|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
bkd [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
We don't need a better mousetrap we need a better class if mice.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Not to worry... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- But then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 01:31 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Sure you list patents but all seem to involve springs as
I
am not reading
those patents beyond what you provided. So
are
these really unique? How
different are the mouse traps
compared to any other system especially animals
(rat ones
are
often larger mouse traps)?
The point is that these
patents have very little
difference between them yet there is an enormous
resource
cost to differentiate any differences. Then you infringe
because poor
jury had no way of knowing it was an obvious
concept. Whereas, that idea was
well known to a person
skilled in the art due to common training. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ailuromancy on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
OK, so you have researched mouse behaviour, tested various
prototypes. You
have paid for the expensive tooling required to
mass produce your trap, set up
a distribution channel and advertised
your product. You have done all this
without reading a single
patent because patents are too cryptic for mouse
trappers to understand,
and even if you get one translated, the 'inventive'
part of the patent is
obvious, and the description of how to manufacture is
vague and
incomplete. On top of that, there are 100,000 existing mousetrap
patents, and 1000 more granted each month. There is no way you
can find
anything useful in that huge pile of obfuscated tripe.
On the advice of a
patent lawyer, you threw an extra
$10,000 per month on patents from the
start.
Because the president's executive order diverting all education funds
to patent examiners, you have you patents granted and ready
for
'protection'.
At last, the money is coming in faster than the interest
on the loan you took out to research, manufacture and
distribute mouse traps.
Then in come the demands for royalties.
The first bunch are for for patents
that are obvious, have
prior art, claim non-patentable subject matter, you do
not
infringe, or the patents cover components that you buy from
licensed
manufacturers.
You sell your children to pay the legal costs of
invalidating
all these patents and by an amazing stroke of luck,
you actually win. The shell
company that sued you evaporates
so you cannot get any litigation costs
back.
Then the next bunch of royalty demands come in,
but you are out of
children to sell. You agree to give the trolls all
your profits, but you can
continue to pay the interest on your loan.
Everything is now sorted. You work
all full time for the trolls and
will die in debt - but the world now has
better mouse traps.
Next month another bunch of trolls turns up with
more patents. You go to your lawyer and remind him that
you paid many
thousands of dollars for 'protection'.
He says, 'Yes, thank you for all that
money. Have a nice day'.
As you are utterly desperate, you decide to start
trolling yourself.
Your lawyer says you need $500,000 to sue your first
victim,
and you do not have the money. Your mousetrap business
is driven into
bankruptcy and all you suppliers get burned.
Your patents are sold for a
pittance to the trolls ready for the
next fool daft enough to make a better
mousetrap.
Inventors hate and despise the entire patent system.
The
popular methods of dealing with the problem involve fire,
drowning, and
recently I have seen solutions with explosives.
I consider my personal solution
mild and generous - fine all
the trolls for extortion.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
So while all these patentees are paying lots of money to the
USPTO, they are wasting their time and effort because the
person who has managed to patent the broadest concept of
catching mice can block use or sue all the rest. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No it doesn't - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:46 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
P.J. used as an example of a broad - and thereby shouldn't be patented -
invention of:
trapping mice
Let's call this patent
MP1.
You have completely ignored the broadness of the abstract concept of
"trapping mice" and used examples of specifically defined inventions in order to
attempt to dispute it.
Your first example:
The
improved mousetrap comprises two hooks in place of the standard trigger
for engaging a Cheerio.
Replacement of a hook (specific physical
design) for the standard trigger (that little platform thingy).
Your
second
example:
This product is designed to provide a disposable
spring-loaded mouse trap with a safety arm to prevent accidental
discharge of the bow of a spring-loaded mouse trap.
Again, the
specific physical is mentioned. Your third example:
A
controller for a pest trap that includes a sensor, signaler, power source and
activator in a housing to be attached to and detached from a pest
trap.
Again, specific physical mentioned. Your fourth
example:
The mouse-receiving space (3) of the trap is formed
from a foldable sheet consisting of cardboard or some other appropriate
material with a moving device
Again, the physical specific is
mentioned. Some of your examples appear to be duplicates of others such as
patents
WO2006036767A3 and WO2006036767A2.
For the purposes of the abstract vs specific this doesn't hold any bearing other
then they both mention the specific physical. I wouldn't be surprised if A3 is
a great example of a patent that should not have been granted due to
obviousness. The alternative is that A3 is a refinement of A2 and only 1 patent
was ever granted covering the final version.
So... All your examples
mention the specific physical. Since they are all fully, 100% read on patent
MP1, I am curious.
Your challenge:
Please explain why you think your
example patents could have ever been granted if MP1 - the broad, abstract
concept of "trapping mice" - would have been granted!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|