posted 08-22-2005 06:10 AM            

To Spreng's question - I'm not sure what the question means. To apply for and get a US patent is not outrageously expensive - based on my experience, I would say that your basic utility patent in a not-too-complex-or-crowded field of art, a couple dozen claims and an examiner who's on the ball, will cost you between $5000 and $10,000 with a decent law firm.

To apply (defend) your rights against an infringer - there are exceptions, but I would say that your chance of defending your rights is in direct proportion to how much you and the infringer, respectively, are prepared to pay. Patents are litigated in the Federal courts, but suits are brought and paid for by the parties involved - the court provides a forum, and process, and that's all. Patent suits are notoriously expensive, and the courts can be very fickle. The success rate for 'interferences' - where you file with the USPTO to show that the process was defective and that the patent should not have issued as it did/at all - is generally better, plus, you don't have to pay the costs of the process.

llater,

llamas

------------------
. . . a truly bad and evil man. So bad and evil that he's banned by Kim du Toit.

"All things are ready, if our minds be so."
King Henry V, Act 4, scene 3

posted 08-22-2005 02:41 PM            

quote:

---

I'm very familiar with the Lemelson process, and I wouldn't call it 'abuse'. I'd say he was a very smart and inventive, far-seeing guy, who had exceptionally good lawyers. His ability to see into the future, combined with his lawyers' ability to use the USPTO process to 'submarine' his patents, made for a potent combination.

---

He maybe smart, and he may have made a fotune, but I'm with Bill. This guy was a parasite and produced nothing. Also, calling him inventive strikes me as stretching the concept of the term beyond recognition.

posted 08-23-2005 06:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve_V:
He maybe smart, and he may have made a fotune, but I'm with Bill. This guy was a parasite and produced nothing. Also, calling him inventive strikes me as stretching the concept of the term beyond recognition.

---

I don't agree.

Lemelson didn't set up the patent application system - that was the Congress. He merely used the provisions of the law to his best advantage.

I never really followed the logic of the 'division' and 'continuation-in-part' provisions - they seemed to me like a second bite at the cherry - but there they were, and he used them. I should say at this point that I (or rather, my employer) took full advantage of those provisions when they were in effect, and benefitted from them.

The fact that he, himself, may have produced nothing, means nothing - even if it were true, which it is not. The patent system is set up to benefit the inventor - not the producer. Once again, your beef is with the Congress and the Constitution.

As to whether he was 'inventive' - while he may have stretched the system to its limits, I don't think there's any question that his original applications included far-sighted ideas and inventions which went well beyond the technology of the times in which he devised them.

The example in argument which I often hear in this regard is that his approach is ridiculous, that by this system, Sikorsky would have to pay license fees to Leonardo da Vinci, because he conceived of a helicopter back in whenever-it-was. To which I respond - damn right they would, if da Vinci had applied for a US Patent for his ideas and it was still in force when Sikorsky sought to develop a helicopter.

llater,

llamas

------------------
. . . a truly bad and evil man. So bad and evil that he's banned by Kim du Toit.

"All things are ready, if our minds be so."
King Henry V, Act 4, scene 3

posted 08-23-2005 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Lemelson didn't set up the patent application system - that was the Congress. He merely used the provisions of the law to his best advantage.

---

Soooo...he actually did produce something, other than lawsuits that is, can you point to anything?

quote:

---

The fact that he, himself, may have produced nothing, means nothing - even if it were true, which it is not.

---

Again, the stories on this guy indicate he actually invented nothing other than doing some early speculation. His speculation did not provide an impetus for others since he kept his ideas "submarined" and AFAICS he didn't help others use these inventions he hampered them.

quote:

---

The patent system is set up to benefit the inventor - not the producer. Once again, your beef is with the Congress and the Constitution.

---

In a sense yes my beef is with the system, but also that does not completely exonerate people from abusing the system, IMO. The fact that it is legal does not make it right. And if this guy actually did come up with something that people found valuable, even if just an idea, that would speak well of him, but he didn't by all accounts. All he did was come up with a general idea, keep it hidden then when others came up with something similar he threatened them with legal action to cash in on their profits. He was a blight on the economy not a benefit.

quote:

---

The example in argument which I often hear in this regard is that his approach is ridiculous, that by this system, Sikorsky would have to pay license fees to Leonardo da Vinci, because he conceived of a helicopter back in whenever-it-was. To which I respond - damn right they would, if da Vinci had applied for a US Patent for his ideas and it was still in force when Sikorsky sought to develop a helicopter.

---

Which highlights the failings of the U.S. patent system and how it actually hampers economic activity not encourage it as it was intended.

posted 08-23-2005 01:47 PM            

llater,

llamas

------------------
. . . a truly bad and evil man. So bad and evil that he's banned by Kim du Toit.

"All things are ready, if our minds be so."
King Henry V, Act 4, scene 3

posted 08-23-2005 03:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by llamas:
Any decent online biography of Lemelson will point you to his work at the Office of Naval Research on Project Squid, his years of work at Republic Aviation (his masters was in aeronautical engineering) and his independent research in matters such as steelmaking. From the early 50s to the early 60's, he obtained and licensed a number of patents for all sorts of things, mostly in the line of novelties and toys, but all of them, no doubt, profitable to the makers that licensed them.

---

If you say so. A quick google search turns up vague references, but nothing substantial with regards to Project Squid or Republic Aviation. He did come up with miniature tape cassette drive he licensed to Sony, so he did produce some things which is good.

But the behavior in regards to machine vision still strikes me as despicable, and in my view outweighs whatever good he may have done.

posted 08-23-2005 03:46 PM            

quote:

---

system is set up to benefit the inventor

---

posted 08-23-2005 09:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Casper:
Or he could just move to Taiwan and thumb his nose, not needing any steenkin patents

---

posted 08-23-2005 10:58 PM            

quote:

---

Which highlights the failings of the U.S. patent system and how it actually hampers economic activity not encourage it as it was intended.

---

posted 08-24-2005 10:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chaon:
Not even close to being accurate, Casper. I live in the third largest city in Taiwan, and we're at 10 808 U.S. patents since 1976 . These days it's China where patents, trademarks and copyrights are merrily ignored.

---

Wow, I did not realize this. That is impressive. What influenced this? Was it more profitable, or politically favorable, or what?