Interesting Piece Of Info About Patents

[Paul Marossy]

I just read in Wikipedia that in order to protect your US Patent, you need to have One Million Dollars set aside to protect it from patent infringement. That's kind of ridiculous - all it does is empower the big corporations and screws the little guy like me. What a joke. 

I guess epoxying the hell out of your circuit is about all you can do to try and protect your invention unless you're the Roland Corporation or whatever. Then you can throw One Million Dollars at the bozo trying to rip you off. I don't think that's what the writers of the law intended, do you? It just makes me get angry if I think about it too much. 

[Sir H C]

That is wrong.  I can confirm by talking with a friend who works for the patent office.  I can see that you would need to have a good bankroll to defend your patent because a patent is only as good as the defence against infringers. But a million dollars, no.

[Paul Marossy]

They say that you need one million just to initiate litigation...

[TELEFUNKON]

A reason why I don`t like W*K*, is that anybody can write s.th., and that s.th. can get quoted, spread and repeated perpetuously over the next 100 years.
(until everybody "knows" it and believes it).

(OT>Lounge  )

[R.G.]

Filing a lawsuit is expensive, but it's not that expensive. It costs about $10K to get started, and you can count on $100K to $250K for getting to a first trial if there is any opposition.

I suspect that what the Wiki writer may have meant is that unless you have $1M of funds available, the guy you're suing can just string you along until you run out of money, or that sucessful patent suits largely cost $1M or more.

There is no accountant of the court that makes you prove you have X money to file a suit.

On the other hand, it is approximately impossible to prevail in court against an adversary with unlimited funds. If nothing else, the other side can often string it out for years, or decades, hoping you'll run out of money or just give up. So in that sense, a lone person probably cannot successfully defend a patent against a really malicious big company.

[Sir H C]

The only way to win against unlimited funds is to have lawyers who will work for a part of a potentially huge settlement.  That seems to be how the guy who invented intermittent wipers won.

[Paul Marossy]

I suspect that what the Wiki writer may have meant is that unless you have $1M of funds available, the guy you're suing can just string you along until you run out of money, or that sucessful patent suits largely cost $1M or more.

Actually, I think that is what the writer was saying. This is quoting a section of it:

"Those who accuse others of being patent pirates say that they take advantage of the high cost of enforcing a patent to willfully infringe valid patents with impunity, knowing that the average small inventor does not have the financial resources required to enforce their patent rights. In the US, for example, an inventor must budget $1 million or more in order to initiate patent litigation. They say that patent pirates also take advantage of countries where patent rights are difficult to enforce and willfully infringe in those countries."

It's still not fair, IMO.

[MKB]

I work for a small company that has most of its worth in patents, and can guarantee you there is not 1 mil set aside for patent defense.  However, considering the cost of a large company stringing out a patent trial, it's much more likely the company would try to license or buy your invention from you.  That would be a lot cheaper in many cases.  Even a large ruthless company wouldn't spend more money than it has to just to be mean to a little guy.

[Sir H C]

I work for a small company and often we do not patent stuff because then you have to divulge what you are doing, if you just keep it a secret, then you can put it out there and hope no one can reverse engineer it (or not do so in a time frame that makes them competative).

[Paul Marossy]

However, considering the cost of a large company stringing out a patent trial, it's much more likely the company would try to license or buy your invention from you.  That would be a lot cheaper in many cases.  Even a large ruthless company wouldn't spend more money than it has to just to be mean to a little guy.

I dunno... look at the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper circuit. I think he got lucky. I bet there's thousands of inventors out there who have been screwed out of their patent because they didn't have the money to defend it. It just seems stupid to me that the government will issue a patent but do nothing to protect it. That's just my point of view on it.

[puretube]

the issuing IS the protection...

the prosecution of the protection is the matter.

[oldschoolanalog]

Next time I see something potted in loads of black epoxy resin, I'll have a bit more insight as to why the manfacturer chose to do so...

[The Tone God]

There are legitimate reasons to pot a circuit, when the circuit is designed properly to handle the potting process, but IP protection should not be one of those reasons.

Andrew

[Paul Marossy]

There are legitimate reasons to pot a circuit, when the circuit is designed properly to handle the potting process, but IP protection should not be one of those reasons.

Yeah, but I wonder if companies like Fulltone do it is a "cheap insurance" measure. I'm sure that they probably don't have anything actually patented, but who knows?

[gez]

On the other hand, it is approximately impossible to prevail in court against an adversary with unlimited funds. If nothing else, the other side can often string it out for years, or decades, hoping you'll run out of money or just give up.

http://www.estatecontest.com/notable_cases/nc_jarndyce_vs.htm

[The Tone God]

Yeah, but I wonder if companies like Fulltone do it is a "cheap insurance" measure. I'm sure that they probably don't have anything actually patented, but who knows?

I was approaching the particular comment on potting from a technical stand point as opposed to a IP protection stance as there are good technical reasons to pot a circuit. Granted the vast majority of epoxy potting in the effects field is for IP protection and not for technical reasons but I don't want to get into the IP issues again.

Andrew

[Paul Marossy]

was approaching the particular comment on potting from a technical stand point as opposed to a IP protection stance as there are good technical reasons to pot a circuit.

I know where you're coming from. 

[Ge_Whiz]

I wonder what happened to the guy who invented black goop?

[oldschoolanalog]

I wonder what happened to the guy who invented black goop?

I don't know. BUT; when he finally passes on, they should encapsulate his remains in it.
(Sorry, bad taste  . But how could I resist?)
osa

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

The best gooped electronic IP protection case was this:

Back when op amps were made from discrete components, a guy at Philbrick Associates made an op amp by chopping the input signal, turning it to AC, and then amplifying with a few transistors (themselves expensive at the time) and rectifying back. OK, nothing compared to a modern chip - but enough to make the company owners millionaires. And of course it was covered in goop. A few cubic inches all up.
But here is the kicker - years later, someone doing electronic archaeology decided to analyse the circuit. Well, no matter what he did - he couldn't replicate it. And when you analysed the circuit, the observed open loop gain in the original potted modules just couldn't be attained, theoretically.
Eventually the conclusion was that there was a positive feedback path via stray capacitance between components on two of the three sandwitched layers which got the gain up, but not so far as to oscillate. And unless the circuit was built and stacked together just so, then..... it didn't 'work'.

That's the theory anyway. And the original designer is dead, so nobody will ever know for sure whether even HE knew what he was doing - but the feeling is, yes, he did