Getting a patent

[Dave45]

Yes I guess I was looking to get info from someone who had already been through the process, using a search engine uhh whats that duh 
thanx for the info
Dave

[Dave45]

Dave was looking for an answer the easy way....a hallmark of successful inventors....Here's a shortcut you weren't looking for:


http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-3.htm

www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf




TS

Thanx TS from reading the articles you referred me to I think a person would be better off to just go into production. Seems the patent office (government) is just another way to scam the poor boy, what a world we live in.
Dave

[Cloxxki]

You don't necessarily need a attorney, but most inventors do. It takes a certain mindset to write the words needed.
With a buddy I file for patent (sporting good related) before we got access to funds to get an attorney. He reviewed our application and said "keep it like this, it's good". And, we got it granted alright, with a very good desciption from the examinator, who obviously understood what we'd filed most thoroughly, and was able to put it into words quite wonderfully. Patent speak or technical poetry? -)
Having complete understanding of the field you're operating on makes it easier to write. Me and the buddy have quite a bit of fun switching to patent speak sometimes. Hey dude, I saw a pluraity of female members of mankind just now, and they had these features connected from their...etc.

While I am an elaborate writer, in case or a patent I find satisfaction in writing a "chess mate" kind of case with the least number of words. Patents are hard to read, for a reason. But if you're sure about yor invention, it will be a bonus if it's nice to read, also to your licencees.

Watch out, though. There is a thing like collective thinking. I had one branch of our idea, but we later let that go. Turns out, this guy on the other side of the world, has my EXACT same idea, at exactly the same time (same month for sure). I called him to speak about his invention, and we agreed that what he was prototyping and possibly selling, and what I/we had patented, could co-exist peacefully. We had after all abandoned this particular solution, and moved onwards to what we think is the holy grail on our field, worth patenting.
I wouldn't wait too long getting your priority date (first apllication filing). It a pain to get through all the paperwork, but toughen up. After filing, you have like 1-2 years to work on the invention, funding, and production before you need to get serious following up on the application before you lose your rights to continue towards getting a real patent. You'll be "patent pending", meaning you can show anyone, and they'll know they need to back of, or figure out something much better, and then patent that.

Good luck, and once you've filed, tell us what you've got?

J

[Creativity]

I am sorry, but much of this advice is plain wrong.

You are allowed to show the invention.  Publishing is a different story, but even there, there is a year period from self-publication where you can still patent your device.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by technical, but you can get patents on methodology and other things.  Michael Jackson patented some of his dance moves.

Doing a patent yourself is not very expensive.  And maintaining a patent is not that expensive either.  But your chances of having an effective patent without an attorney's help are not great unless you really put a lot of thought and effort into it. 

Patent drafting is a bit of an art, so yes, you should talk with an attorney, but getting a book first will not hurt.  In short, the idea is to draft your claims as broadly as possible to give yourself maximum protection against copycats, yet not so broad as to be invalid.

I have never heard of patent forfeiture being the penalty for missing some tax deadlines?  Where did you get this info?

And regarding the bit about an expert being able to arrive at your device easily, sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.  You are referring to obviousness, but obviousness is actually a hard thing to disqualify a patent on.  What is obvious to the layman is not necessarily obvious in the legal sense.  So don't assume anything is obvious, just get the patent and let the possible future infringers try to make that argument.

Europe is different than USA in patent law.I refer to European case. Much of what u say its true for USA, but not the rest of the world. Any form of public disclosure disqualifies possibility to obtain a patent in Europe, there is no safe period after disclosure. In USA, Canada and Japan there is as u noticed a grace period, so to say. But once disclosed, u won't have a chance in Europe.There are only two exceptions to this rule:
-if somebody disclosed ur information without ur knowledge and/or against ur will
-u presented ur invention on internationally known exposition that has been recognized as exceptional.

About being technical, once more there is a discrepancy between USA and rest of the world. Will have to check  M.J moves patent, but i'm pretty sure its granted only in USA :)There are strong debates on "patentability" , especially in bio-sciences and economic process, followed by computer programs(now covered with author rights).

Inventive means it should be not evident to come to ur invention by a person specialized in a field ur invention is about. In most of the cases it is using of an invention in a new context or combining it with existing work to form a synergistic effect that is meant as being inventive.

If anyone wants to go international i advise to visit a specialist first. Just as u can see law is different and u can end up doing something that will disqualify u from the start.