could have overlooked. Right now I'm
pondering
> > about how to protect a "discovery."
> Ulysses...
> Give some of the on-line search engines a try. My patent attorney
> suggested I do a preliminary search with
> http://www.google.com/patents
> and I just did a Google search on 'free patent search' and found a
> sizable number of others. IIRC, IBM Corp has a search engine and patent
> database that seemed fairly decent.
> Doing a patent search is a real grind. The trick is to /not/ give up
> until you're reasonably certain that what you have doesn't appear to
> depend on prior art. Keep a log of any "iffy" prior patents so you can
> come back to them later!
> This month I/we finished a search. At the attorney's suggestion, I did
> my own search starting about a week before his staff's start, and we
> agreed that if either of us found a "show-stopper", we'd notify the
> other and his billable time would end at that point. (FYI, neither of us
> found anything, and his bill for the search was US$860 - not cheap, but
> nowhere near as high a number as I've seen bounced about on the web).
So, what was your conclusion? Got something to patent?
> AFAICT patent attorneys are like any other group of people, ie half of
> 'em fall into the "below average" catagory. I'm convinced that it's
> worth the effort to do a patent /attorney/ search to eliminate the
> "below average" and "average" groups, and then choose from the remainder
> based on cost and ability to fully understand your invention, so that
> they can formulate the strongest and broadest possible claims for you.
> Good luck!
OK, thanks! Many years ago some of them did it for a set fee instead of by
the hour. Something like $00 if I recall correctly.
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Posted by Morris Dovey on July 31, 2009, 2:53 pm
Ulysses wrote:
>> This month I/we finished a search. At the attorney's suggestion, I did
>> my own search starting about a week before his staff's start, and we
>> agreed that if either of us found a "show-stopper", we'd notify the
>> other and his billable time would end at that point. (FYI, neither of us
>> found anything, and his bill for the search was US$860 - not cheap, but
>> nowhere near as high a number as I've seen bounced about on the web).
>
> So, what was your conclusion? Got something to patent?
We had a meeting when he finished his search, and it appears that I do.
I gave him the go-ahead to prepare the application, and we'll meet again
when that's done.
> OK, thanks! Many years ago some of them did it for a set fee instead of by
> the hour. Something like $00 if I recall correctly.
Well, yes - I can remember $.19/dozen eggs, $.49/lb lean bacon, and
$900 Ford Falcons, too. The flat fee for my previous patent (that was
for a design patent, rather than a utility patent like this one) was $00.
Also, if you're old enough to remember the stuff I listed, the PTO may
be willing to expedite your application so you'll have a fair chance of
issuance before you expire. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Posted by Ulysses on August 1, 2009, 2:59 pm
> Ulysses wrote:
> >> This month I/we finished a search. At the attorney's suggestion, I did
> >> my own search starting about a week before his staff's start, and we
> >> agreed that if either of us found a "show-stopper", we'd notify the
> >> other and his billable time would end at that point. (FYI, neither of
us
> >> found anything, and his bill for the search was US$860 - not cheap,
but
> >> nowhere near as high a number as I've seen bounced about on the web).
> >
> > So, what was your conclusion? Got something to patent?
> We had a meeting when he finished his search, and it appears that I do.
> I gave him the go-ahead to prepare the application, and we'll meet again
> when that's done.
> > OK, thanks! Many years ago some of them did it for a set fee instead of
by
> > the hour. Something like $00 if I recall correctly.
> Well, yes - I can remember $.19/dozen eggs, $.49/lb lean bacon, and
> $900 Ford Falcons, too. The flat fee for my previous patent (that was
> for a design patent, rather than a utility patent like this one) was $00.
> Also, if you're old enough to remember the stuff I listed, the PTO may
> be willing to expedite your application so you'll have a fair chance of
> issuance before you expire. :)
LOL Yes, I'm old enough to remember those things and nickel candy bars.
Heck, I'm so old I actually understand women!
Just kidding, nobody's THAT old. ;-)
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> For further reading that doesn't get tooo technical
>>>> Copyright Basics (text of a Copyright Office Circular 1):
>>>> http://twovoyagers.com/metamorphosis/copy_bas.txt
>>> Thanks. Speaking of other fish I did patent searches a couple of times
> in
>>> the past and just gave up. The way I understood it it was up to me to
> be
>>> certain my patent application didn't infringe on any other patent that
>>> already existed and it seemd the only way to do that was to go to
> Washington
>>> DC and do a search at the Patent Office and even then there could have
> been
>>> a different heading that I could have overlooked. Right now I'm
> pondering
>>> about how to protect a "discovery."
>>>
>>> And then there's the "recording from cable/satellite TV" dilemma. This
> one
>>> I don't get. It's OK to record a movie or whatever to watch later but
> in
>>> doing so it appears to me that it is a copyright violation. The
> companies
>>> that sell the TV service provide recording devices. The way that makes
>>> sense to me is that if I pay the satellite company and record a movie
> for my
>>> personal viewing and don't charge anyone to watch it at my house and
> don't
>>> make copies and sell them then I should not be breaking any law. I
> would
>>> think that the actors/producers etc would get their royalties from the
>>> subscription payments paid to the distributors, i.e. cable and satellite
>>> companies.
>>>
>> PMJI, *that* issue was brought up in congress some years ago. Fred
>> Rogers (of children show fame) testified before congress that taping of
>> his show such that it could be played back at another time by parents
>> and children together seemed like a great idea to him.
>
> I'm guessing that would be Mr. Rogers. That would be an example of someone
> who actually wants to entertain kids and is not being greedy. He probably
> already gets paid well and gets lots of fringe benefits.