Lets talk Patent Law And O U Open source!

[RAMSET]

I have been asking around a Bit about this to no avail!

I noticed Cloxxi stated If we were to post our Idea on line in an Open source venue, that this would show up in a patent search making the idea Unpatentable?

Can we take this to the Bank?? Can we tell our inventors that if they open source here ... that this will prevent someone from stealing the idea and trying to patent it?
Comments and suggestions Please!

With all respect
Chet

[Cherryman]

Open-source hardware - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noteworthy licenses
Main article: Open Hardware License

The TAPR Open Hardware License: drafted by attorney John Ackermann, reviewed by OSS community leaders Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond, and discussed by hundreds of volunteers in an open community discussion[14]
Balloon Open Hardware License: used by all projects in the Balloon Project
Although originally a software license, OpenCores encourages the LGPL
Hardware Design Public License: written by Graham Seaman, admin. of Opencollector.org
In March 2011 CERN released the CERN Open Hardware License (OHL)[15] intended for use with the Open Hardware Repository and other projects.

Despite superficial similarities to software licenses, most hardware licenses are fundamentally different: by nature, they typically rely more heavily on patent law than on copyright law. Whereas a copyright license may control the distribution of the source code or design documents, a patent license may control the use and manufacturing of the physical device built from the design documents. This distinction is explicitly mentioned in the preamble of the TAPR Open Hardware License.

"...those who benefit from an OHL design may not bring lawsuits claiming that design infringes their patents or other intellectual property."[13]

All I say is... Funny, previously we were "waiting" for promising patents to reach the market.... (which never came) No we are "waiting" for Open Source to reach the market...

And yes I believe all intentions are sincere, and it might be necessary .. but again we wait.

[Savvypro]

First off, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, or pretend to be one on the Internet...

Have a look at the following page: Eagle-Research: - how they deal with patents or lack of.

[Aaron]

patent law

I posted this in the willy thread in response to your question:

Under this bogus Obama administration, they succeeded in discouraging open source sharing by changing patent laws to be "first to patent" instead of first to invent. I wouldn't be surprised if open source "free energy" movements contributed to this kind of change to discourage people from sharing - because anyone can pick it up and patent it.

Patent Office -- "First to File'' Bill (2011)

So, this encourages theft of intellectual property since the person that simply files first is considered the inventor and has patent protection.

I know from experience at least before the new patent law, that if you post something public, it is not automatically public domain despite all the claims. I can post something publicly and I can file for a patent application for up to one year after it is posted. I found this out when one greedy crook that was a member here claimed to be the inventor for my circuit and filed a patent application - the legal review found that because I posted it in the publicly, that did not make it public domain.

Most of what you hear about patents, public domain, open source from many people pushing open source are all spreading disinformation. Most is not intentional but is wrong info nevertheless.

Such as the idea that anyone can make something from a patent for personal and non-commercial use. Actually, that is false and DOES infringe on the patent holder. However, this is unenforceable and is not a practical law but it still stands, without the patent owner's explicit permission, it is technically illegal to replicate a patent for personal use. At least this is the case in the USA.

So posting stuff open source has to be done with the risk that anyone can take it and go file for a patent. If that happens, there is pretty much no recourse - at least not any recourse that won't cost a fortune to pursue.

[Shadesz]

Ironically, according to the "America Invents Act" (which Aaron is talking about)... inventors are concerned that things will be open source too easy. IE, they read the new law that if they show their idea to a possible investor, it would immediately be considered open source. IE inventors are concerned about the exact opposite that open sources are. Kinda funny.

This law isn't going into effect for another year.

Another thing to consider is the 18 month grace period.

[Aaron]

open source opportunity without patents

There is going to be a lot of clarification needed on these laws.

For example, if I make invention X and start to manufacture it and sell it and disclose everything - and make it very obvious for public record that I invented it and have been selling it - can someone patent it and for me to stop selling it? Does my act of engaging in business selling the device grandfather me in someway that either the patent cannot be granted to someone else?

Perhaps it applies to things that have not been in commercial manufacture yet, etc... all kinds of questions need to be known and a patent attorney isn't going to post this all for free for the sake of educating open source people - at least not yet.

There are a lot of things I want to patent - a certain type of calculator I invented, something that preserves a certain food and other things that aren't going to save the world. But I'm not going to waste my time unless it can be put into mass production where I can just get royalties and I don't have any current interest in finding such deals. In the meantime, they'll stay in my files. Nobody (needs) these inventions but everyone needs clean water, etc...

For energy related devices, there is a fortune to be made with open source without getting involved with patents. Look at the hydrogen booster market - exploding and nobody is paying royalties to anyone else. It is a good "cottage industry". Obviously some marketing savvy is needed but if someone can build a good quantity of something - they can always partner with someone that is a marketer.

The "joule thief" type circuits, etc... opportunity is dripping off the walls for people that have money issues. It just takes creativity. I personally wouldn't use anyone's own particular circuit without permission and I'd offer a % royalty just because I want to even though I wouldn't be legally obligated to.

@all, don't disclose anything to any investor unless you have a rock solid mutual ndnc agreement - don't play lawyer by writing up your own - use a standard legal template written by lawyers. There are plenty of free ones online. I have used the IEEE stanard non disclosure for a long time and just reworded a bit for my purposes but all the legal language is the same. You can search the ieee website for this - it is in google. But you're still at risk because agreements are only as good as the money you have to defend it if you get ripped off.

[Aaron]

patent use myth

Thanks Aaron for clarification, especially - it is technically illegal to replicate a patent for personal use. At least this is the case in the USA For years I was MORE than sure that as long as this is a single a copy for personal (non commercial) use, means that it is replicated to study the invention without monetary gain or purpose of duplicating multiple copies with intention to make a profit and (obviously) not claimed as one's own, there is no case of property theft or other violation of inventor's right and protecting laws. I remember something about making modifications to the original patent but forgot the details.

Vtech

I thought the same thing for years. After the crook claimed my ignition method as his own, I had a lot of communication with lawyers and law students. I then found the references from some of the top recognized patent attorneys in the country who author text books on patent law.

This whole concept was in a section about myths and misconceptions about patents and one of the main ones was about it being infringement to build it for personal and non commercial use.

I posted all these legal references in the water spark plug threads after someone claimed my circuit was theirs.

But the legal stance also is of the opinion that it is virtually impossible ever enforce this because if someone builds something in their home and uses it, how is anyone going to know? Unless there is an invention gestapo going door to door (which at this point I'm not ruling out the way things are looking), it probably isn't an issue.

Bedini, Veljko and others obviously give explicit permission to replicate their patented circuits so not an issue.

[RAMSET]

Nauseating but informative!!

I wonder how folks that do research can protect their property??
We have to figure out how this can work for us?

If I go to the patent office and file a patent that someone in the N S A thinks there could be issues with I'm dead in the water...

There has to be a way??
?

Chet
PS
Its been 20 yrs since I tried to patent anything myself ... Once the patent is pending It would seem the inventor is protected and there should be no final "scrutiny " until the inventor decides to finalize?
Giving people the right to "play" with the idea similar to Aarons friends above, would that work? Or make things worse?

[Farmhand]

Not sure how recent or valid this document is but it seems nearly any case of
experimental use can be argued in court. United Kingdom seems to have
provision for experimental use, and some countries inhabitants can claim
common law provisions. I think Australia can draw precedent from the UK.

It would depend entirely on the argument you present, otherwise why bother
with the court.

United Kingdom
Section 60(5) of the Patents Act 1977 provides that:
An act which apart from this sub-section, would constitute an infringement of a patent for
an invention shall not do so if -
(a) it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial
(b) it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject mater of the invention.

http://www.acip.gov.au/library/acip%...rt%20final.pdf

Just because there is no explicit provision that doesn't mean it is an
infringement. That's kinda like saying everything is illegal unless we are told it isn't.

I'll have to check out the legal references you posted in the waterspark plug
thread of course. And do some more research for more recent info for
countries other than the U.S.A..
.
Cheers

[Aaron]

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. - Patent Laws

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.


(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.


--------------------------------------------------------


Nauseating but true. You must have permission from the assignee(s) of the patent who may not necessarily be the inventor.



But like I said, it is completely impractical for any individual or business to sue an individual for replicating their patent for personal use or for scientific inquiry, etc... and how would they know?


This sums it up nicely between the US and elsewhere:


Commercial and noncommercial use

In most European countries, the exclusive exploitation rights granted by a patent are restricted to commercial exploitation. A private person who builds the patented invention in his own home for his own personal goals cannot infringe on a patent. The reasoning behind this is that such a situation cannot harm the patent holder.


US law is more strict. It forbids anyone from making, using or selling the invention, even when the use is strictly personal. Of course, since patent infringement lawsuits are very expensive, a private person is rarely if ever prosecuted for using the invention in his own home. Such a situation could occur when a private person offers on his website a piece of software that uses someone else's patented technology. The patent holder may feel that the freely available software threatens his commercial product, and then decide to use the patent to prevent the distribution of the free product.

[RAMSET]

All the seized patents

So it seems that if you go to the patent office and file something O U
You give them a stick to beat you with and they shut you down like they apparently have to 5000 O U Patent filers before!

So what is the protection offered to the inventor just for Filing ?

Does he have to disclose how his device functions can he say it runs on Neutrino Flavor shavers?
Or must all the application language jive with patent office protocol for granting a patent?

Is there any room to be Vague during the application process ?
If so for how long will you be protected?

Another theme
Prior art? [theres nothing new under the sun]
How far does prior art go back? is that something the Open source community can use to release?

Chet

[Farmhand]

Except as otherwise provided in this title

Those are the key words. What do they mean ? They seem to leave a lot of
things open to interpretation, probably so they can implement the interpretation
they want.

Are there other provisions in the title ? Thats the question.

I thought the U.S.A. was the land of the free, i'm sad to say it looks like the land of the owned to me.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

So it seems that if you go to the patent office and file something O U
You give them a stick to beat you with and they shut you down like they apparently have to 5000 O U Patent filers before!

So what is the protection offered to the inventor just for Filing ?

Does he have to disclose how his device functions can he say it runs on Neutrino Flavor shavers?
Or must all the application language jive with patent office protocol for granting a patent?

Is there any room to be Vague during the application process ?
If so for how long will you be protected?

Another theme
Prior art? [theres nothing new under the sun]
How far does prior art go back? is that something the Open source community can use to release?

Chet

Hi Chet, My opinion is. If you file for patent you are agreeing to their rules.
Just keep a record of the conception and first build of your invention and
nobody can lock you out of your invention.

Cheers

[Aaron]

revolution growing

Those are the key words. What do they mean ? They seem to leave a lot of
things open to interpretation, probably so they can implement the interpretation
they want.

Are there other provisions in the title ? Thats the question.

I thought the U.S.A. was the land of the free, i'm sad to say it looks like the land of the owned to me.

Cheers

In the USA, you are free to do what "they" let you do. lol That is not a joke by the way. I spent 14 years of my life off and on in Japan and have never felt the same sense of freedom that I had there compared to the United States where you practically need permission to take a pee.

A lot of people are on the verge of a major revolt and obama just signed the Indefinite Detention of Americans law and fema is bidding for massive construction of "support camps" all over the country. It will be nazi germany all over again unless people stand up against this high treason.

[Aaron]

first to file

Hi Chet, My opinion is. If you file for patent you are agreeing to their rules.
Just keep a record of the conception and first build of your invention and
nobody can lock you out of your invention.

Cheers

Forget about it - that has become useless and is no longer protection. "First to File"...

Under this bogus Obama administration, they succeeded in discouraging open source sharing by changing patent laws to be "first to patent" instead of first to invent. I wouldn't be surprised if open source "free energy" movements contributed to this kind of change to discourage people from sharing - because anyone can pick it up and patent it.

Patent Office -- "First to File'' Bill (2011)

So, this encourages theft of intellectual property since the person that simply files first is considered the inventor and has patent protection.

I know from experience at least before the new patent law, that if you post something public, it is not automatically public domain despite all the claims. I can post something publicly and I can file for a patent application for up to one year after it is posted. I found this out when one greedy crook that was a member here claimed to be the inventor for my circuit and filed a patent application - the legal review found that because I posted it in the publicly, that did not make it public domain.

Most of what you hear about patents, public domain, open source from many people pushing open source are all spreading disinformation. Most is not intentional but is wrong info nevertheless.

Such as the idea that anyone can make something from a patent for personal and non-commercial use. Actually, that is false and DOES infringe on the patent holder. However, this is unenforceable and is not a practical law but it still stands, without the patent owner's explicit permission, it is technically illegal to replicate a patent for personal use. At least this is the case in the USA.

So posting stuff open source has to be done with the risk that anyone can take it and go file for a patent. If that happens, there is pretty much no recourse - at least not any recourse that won't cost a fortune to pursue.

I can prove all I want that I invented something first but the first person to file for a patent is who is protected under IP law. It was pointed out that will take effect in 18 months from now. Welcome to Amerika!