Patents and Intellectual Property (IP) seems to be an area replete with numerous myths and misunderstandings as well as great complexity, duplication and high costs.
Many people consider that in hindsight some inventions are obvious.
Under their 'First To Invent System' The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has a means to decide priority and who gets the patent where there is a simultaneous claim to an invention by more than one inventor - its called 'Interference Proceadings.'
Such disputes which are / were rare anyway, are abour to end with the implementation of 'The America Invents Act' whererby the US will finally harmonise with the rest of the world in adoptimg a 'First to File' (a patent application) system.
'Design Patent' is a US term which essentially concerns appearence rather than the way something works or a method of doing something which in the US is termed a 'Utility Patent' though often the distinction is not made, thereby leading to some confusion including that a relatively small appearence change may enable circumvention of Design Patent rights. One advantage though is that both are on the one USPTO database which many also find the easiest to use.
Most other countries avoid confusion through clearly diferentiating between appearence and method / working by not including the word Patent for appearence IP - i.e. in Australia we use the terms 'Registerd Design' and 'Patent.'
Whilst one may obtain a patent on the particular means of achieving the objective of an invention it is generally not possible to patent the objective itself - searching prior patents will often reveal numerous means of achieving the same objective AND it doesnt have to be a better means, just a sufficiently different way of achieving the objective.
With further harmonisation we are getting closer to emiliorating some myths + to the holy grail of IP - a single 'World Patent' - welcomed by some though not all but sadly still a long way to go.
Despite the difficulties good inventions improve life and the ecconomy and can be very rewarding in numerous ways.
Patents and Intellectual Property (IP) seems to be an area replete with numerous myths and misunderstandings as well as great complexity, duplication and high costs.
Many people consider that in hindsight some inventions are obvious.
Under their 'First To Invent System' The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has a means to decide priority and who gets the patent where there is a simultaneous claim to an invention by more than one inventor - its called 'Interference Proceadings.'
Such disputes which are / were rare anyway, are abour to end with the implementation of 'The America Invents Act' whererby the US will finally harmonise with the rest of the world in adoptimg a 'First to File' (a patent application) system.
'Design Patent' is a US term which essentially concerns appearence rather than the way something works or a method of doing something which in the US is termed a 'Utility Patent' though often the distinction is not made, thereby leading to some confusion including that a relatively small appearence change may enable circumvention of Design Patent rights. One advantage though is that both are on the one USPTO database which many also find the easiest to use.
Most other countries avoid confusion through clearly diferentiating between appearence and method / working by not including the word Patent for appearence IP - i.e. in Australia we use the terms 'Registerd Design' and 'Patent.'
Whilst one may obtain a patent on the particular means of achieving the objective of an invention it is generally not possible to patent the objective itself - searching prior patents will often reveal numerous means of achieving the same objective AND it doesnt have to be a better means, just a sufficiently different way of achieving the objective.
With further harmonisation we are getting closer to emiliorating some myths + to the holy grail of IP - a single 'World Patent' - welcomed by some though not all but sadly still a long way to go.
Despite the difficulties good inventions improve life and the ecconomy and can be very rewarding in numerous ways.
The Australian patent system - IPAustralia.gov.au - has an optional 'Innovation Patent' which is "granted" automatically without full examination within 3 months of application and lasting 8 years.
If a patentee wishes to commence infringement action then the Patent must first be examined and certified as complying with the lesser requirements of an Innovation Patent. Third parties may also request the examination.
Since most patents are never infringed and the shorter period will satisfy many applicants, the Innovation Patent with its swift handling and much lower costs is suiting many applicants.
The purpose of publically domaining an invention is to make it freely available for all to benefit - on the surface that seems like a wonderful objective / ideal.
However most inventions require inve$tment to develop, produce and promote / market.
If a patent monopoly right may not be available this may deter business from investing since they may not recoup their investment and so public domaining may be counter productive as the invention may not become available.
Think about it.
Stuart Fox, Chairman, Inventors Society of Australia.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Stuart Fox.
Anonymous Coward
Patents and Intellectual Property (IP) seems to be an area replete with numerous myths and misunderstandings as well as great complexity, duplication and high costs.
Many people consider that in hindsight some inventions are obvious.
Under their 'First To Invent System' The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has a means to decide priority and who gets the patent where there is a simultaneous claim to an invention by more than one inventor - its called 'Interference Proceadings.'
Such disputes which are / were rare anyway, are abour to end with the implementation of 'The America Invents Act' whererby the US will finally harmonise with the rest of the world in adoptimg a 'First to File' (a patent application) system.
'Design Patent' is a US term which essentially concerns appearence rather than the way something works or a method of doing something which in the US is termed a 'Utility Patent' though often the distinction is not made, thereby leading to some confusion including that a relatively small appearence change may enable circumvention of Design Patent rights. One advantage though is that both are on the one USPTO database which many also find the easiest to use.
Most other countries avoid confusion through clearly diferentiating between appearence and method / working by not including the word Patent for appearence IP - i.e. in Australia we use the terms 'Registerd Design' and 'Patent.'
Whilst one may obtain a patent on the particular means of achieving the objective of an invention it is generally not possible to patent the objective itself - searching prior patents will often reveal numerous means of achieving the same objective AND it doesnt have to be a better means, just a sufficiently different way of achieving the objective.
With further harmonisation we are getting closer to emiliorating some myths + to the holy grail of IP - a single 'World Patent' - welcomed by some though not all but sadly still a long way to go.
Despite the difficulties good inventions improve life and the ecconomy and can be very rewarding in numerous ways.
Stuart Fox
Inventors Association of Australia
Anonymous Coward
Patents and Intellectual Property (IP) seems to be an area replete with numerous myths and misunderstandings as well as great complexity, duplication and high costs.
Many people consider that in hindsight some inventions are obvious.
Under their 'First To Invent System' The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has a means to decide priority and who gets the patent where there is a simultaneous claim to an invention by more than one inventor - its called 'Interference Proceadings.'
Such disputes which are / were rare anyway, are abour to end with the implementation of 'The America Invents Act' whererby the US will finally harmonise with the rest of the world in adoptimg a 'First to File' (a patent application) system.
'Design Patent' is a US term which essentially concerns appearence rather than the way something works or a method of doing something which in the US is termed a 'Utility Patent' though often the distinction is not made, thereby leading to some confusion including that a relatively small appearence change may enable circumvention of Design Patent rights. One advantage though is that both are on the one USPTO database which many also find the easiest to use.
Most other countries avoid confusion through clearly diferentiating between appearence and method / working by not including the word Patent for appearence IP - i.e. in Australia we use the terms 'Registerd Design' and 'Patent.'
Whilst one may obtain a patent on the particular means of achieving the objective of an invention it is generally not possible to patent the objective itself - searching prior patents will often reveal numerous means of achieving the same objective AND it doesnt have to be a better means, just a sufficiently different way of achieving the objective.
With further harmonisation we are getting closer to emiliorating some myths + to the holy grail of IP - a single 'World Patent' - welcomed by some though not all but sadly still a long way to go.
Despite the difficulties good inventions improve life and the ecconomy and can be very rewarding in numerous ways.
Stuart Fox
Inventors Association of Australia
Patent System Does Not Scale
The Australian patent system - IPAustralia.gov.au - has an optional 'Innovation Patent' which is "granted" automatically without full examination within 3 months of application and lasting 8 years.
If a patentee wishes to commence infringement action then the Patent must first be examined and certified as complying with the lesser requirements of an Innovation Patent. Third parties may also request the examination.
Since most patents are never infringed and the shorter period will satisfy many applicants, the Innovation Patent with its swift handling and much lower costs is suiting many applicants.
Stuart Fox
Patent public domain
The purpose of publically domaining an invention is to make it freely available for all to benefit - on the surface that seems like a wonderful objective / ideal.
However most inventions require inve$tment to develop, produce and promote / market.
If a patent monopoly right may not be available this may deter business from investing since they may not recoup their investment and so public domaining may be counter productive as the invention may not become available.
Think about it.
Stuart Fox, Chairman, Inventors Society of Australia.