New business models to protect inventiveness

[1_Place]

Dear Silicon Beach

Reading the LifeGuard paper: http://www.siliconbeachaustralia.org/lifeguard/
& considering what can we do to help, we thought that we would seek
suggestions from Silicon Beach for ways to improve start up access to
legal and patent attorney services.

Our belief is that there are other obstacles that prevent starts up
from having a easy path to success, one of which is the cost of IP
protection - and in particular patent protection!

We would really appreciate any thoughts on how we can offer legal and
patent attorney services and still survive ourselves. Is there a way
that we could help IT start ups to secure patent protection for new
inventions and not go under ourselves?

One way is to provide help for startups to put in their own patent
applications. We have an initial teaching aid for patents at:
http://www.1place.com.au/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12

Please let us know other ways that we could change the way legal and
attorney services are offered to help make Australia more competitive.
Any thoughts on this?

We are sure that there are good alternative business models worth
trying; therefore, we are looking for your input.

Thanks

Michael
1p.com.au

[Elias Bizannes]

<rant>Software patents hurt the world. The big companies all have agreements with each other where it's a "we won't sue you if you don't sue us" because they all inevitably infringe on each others patents and the rapid innovation occuring wouldn't happen without such agreements. All patents are doing are preventing upstarts from coming into the world, as the big companies can shoot them out of the water and entrench their dominance. The reality is, most patent cases get thrown out of court due to particulars, and it's a matter of who has the most money in the bank to sustain the fight.</rant>

But kudo's for trying to think differently. I think the most value service providers can add is by trying to grow the ecosystem. If you actively help companiess starting and growing, they will ineventiably need services. Forming the relationships early on is how you secure future profitability. It doesn't cost anything to have a coffee with someone and give them advice. That in my eyes, is the most value you could add - and that benefits you more than it costs.

Elias Bizannes
http://eliasbizannes.com

[Sriram Panyam]

Elias,

    Your rant is spot on.  One more thing though.  Yes a lot of cases get thrown out due not meeting one or more of the patentability criterias (ie useful, inventive step, novel, etc)... Problem is this is all ok for big companies suing other big companies.  It does not really help the small guys who may not even be infringing a patent.  All it takes is the threat of a lawsuit (whether you follow up on it or not) to force a small startup change their path due to heavy legal fees.  How do you get around this?

cheers
S

--
Blog: http://panyam.wordpress.com
Twitter: @panyam

[Mark Burch]

In a word, low cost elawyering.

The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough?currentPage=all

(Theres a bit about elawyering which may interest you). In a nutshell we're moving away from high cost high quality services to a world in which cheap and good enough is the norm. If you get in front of that curve....

Regards,
Mark Burch

[TinMan]

Hi Elias,

I run a small Aussie "start-up", now into our seventh year. We do
SaaS for the facilities management industry. As a small company we
have some very large customers - Mirvac, Goodman, Spotless ... which
makes patent protection all the more important. (stops the internal
IT departments of these companies attempting to duplicate our
solutions). We hold 2 patents, and have 1 pending. Each one has cost
about 5k to 8k to register in Aus. We use Watermark in North Ryde.

I will say that the value of patents is questioned by VC's and is
often more of a cost than an asset. However, it does make getting the
R&D tax rebate easier, and access to other funds. In the end, you
need to be able to back your IP rights and have the finance to defend
them.

My point is they are not just for large companies, and in our case
have proved worth the investment.

Regards,

Jon Tinberg
www.valoremsystems.com

On Nov 9, 7:26 am, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <rant>Software patents hurt the world. The big companies all have agreements
> with each other where it's a "we won't sue you if you don't sue us" because
> they all inevitably infringe on each others patents and the rapid innovation
> occuring wouldn't happen without such agreements. All patents are doing are
> preventing upstarts from coming into the world, as the big companies can
> shoot them out of the water and entrench their dominance. The reality is,
> most patent cases get thrown out of court due to particulars, and it's a
> matter of who has the most money in the bank to sustain the fight.</rant>
>
> But kudo's for trying to think differently. I think the most value service
> providers can add is by trying to grow the ecosystem. If you actively help
> companiess starting and growing, they will ineventiably need services.
> Forming the relationships early on is how you secure future profitability.
> It doesn't cost anything to have a coffee with someone and give them advice.
> That in my eyes, is the most value you could add - and that benefits you
> more than it costs.
>

> Elias Bizanneshttp://eliasbizannes.com

>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:15 PM, 1_Place <drmichaelba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Silicon Beach
>
> > Reading the LifeGuard paper:
> >http://www.siliconbeachaustralia.org/lifeguard/

> > & <http://www.siliconbeachaustralia.org/lifeguard/%0A&> considering what

> > can we do to help, we thought that we would seek
> > suggestions from Silicon Beach for ways to improve start up access to
> > legal and patent attorney services.
>
> > Our belief is that there are other obstacles that prevent starts up
> > from having a easy path to success, one of which is the cost of IP
> > protection - and in particular patent protection!
>
> > We would really appreciate any thoughts on how we can offer legal and
> > patent attorney services and still survive ourselves. Is there a way
> > that we could help IT start ups to secure patent protection for new
> > inventions and not go under ourselves?
>
> > One way is to provide help for startups to put in their own patent
> > applications. We have an initial teaching aid for patents at:
> >http://www.1place.com.au/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12
>
> > Please let us know other ways that we could change the way legal and
> > attorney services are offered to help make Australia more competitive.
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> > We are sure that there are good alternative business models worth
> > trying; therefore, we are looking for your input.
>
> > Thanks
>
> > Michael

> > 1p.com.au- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[1_Place]

Thanks for your thoughts:

There is a lot is anger towards patents which I would very much like
to unravel -

I see the patent system as a library that has a standard process for
recording information, for which anyone at anytime can take
information from that library - however, in approximately 8% of cases
a royalty will have to be paid to the inventor/applicant.

If you can describe your invention and you do not want to seek
royalties from it you can add it to the library as a Statutory
Invention Registration see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration

The sharing of knowledge is critically important for our growth so we
can "stand on the shoulders of others" from which I learnt from my
many years in research.

We need to deconstruct the reason(s) why we "protest so much"

Let me build an tool to empirically find out what causes angst about
the patent system as an empirical study (less dogma more karma!)

"Can we fix it"? Famous words by Bob the builder : )

Regards
1_Place
www.1p.com.au

[Dylan Jay]

I don't think there is anger against the ideals of the patent system.
But as someone who worked for a company that produces a lot of patents
(and have some in my name) the current reality of patents is as Elias
describes. It works roughly like the card game happy families* except
that you have 1 card in your hand and the big companies have 1000.
In fact I think that Elias protesting against capitalism is not
entirely fair in that markets work well for many many same size
companies but the benefits break down when companies are able to
dominant. Same with patents.

I'd love to have better ideas on how to fix this. In the plane the
other day Richard Branson says he likes to breakup his companies when
they get above 100 employees. Maybe there is something in that.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Families

---
Dylan Jay, Plone Solutions Manager
www.pretaweb.com
tel:+61299552830
mob:+61421477460
skype:dylan_jay

[Richard Heycock]

Excerpts from 1_Place's message of Tue Nov 10 10:04:26 +1100 2009:

>
> Thanks for your thoughts:
>
> There is a lot is anger towards patents which I would very much like
> to unravel -
>
> I see the patent system as a library that has a standard process for
> recording information, for which anyone at anytime can take
> information from that library - however, in approximately 8% of cases
> a royalty will have to be paid to the inventor/applicant.

You may well think of the patent system "... as a library that has a
standard process for recording information ..." but, surely, a much
better place for such information is journals and libraries not to
mention the Internet.

The reality is that large companies use it to stifle innovation and
protect their interests, usually at the cost of the people using the
software. See:

http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

Particularly section III/B.

>
> If you can describe your invention and you do not want to seek
> royalties from it you can add it to the library as a Statutory
> Invention Registration see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration

Surely putting your invention in the public domain or publishing it a
using, say, Creative Commons license or the GFDL would achieve the same
thing? (Caveat INAL!).

> The sharing of knowledge is critically important for our growth so we
> can "stand on the shoulders of others" from which I learnt from my
> many years in research.

Absolutely but I do not think putting it into a system that has been
shown, on numerous occasions, to be open to abuse is a good idea.

I tend to think "stand on those who threaten our dominance" might be a
better quote!

rgh

[1_Place]

Thanks again

I will reply specifically to your thoughts a little later - I believe
there are many things wrong with the patent system at the moment
- however, the governors of the system do not hear the wisdom of the
crowds*:

I have just come back from a talk with with IP Australia and IPTA (the
Institute of Patent & Trade mark Attorneys):
It seems that the outcome of these talks appeared to focus on:
1) people don't understand IP;
2) a little bit of knowledge is dangerous; and
3) we are doing so much (as we were walked through the website of
these organisations) ... I was dismayed!

There was no debate in these talks. Further, the same talks could have
taken place a decade ago.

Consequently, change will have to come from the users of IP, not the
directors of it!

Regards

1Place
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

On Nov 10, 12:37 pm, Richard Heycock <r...@roughage.com.au> wrote:
> Excerpts from 1_Place's message of Tue Nov 10 10:04:26 +1100 2009:
>
>
>
> > Thanks for your thoughts:
>
> > There is a lot is anger towards patents which I would very much like
> > to unravel -
>
> > I see the patent system as a library that has a standard process for
> > recording information, for which anyone at anytime can take
> > information from that library - however, in approximately 8% of cases
> > a royalty will have to be paid to the inventor/applicant.
>
> You may well think of the patent system "... as  a library that has a
> standard process for recording information ..." but, surely, a  much
> better place for such information is journals and libraries not to
> mention the Internet.
>
> The reality is that large companies use it to stifle innovation and
> protect their interests, usually at the cost of the people using the
> software. See:
>
>    http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
>
> Particularly section III/B.
>
>
>
> > If you can describe your invention and you do not want to seek
> > royalties from it you can add it to the library as a Statutory
> > Invention Registration see

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Regist...

[1_Place]

My previous rant was after attending "Raising the awareness of
intellectual property amongst the business community" which stated:
"This forum will feature three expert speakers providing their
perspectives on the topic above"; however, no one seemed to think that
there was a problem with Patents & IP nor where there any suggestions
that the views such as those reflected by SiliconBeach existed!

My thoughts were that there was an elephant in the room!

Jay - thanks for your thoughts - it should be scalable but alas, it
currently is not: the legal costs are so very high to revoke or defend
a patent that it often is a game for empowered. Possibly a Patent
Court that efficiently resolves patent disputes would be beneficial?
or just more red tape?

Patents for small player are valuable as negotiation tools and can
lead to a valuable return when pursued (from the matters that I have
been involved in it has been worthwhile). Also, as yet I have not
worked with a client that has not valued their patent highly ... but
this is not the full spectrum of experience.

Richard - thanks also for your thoughts & links (alas, not read yet
but I will):

The patent library works for me because:
1) it is free: many academic journals you have to pay a subscription
for. The contributor pays the costs to enter material into the patent
system, not the reader; and
2) it has a set format (objective, background, problem to be
overcome ...) and is most often translated into English, so you can
search it. I know of no other library that has hundreds of years of
entry in the same format.

The Creative Commons license (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
is for copyright.

As for Open Source - I am a great supporter of it. The patent
database does not stop people putting information into the public
domain and is often the means for people adding information into the
public domain since the decision to collect a royalty is up to the
applicant and the opportunity to collect a royalty is for a limited
period of time: http://1plaw.com/1P/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12

Thanks for your thoughts - there is truth in what you are expressing;
however, in the circus governing IP policy it seems that no-one has
noticed the elephant in the room!

[Richard Heycock]

Excerpts from 1_Place's message of Tue Nov 10 16:05:47 +1100 2009:

>
> My previous rant was after attending "Raising the awareness of
> intellectual property amongst the business community" which stated:
> "This forum will feature three expert speakers providing their
> perspectives on the topic above"; however, no one seemed to think that
> there was a problem with Patents & IP nor where there any suggestions
> that the views such as those reflected by SiliconBeach existed!
>
> My thoughts were that there was an elephant in the room!
>
> Jay - thanks for your thoughts - it should be scalable but alas, it
> currently is not: the legal costs are so very high to revoke or defend
> a patent that it often is a game for empowered. Possibly a Patent
> Court that efficiently resolves patent disputes would be beneficial?
> or just more red tape?
>
> Patents for small player are valuable as negotiation tools and can
> lead to a valuable return when pursued (from the matters that I have
> been involved in it has been worthwhile). Also, as yet I have not
> worked with a client that has not valued their patent highly ... but
> this is not the full spectrum of experience.
>
> Richard - thanks also for your thoughts & links (alas, not read yet
> but I will):
>
> The patent library works for me because:
> 1) it is free: many academic journals you have to pay a subscription
> for. The contributor pays the costs to enter material into the patent
> system, not the reader; and

Are you suggesting that it's free to publish get a patent? Is it even
free to see all patents (I realise there are some sites that allow you
to browse patents but is that all patents).

> 2) it has a set format (objective, background, problem to be
> overcome ...) and is most often translated into English, so you can
> search it. I know of no other library that has hundreds of years of
> entry in the same format.

They may be literally translated into English but I would argue that
it's not possible for a layman to *understand* them.

Software patents haven't been around for hundreds of years.

Please don't get me wrong I'm not adverse to the concept of a patent
system, my main problem the current implementation (I'm mainly talking
about US patent law, I realise that the Australian patents are slightly
saner) and software patents in general.

> The Creative Commons license (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
> is for copyright.

I understand that but surely it's a legally binding document clearly
stating your idea and under what conditions you can use it. After all
software is released under a copyright of some description.

> As for Open Source - I am a great supporter of it. The patent
> database does not stop people putting information into the public
> domain and is often the means for people adding information into the
> public domain since the decision to collect a royalty is up to the
> applicant and the opportunity to collect a royalty is for a limited
> period of time: http://1plaw.com/1P/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12

So can I add an idea to the patent database for free and put it in the
public domain without hiring a solicitor? Surely there are other ways of
putting something into the public domain (I don't really subscribe to
your view of the patent database as a library)?

rgh

[Sriram Panyam]

Actually I think doing a patent yourself should cost around 1000 bucks (around).  But clearly you need help with a good patent attorney who can help with the prior-art search and get the claims in the right "language"!!  And this is actually necessary because "vague" language can actually invalidate a patent, wasting the precious R&D effort and IP.

> 2) it has a set format (objective, background, problem to be
> overcome ...) and is most often translated into English, so you can
> search it.  I know of no other library that has hundreds of years of
> entry in the same format.

They may be literally translated into English but I would argue that
it's not possible for a layman to *understand* them.

definitely - i have read over a couple of hundred patents and still have difficulty remembering the difference between "comprising of" and "consisting of" (hint - one of them is "atleast one of" and the other is "all of")

Software patents haven't been around for hundreds of years.

actually i think they ahve (and that may be the problem!)... my understanding was they had started in Venice around the 1400s

http://www.piperpat.com/IPInformation/Introduction/HistoryofPatents/tabid/88/Default.aspx

but i am pretty sure they would have undergone a bit of change since then...
 

Please don't get me wrong I'm not adverse to the concept of a patent
system, my main problem the current implementation (I'm mainly talking
about US patent law, I realise that the Australian patents are slightly
saner) and software patents in general.

> The Creative Commons license (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)
> is for copyright.

I understand that but surely it's a legally binding document clearly
stating your idea and under what conditions you can use it. After all
software is released under a copyright of some description.

> As for Open Source - I am a great supporter of it.  The patent
> database does not stop people putting information into the public
> domain and is often the means for people adding information into the
> public domain since the decision to collect a royalty is up to the
> applicant and the opportunity to collect a royalty is for a limited
> period of time: http://1plaw.com/1P/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12

So can I add an idea to the patent database for free and put it in the
public domain without hiring a solicitor? Surely there are other ways of
putting something into the public domain (I don't really subscribe to
your view of the patent database as a library)?

one remedy i can see is decreasing the lifetime of a patent from 20 years (atleast for software patents) to something less

[Sriram Panyam]

ooops got a bit eager with the send button.. i was just writing that one of the remedies could be decreasing the lifetime of a software patent (i cannot talk about other industries/sectors) from 20 years to somehting less like 5 (id even go as far as saying 2 if not for the fear of being publicly lynched)...  

[Chris Carpenter]

One of the problems I often see with US software patents is that the
"non-obvious" step looks to be a bit of a joke, many seem completely
obvious to someone with any skill in the area. Perhaps a shorter time
frame would help ... or maybe different rules on what is obvious or not
for software as opposed to other patents.

A few years ago I casually thought of an idea for an e-card website that
let multiple people sign a digital card before sending it to the
recipient. It popped in my head after receiving a normal paper card
signed by some colleagues at work. I thought it was a good idea, so
searched the net for anyone doing it and found a press release that
Apple had put in a patent application for this "invention" (this is it:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=mAqiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

I'm not sure if this patent was accepted, but this looks to do more to
stifle innovation than increase it. I wasn't planning on developing this
idea, but it has always struck me that if someone else did, would they
have had Apple asking for a cut if it was successful, and does the risk
of that happening stop things being developed?

> > > > >www.1p.com.au <http://www.1p.com.au>

> > >
> > > > > On Nov 10, 8:13 am, TinMan <jtinber...@gmail.com

> <http://Tinbergwww.valoremsystems.com>

> > >
> > > > > > On Nov 9, 7:26 am, Elias Bizannes

> <elias.bizan...@gmail.com <mailto:elias.bizan...@gmail.com>>

> <drmichaelba...@gmail.com <mailto:drmichaelba...@gmail.com>>

--
Chris Carpenter
Director
Digital Carpenter Pty Ltd
www.doculicious.com
www.digitalcarpenter.com.au

phone: +61 2 8850 4039
mobile: +61 402 352 491
twitter: @digitalcarpo

[1_Place]

Hi Mark

Your Wired reference has been on our minds: the problem with drafting
a patent is that you need to devote considerable time to it to get a
document that is worth submitting. This is one of the main reasons
why the majority of patent firms only concentrate on the big end of
town, since tying up an attorneys services in drafting a patent will
often amount to many days work.

We have tried to turn things around and concentrate on the startup and
growth community by offering bundled capped fees etc, or try to save
our clients money by getting them to draft the first cut - however,
many clients have problems dealing with the drafting side and we end
up doing the work.

Thats why we are looking for a new business model that will help those
that need patent services & also help put Australia on the map for
inventiveness as viewed by the number of patent filings per capita.

There is a solution so we can help each other - but what is it?
Exchange for services maybe?

All suggestions appreciated.

1Place
1p.com.au

On Nov 9, 12:09 pm, Mark Burch <m...@markburch.net> wrote:
> In a word, low cost elawyering.
>

> The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Finehttp://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenou...

[1_Place]

Hi Chris

There are a lot of examples of poor patents. IP Australia's current
mission includes concentrating on quality.

Have a look at the current review on Patentable Subject Matter at
http://www.acip.gov.au/reviews.html#subject

As for the issue of inventive step ("non-obvious") it is currently
under review - Please see the Options Paper:
http://www.acip.gov.au/library/Patentable%20subject%20matter%20-%20options%20paper.pdf
On page 22 there are issues raised on possible enhancements to
inventive step; however, these changes do not appear to be far
reaching.

If you want to place a submission into this report then you have 2
days to add content.
Collectively we could put in submissions; however, there maybe many
view points for which mediation on may cause delays. Therefore, put
you thoughts forward if you feel that they will help make a change.

Al the best

1Place
1p.com.au

On Nov 10, 9:38 pm, Chris Carpenter <ch...@digitalcarpenter.com.au>
wrote:

> One of the problems I often see with US software patents is that the
> "non-obvious" step looks to be a bit of a joke, many seem completely
> obvious to someone with any skill in the area. Perhaps a shorter time
> frame would help ... or maybe different rules on what is obvious or not
> for software as opposed to other patents.
>
> A few years ago I casually thought of an idea for an e-card website that
> let multiple people sign a digital card before sending it to the
> recipient. It popped in my head after receiving a normal paper card
> signed by some colleagues at work. I thought it was a good idea, so
> searched the net for anyone doing it and found a press release that

> Apple had put in a patent application for this "invention" (this is it:http://www.google.com/patents?id=mAqiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=...)

>
> I'm not sure if this patent was accepted, but this looks to do more to
> stifle innovation than increase it. I wasn't planning on developing this
> idea, but it has always struck me that if someone else did, would they
> have had Apple asking for a cut if it was successful, and does the risk
> of that happening stop things being developed?
>
>
>
> Sriram Panyam wrote:
> > ooops got a bit eager with the send button.. i was just writing that
> > one of the remedies could be decreasing the lifetime of a software
> > patent (i cannot talk about other industries/sectors) from 20 years to
> > somehting less like 5 (id even go as far as saying 2 if not for the
> > fear of being publicly lynched)...  
>

> >    http://www.piperpat.com/IPInformation/Introduction/HistoryofPatents/t...

> ...
>
> read more »

[Mark Burch]

You said: "the problem with drafting a patent is that you need to devote considerable time to it to get a document that is worth submitting." I suppose 5 years ago everybody thought that amicable divorce settlements needed to be drafted by a high cost lawyer in a suit and tie. According to that article it turns out for a lot of people, it can be done by the end user using a software wizard.
So let me humbly challenge your thinking on that. Do you really need a high cost lawyer in a suit and tie to draft a patent application? Can you systematise the drafting process and put it in a guided wizard type thing, that a non lawyer can use to follow the bouncing ball?

I wonder if I could get a patent on a wizard that helps me submit a patent application.

[Sriram Panyam]

Prior art Mark!!!

http://www.patentsincommerce.com/PatentWizard.htm

:D

[Dylan Jay]

my understanding of the process is that the lawyer will be craftily
turn your specific invention to make it has general and as widely
applicable as possible with infringing other patents (and sometimes
even that general). In this way your patent goes from being something
valuable for protecting your business to something much more valuable
to have in your arsenal to use against any competitor or someone who
has patents you want to cross license.

That "generalising" of your patent is pretty tricky and lawyer-ish in
my understanding but maybe a lawyer could answer that better.

---
Dylan Jay, Plone Solutions Manager
www.pretaweb.com
tel:+61299552830
mob:+61421477460
skype:dylan_jay

[Mark Burch]

Dang!  J

 

Regards,

Mark Burch

[1_Place]

Thanks

We are aware of http://www.patentsincommerce.com/PatentWizard.htm
We have provided something similar titled "How to obtain a patent":
follow the hyperlinks at: http://www.1place.com.au/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12

Out of interest:
1) Would you use a tool such as Patent Wizard to draft your patent?
2) Would you then use the services of an attorney to review your draft
before filing?

The drawbacks with such tools, by analogy, is like a home builder
building their first house:
1) Some homebuilders do it very well, whilst others build disasters;
2) It may also take more time than using an Attorney, but that is
always the issue with outsourcing or doing it inhouse;
3) There is also risk involved that if you do not lay the foundations
properly then it does not matter what subsequently happens, the house
will need to be rebuilt.

With patents you do not get a second opportunity to file for the same
invention of the first patent filing becomes open to public
inspection.

On the up side:
If a Patent Wizard tool enables startups to protect their invention at
little cost then startups should use such tools -
Such tools provide startups with an opportunity for obtaining patent
(s) where previously there was none.
I also hope that as the education of self filers increases then the
standard of self filing will also increase.

The http://www.patentsincommerce.com/PatentWizard.htm provides the
layout for patents; however, it does not provide enough detail on the
concepts involved. We wrote the patent expert system to help
inventors understand the issues involved by explaining the issue as
they arose: http://www.1place.com.au/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12.

Thanks for your thoughts

1Place
1p.com.au



On Nov 12, 11:56 am, Mark Burch <m...@markburch.net> wrote:
> Dang!  :)

>
> Regards,
> Mark Burch
>
> From: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sriram Panyam
> Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2009 11:45 AM
> To: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: New business models to protect inventiveness
>
> Prior art Mark!!!
>
> http://www.patentsincommerce.com/PatentWizard.htm
>
> :D
>

> 1p.com.au<http://1p.com.au>

>
> On Nov 9, 12:09 pm, Mark Burch <m...@markburch.net<mailto:m...@markburch.net>> wrote:
> > In a word, low cost elawyering.
>

> > The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Finehttp://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenou.<http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenou.>..

> > 1p.com.au<http://1p.com.au>

[1_Place]

Hi Dylan

You are correct & have raised the issue of patent scope: it is often
an objective to enlarge the potential monopoly of the patent to stop
competitors from getting around your patent.

The scope of a patent is enlarged by reducing the number of features
in your initial patent claims so as to only contain the essential
features needed for the preferred embodiment of your invention to work
in its simplest form.
This stops a competitor from having the opportunity of getting around
your patent by putting a product/method/system to market which does
not contain one of your claimed essential features.

For infringement to take place only one patent claim needs to be
infringed, generally by the infringing product, method or system
having each and every feature of that claim. Therefore, if a
competitor released a product with only, say, 3 out of 4 of your
claimed features, then this competitor would not infringe your
patent.

So the broader the scope of your patent means that it will be more
difficult for a competitor to launch a competing product/method/system
without infringing your patent claims. This raises the potential
worth of your patent, so long as the patent is not too broad so it can
be revoked due to prior art destroying your patent's novelty.

Remember also that a patent does not necessarily give you "freedom to
operate" since you can have a patent, but may still infringe someone
else's patent.

I hope this helps

1Place
www.1p.com.au

[Mark Burch]

To extend your analogy: If I was that homebuilder, I would make sure I had professional oversight when I constructed foundation footings. The foundations, are a go-no-go gate. Your process wouldn't allow the user to proceed to build the structure of the house unless the foundations have been signed off by a professional. But also, your wizard would have to educate me as the homebuilder as to why that professional review of my foundations is so critical to the long term success.

If I'm not mistaken, your wizard's job is to help the homebuilder avoid all the pitfalls at design and construction time.

I'm going to moonwalk (back away, but with style) away from this discussion now because I don't feel I can contribute much more. As a thought exercise, I hope this was helpful.