- Status
Just a "by the by":
Prior art and many public domain issues are out the window maybe as soon as next week. The rush will be on to apply for patents on devices and items that have never been patented even though they've been produced for decades. Larger companies that can afford to pay extra filing fees will probably see the three year wait on a patent drop to a couple of months while those who can't afford it will see the three years increase to four. Reform of the US patent process is necessary, but the reforms that are coming only invite fraud, waste, and grift. I've been aware of this legislation since it began, but hardly anyone has been paying attention and this is actually one of two articles about it that I know of. (if WSJ won't show you the whole article without a subscription, search it from google news and you'll get it)
Prior art and many public domain issues are out the window maybe as soon as next week. The rush will be on to apply for patents on devices and items that have never been patented even though they've been produced for decades. Larger companies that can afford to pay extra filing fees will probably see the three year wait on a patent drop to a couple of months while those who can't afford it will see the three years increase to four. Reform of the US patent process is necessary, but the reforms that are coming only invite fraud, waste, and grift. I've been aware of this legislation since it began, but hardly anyone has been paying attention and this is actually one of two articles about it that I know of. (if WSJ won't show you the whole article without a subscription, search it from google news and you'll get it)
Well that has its pluses and minuses.......on the down side you may be the inventor but an unscrupulous company can fast file it and beat you out...on the up side for prior art/public domain cases a third party may be able to block/put down a fraudulent patent attempt by filing the relevant information...interesting...gonna have to pull up the documentation on this and read further into it...
Passed the senate today so there should be a bunch more news articles by now.
I've applied for patents before, and they're a ton of money- like $10,000, and they're only as good as you can afford to defend them.
Currently there is something called a provisional patent application- and that's only about $150. You can prepare that one yourself with a little bit of research. With the changes to the patent law that are coming along it would be a good idea to file a few provisionals on the really good ideas before the big changes go through. It gets your foot in the door for the "first to file" race for not a lot of money. You're also legally able to say that your invention is "patent pending"- there's no teeth to that. It gives you absolutely no legal protection- you can't file patent infringement suits until you have a patent, but it's something.
The other issue with patents is that you have to file by country- so you can get a patent here, but that's not going to prevent a Chinese manufacturer from ripping you off.
My $.02 after having gone through the process as a small business person is to save your money. Use the $10,000 you would have spent on patent fees for research, building a better product, and treating your customers well. That will put you much further ahead than a patent that you'll spend all of your time and money defending.
Currently there is something called a provisional patent application- and that's only about $150. You can prepare that one yourself with a little bit of research. With the changes to the patent law that are coming along it would be a good idea to file a few provisionals on the really good ideas before the big changes go through. It gets your foot in the door for the "first to file" race for not a lot of money. You're also legally able to say that your invention is "patent pending"- there's no teeth to that. It gives you absolutely no legal protection- you can't file patent infringement suits until you have a patent, but it's something.
The other issue with patents is that you have to file by country- so you can get a patent here, but that's not going to prevent a Chinese manufacturer from ripping you off.
My $.02 after having gone through the process as a small business person is to save your money. Use the $10,000 you would have spent on patent fees for research, building a better product, and treating your customers well. That will put you much further ahead than a patent that you'll spend all of your time and money defending.
Unfortunately, part of the problem with that may be that if someone else does apply and the patent is actually granted with claims that apply to your product, the patent holder could pursue legal action. In some cases with certain types of notices, they can even go for retroactive damages from the time the application is published to the time it is granted.
Even if it turns out to be unwarranted, even if the patent itself is later overturned, in some cases even if the patent hasn't even been issued yet, some jerks can and will try to use the legal system (or the threat of legal action) to make life miserable and potentially costly.
rolygate, any chance you can get in touch with me on a question, please? Thanks!
It's actually a blessing, all of these "patent infringement" and "you stole my idea" conversations. Imagine just for a second, what our options would be if people did have patent rights locked down on general ideas in this community:
1) All bottomfeeders would be plastic and tilt and shoot too fill. Very leaky as well.
2) VV mods would be stacked battery fail, adjustable will screwdriver only, and would have low amp protection limited in their ability to run dual coil cartos or attys.
3) Would only have access to 1 plastic only carto tank.
4) Rebuildable attys would be only 1 fail performing design with no tank systems available.
This is just a few limitations that would come from someone "protecting their rights". Yes, there would be one guy that would make a little bit of money off an idea, but an entire vaping community would suffer from lack of options. It's the continual evolution of the basis "Electronic Cig" idea that has become so beautiful. Better and better units produced every week, quality is going up, designs are more and more friendly to use. But always there will be some guy all upset because he didn't get rich with his fail basic idea.
We have people trying to patent the wheel, while others are building some very nice automobiles on top of those wheels.
Why make an entire community suffer, just so 1 guy can get rich on a wheel that not many people would buy anyways if it were not for the automobile they drove and fell in love with?
As it stands right now, if you have an idea, you should probably make it of the utmost quality and establish a constant stream of innovation to keep that initial ball rolling before someone improves upon "your" design and makes a product the vaping community will REALLY enjoy. The option exists that you could cry about the fact that you came up with an initial design but someone did a better job of making it, or added more bells and whistles.
So many suppliers focused more on the money, then the actual customer's they are trying to serve. If suppliers would serve their customers, and make products that spoke for themselves on the grounds of QUALITY and innovation, and then stand behind those products, a perpetual ball of money would be rolling their way. If your gonna produce fail products, then follow China's example and keep producing more and more variations of junk: stop trying to patent fail, and embrace win; even if someone else made it better then you did.
If a lot of these suppliers would focus more on MAKING PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT, they would have the money they are looking for. Instead, they want to patent something, then ram it down everyone's throat as the only option available.
1) All bottomfeeders would be plastic and tilt and shoot too fill. Very leaky as well.
2) VV mods would be stacked battery fail, adjustable will screwdriver only, and would have low amp protection limited in their ability to run dual coil cartos or attys.
3) Would only have access to 1 plastic only carto tank.
4) Rebuildable attys would be only 1 fail performing design with no tank systems available.
This is just a few limitations that would come from someone "protecting their rights". Yes, there would be one guy that would make a little bit of money off an idea, but an entire vaping community would suffer from lack of options. It's the continual evolution of the basis "Electronic Cig" idea that has become so beautiful. Better and better units produced every week, quality is going up, designs are more and more friendly to use. But always there will be some guy all upset because he didn't get rich with his fail basic idea.
We have people trying to patent the wheel, while others are building some very nice automobiles on top of those wheels.
Why make an entire community suffer, just so 1 guy can get rich on a wheel that not many people would buy anyways if it were not for the automobile they drove and fell in love with?
As it stands right now, if you have an idea, you should probably make it of the utmost quality and establish a constant stream of innovation to keep that initial ball rolling before someone improves upon "your" design and makes a product the vaping community will REALLY enjoy. The option exists that you could cry about the fact that you came up with an initial design but someone did a better job of making it, or added more bells and whistles.
So many suppliers focused more on the money, then the actual customer's they are trying to serve. If suppliers would serve their customers, and make products that spoke for themselves on the grounds of QUALITY and innovation, and then stand behind those products, a perpetual ball of money would be rolling their way. If your gonna produce fail products, then follow China's example and keep producing more and more variations of junk: stop trying to patent fail, and embrace win; even if someone else made it better then you did.
If a lot of these suppliers would focus more on MAKING PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT, they would have the money they are looking for. Instead, they want to patent something, then ram it down everyone's throat as the only option available.
Can I post here without being BANNED for discussing business ?? if not I will stear clear
Just curious - the original post mentioned assigning rights to all via a GPL. I've only just started researching this, but as near as I can tell GPL only applies to software, documents and such. Is there a specific way that a GPL can be handled that covers hardware designs in such a way that it manages to defang the patent mongers and trolls? If so, how would one go about it?
Links appreciated, 'cause my Google-Fu is apparently weak today.
Links appreciated, 'cause my Google-Fu is apparently weak today.
I referenced open-source hardware licensing in one of my posts but probably didn't give any examples. I don't know much about it but Wikipedia has a bit.
Open-source hardware - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Everyone please look at the back of the computer you are typing on OK ! there are in many cases 5-10 patents applied to the device you are using . Now look at your coffee pot , TV , cell phone , Car , garage door opener , hot tub etc. etc. etc.
So Dell and Intel and all other companies that have patents are " Patent Mongers" now ?? just curious .
I understand that not every body likes patents , look at CHINA , they have not respected or protected patents ( until recently ) so do you want that system ?? .
Chinese companies have been watching the forums and modders section for years , many of the Chinese Ecigs you see are based on these designs and Ideas ( can you say EGO ?? and the new VV Volcano mod coming out ) .
But if an American company patents something in this market they are MONGERS ! , Nice.
Thanks for helping bring jobs back to America .
So Dell and Intel and all other companies that have patents are " Patent Mongers" now ?? just curious .
I understand that not every body likes patents , look at CHINA , they have not respected or protected patents ( until recently ) so do you want that system ?? .
Chinese companies have been watching the forums and modders section for years , many of the Chinese Ecigs you see are based on these designs and Ideas ( can you say EGO ?? and the new VV Volcano mod coming out ) .
But if an American company patents something in this market they are MONGERS ! , Nice.
Thanks for helping bring jobs back to America .
It's about context that I may not have fully defined. To clarify, what I meant the term "mongers" to apply to are those who:
a) Behave negatively and choose to use patents, patent law, threats and intimidation to stifle creativity and innovation in the name of personal profit by engaging primarily in litigation, threats of litigation and in the purely restrictive aspects of the rights that patents provide, or
b) Engage in applying for or collecting large numbers of patents purely for the money they can make via litigation and settlements rather than any actual production or work, or
c) Apply for and sometimes manage to obtain patents for devices or methods which are actually common and obvious and perhaps even published prior art, hoping that no one will recognize and challenge or oppose it, solely in an attempt to later obtain money from or restrict the activity of others and increase their own ability to market.
It was not in any way meant to apply to those who may just happen to have been granted a patent or even numerous patents based on the actual merits of their work, and use the rights obtained thereby simply to ensure they are properly compensated for same.
It is not that I do not like patents or patent holders as a general rule. My frustration stems from the many flaws in the current system and laws that have made some see it as a cash cow via the courts (which serves to benefit only the trolls/mongers and their lawyers) as opposed to actual production and services or licensing (which serves to benefit others).
Last edited:
to reply to
A) In the case of a corporation this is how business is DONE , this is also how it is for many small companies or individuals have to deal with patents , there are SOME companies that do what you are talking about but that is the system at this point in time we have to deal with it as a patent holder or violator. Behaving negatively is purely a subjective view !!!
B) Agreed
C) The Patent office determines this NOT the applicant !! they do the research AND you have to provide any knowledge of any common product or similar products , not doing so invalidates your application so blame the USPTO for this one.
Look If WE as businesses in the Ecig field do NOT protect ourselves for novel and unique designs nobody WILL , this is a new market companies WILL go for intellectual property rights ( patents ) if we do not then PM will eventually or Marlboro will once they see the potential .
Looking down on a company for applying for a patent in this field is mis-informed and just ridiculous IMO .
I own many patents these protect my designs and business from Foreign copies of my designs and products and also US copies , I have had to approach companies that did bring out copies from HK into the USA , they got a nice letter and backed off .
FYI here is a list of patents that I own , these are mainly in the Fiber Optics market
PAT. NO. Title
1 7,971,287 Method and apparatus for automatically lifting a cover
2 7,461,415 Method and apparatus for automatically lifting a cover
3 6,989,895 Automated fiber optic inspection system
4 6,954,262 Automated fiber optic inspection system
5 6,454,631 Polishing apparatus and method
6 6,428,391 Method and apparatus for polishing
7 6,302,763 Apparatus for polishing
8 6,190,239 Polishing method using two stage members
9 6,183,343 Polishing apparatus with defined pattern
10 5,947,797 Computer-controlled method for polishing
11 5,319,734 Fiber optic attenuator
you can look up any of these here if you want
US Patent Full-Text Database Boolean Search
As you can see we are very versed in the patent process and what can and cannot be patented , I have never had an application fail or not get assigned because we do follow the rules set forth by the USPTO.
These patents protect my company , my employees and my designs
I'm not sure I agree that "This is how business is DONE" is a blanket comment that covers businesses that, "choose to use patents, patent law, threats and intimidation" and engage "primarily in litigation [and] threats of litigation".
I do believe that we are in basic agreement on the overall point, but also that it certainly can be touchy given (as you point out) the occasionally subjective of nature of what constitutes "negative" use. In my book, engaging in "patent protection" is different than what I will call "patent threats".
I actually have a very specific case in mind, but I'm not sure if discussing it might be a problem. I will defer to rolygate, and if he says I can talk about it here then I'll try to fill in the blank about why my item A) seems like a problem to me.
I agree. But nothing stops the nefarious ones from trying, and if it gets past and patent claims are granted, they now have an patent and claims for a common, non-creative, obvious, non-novel device. And they will continue to have rights under that patent UNTIL it is opposed and overturned.
Consider the kind of damage they can do in the mean time ... the time and money they may cost people and businesses that now have to deal with unnecessary litigation. Even if those people eventually win, just having been put in that situation could break them financially. I find the idea chilling because some people and some lawyers will pursue this kind of thing just for that window of opportunity.
I agree, whole-heartedly! There are many patent-worthy ideas out there that apply to e-cigs, and their inventors deserve financial benefit from their work.
However, I also believe there are many e-cig related ideas, devices and methods that are not worthy of patent protection, mostly due to prior art, obviousness and lack of novelty. Fortunately very few are running down the path of trying to patent such things, but I know of at least one who is trying.
These patents protect my company , my employees and my designs
And I commend you, sir. THAT is exactly what they SHOULD be used for.
Vapian, I too am hesitent to discuss item A without deferring to rolygate .......I also actually have a very specific case in mind....
Edit: actually 2 cases in mind......neither of which have been seen in the ECF.....
Edit: actually 2 cases in mind......neither of which have been seen in the ECF.....
Last edited:
I don't think the point of this thread is to express the difference in opinion about whether Mike's patent application is valid or appropriate. That's been done!
Just posting to make this thread easier to follow...- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
