P3D Re: 3d camera u.s. patent

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> It is my understanding that you can't patent just an idea.  However, it
> appears you can patent the initial development of an idea without
> demonstrating that it will work.  Is this correct?  Is anyone on P3D a
> patent attorney?

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that ideas are what
patents are all about (whereas copyrights, for instance, are
protection for the specific expression of ideas).  In fact, that's why
the claims section in patents are numerous and worded in as generically
all-encompassing a way as possible.  They don't protect a
specific implementation of an idea, but the idea itself (assuming it
was written properly). Some I've read ARE very implementation 
specific because the "idea" is almost non-existant and the only
thing unique are the details of an implementation (probably something
just done to jack-up the patent-count for a company or department).

> (I've had an idea for a patent for some time.  But without the means to
> develop the idea, how can one get a patent?  How far must an idea be
> developed, to be sufficient for receipt of a patent?)

I think you mostly have to convince the examiner that it's valid
and that it isn't prior-art (and theoretically that it's not
obvious to someone "skilled in the art", although I personally
don't think that seems to matter).  It's the prior-art part that
can be the most expensive, especially for your own personal
search.  Otherwise, you can just go down to your local patent
lawyer's office and give him a pile of money (and the info under
non-disclosure, etc) and then wait a year or two for the results
("yes" or "no").  To be useful, it needs to be written in
legaleze gobbly-gook to stand up in case things need to go to court.

Mike K.

P.S. - There are different types of patents, so it certainly can seem
       that "anything goes", and having looked at quite a few when
       at my last company (reviewing them) it's VERY true that ANYTHING 
       goes.  Silly or not.  Or even patents on things/techniques I
       had been using for a decade prior.  Patents are interesting things.
       Even the two I have are for things WAY down on the list of what
       I'd concider my most innovative things (and patents weren't applied 
       for).  I'm sure it's the same for others.  For startup companies
       it can be crucial, but for big companies who get most of them,
       it can be sheer accrual of portfolio for protection purposes. :-)


P.P.S. - Restrictions (particularly for defn. of "prior art") is less 
         forgiving in some non-US countries, so if you want international
         protection, talk to your lawyer about it.  You can violate
         things pretty easy if one doesn't watch things carefully.


------------------------------