The Case Against Patents

[michael stevenson]

There has been a lot of dialoge about the need for and the usefulness of Patents in the forum lately. And I challenge anyone who reads the following information to reply back here and tell me why they think there is any reason for being concerned about patents or patenting any products whatsoever.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf

Michael

[Joe Sanders]

Dude,
That's a lot of reading, some of us have lives.

Can you paraphase it for us.

[Alan Dague-Greene]

"An absolute and total loss"?
"Ideas are usually worthless"?

Come on, this is just trying desperately to make people angry. I think there would be a much kinder way to talk about a reality check than to tell people they're better off playing the lottery. Yes, the lottery has odds better than 100:1 ... if you want to win $5.

Of course, people get carried away with get-rich-quick fantasies, and most patents will not yield a generous income on their own. But this article completely ignores the best part of the whole process: the pleasure of thinking creatively and possibly thinking of something that has never been thought before! It makes the inventor sound like a complete sucker, ready to be "gang raped". Unbelievable.

[Joe Sanders]

Alan,
I didn't read the article, but I got the gist of it.

European and American wealth came from the “one out of a hundred” things that did work.  We need less lawyers, and accountants, and more inventors.

The time I spend trying to develop the TR9600 was the absolute best time of my life. After $200,000 and 3 years lost, I now live in an apartment I built over my shop (too poor to buy a new home).  But ask me if I’d do it all over again.

[michael stevenson]

You're right Joe, some people do have lives. So I will post a synopsis of the facts just as soon as I return from the "Pacific Design & Manufacturing Show" at the Anaheim Convention Center today!

Michael 

P.S. Alan, taking the authors words out of context can be misleading. The TRUTH is most patents will not yield ANY income at all.

[michael stevenson]

Here are three compeling reasons stated in the article:


Fact #1 –Your patent does NOT in any manner prevent others from stealing or using your ideas.

Should you go patent something, anyone is totally free to market your product, rip off all your ideas, or tell others about your work. And there is nothing immediate you can do to stop this from happening. All a patent does is give you the right to sue someone in a civil action. At some future date in a ridiculously costly, extremely drawn out and easily circumvented legal process.

Nobody has ever "won" any patent litigation. The main purpose of patent fights are to cause more grief and harm to the opposition than you are causing yourself. Almost always, this purpose fails miserably.

Fact #2 -  NOBODY voluntarily pays any patent royalties.

Nearly any company would much prefer to give their legal department $100,000 to bust your patent before they would ever stoop to paying you $10,000 in royalties. Outside patents are something to be ignored, avoided, worked around, or outright busted in court.

But never to be honored.

Fact #3 – You WILL get ripped off.

The odds are very much stacked against the Midnight Engineer startup from day one. If you are a creative type that designs things, the chances are you got that way in the first place through ignoring people and legal details. So, you will have your ideas stolen. You will be lied to. You will be misled. Fer sure.

The trick here is to recognize the inevitability of this ripoff process and not get too upset when it happens. Ripoffs come with the territory. So, factor them in ahead of time and it won’t be nearly as rude a surprise when it surely happens to you.

All of these statements are common sense and obviously true in today's global economy. Most experts in this field agree that Patents are basically becoming obsolete and virtualy useless.

Michael

[Phil Kindred]

There is fairly well known story about the fellow who invented the Ball Ratchet screwdriver.  Instead of a handle, it had a ball that you gripped.  He had patent protection, so he took it to a large US retailer,  they looked at it, and said they were not interested.  Then-guess what?  He sued and it took 10 years in court for him to win 10 million dollars.  How much did the retailer make in those 10 years?  Who knows?  It's a jungle out there.

[Joe Sanders]

You're right Joe, some people do have lives. So I will post a synopsis of the facts just as soon as I return from the "Pacific Design & Manufacturing Show" at the Anaheim Convention Center today!

Michael 

P.S. Alan taking "word bites" out of context can be misleading. The truth is most patents will not yield ANY income at all.

did you have fun?

[michael stevenson]

Phil,

And how much money did that inventor spend to fight that case in court for 10 years. My guess is he ended up penniless. So I guess the moral of your story is "he who hesitates is not making any money." Thinking that the Government, or anyone else for that matter, is going to come to your rescue because you have Patented your invention is not only naive it's absurd.

Producing and Selling a product is THE only way to make any profit on an idea. Worring about it does NOTHING to put money in the manufacturers bank account.

Joe,

Did I have fun? Let's see......

SolidWorks by Dassault Systemes
AutoCad Inventor by AutoDesk
Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 2.0 by Parametric Technologies Corportation
Catia, Enovia, Delimia by Dassault Systemes

It was ok.

Michael

Some people say, "It's the company you keep."

[michael stevenson]

And here's three more...

Fact #4 –Not one patent in one hundred will ever show ANY positive cash flow.

There have been several patent productivity studies done. While most of these cite ratios of several hundred to one or higher, 100:1 seems a useful and very generous working figure. Thus, your state’s lottery is usually a vastly better investment than a patent.


Fact #5 –There is not ONE patent in ONE THOUSAND which cannot be invalidated or severely minimized by a diligent
enough search for obscure enough prior art.

Very simply, there are zillions of people world wide who are inventing things. And they all have pretty much the same tools and technology at their disposal. So, almost certainly, you are not first with your idea. All it takes is some provable prior art anywhere, and your patent is patently useless.

Fact #6 –Prior art is NOT needed to bust any patent.

All you really have to do is show that the claims would have been reasonably obvious to any "practitioner in the field." That’s all it takes. As is often the case, a patent search gets made without actually looking at any of the non-patent history of the field in the way of key papers, seminars and trade journals.

All you have to do is find someone somewhere that says it sure would have been obvious to them. When (not if) your patent ends up busted, you will also run the risk of a frivolous litigation countersuit. Thus, if you have the temerity to try and defend your patent, you could end up being fined thousands of dollars.

Gentlemen, what say you?

"A fact's a fact from Nome to Rome boy" - Rush

[michael stevenson]

Your honor, I rest my case.

MS