P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 2539

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >>>> ****  Actually this isn't quite right... Patents ONLY protect the
> specific
> > implementation of an idea, NOT the idea itself. You cannot patent an
> idea,
> This really isn't true from my point of view, but I think it's a matter
> of sematics.
> 
> Sorry, it is NOT semantics, ideas can NOT be patented. Imagine what would
> happen if we were allowed to patent an idea? It would allow a few to
> control every possible rendition, design and application of the device.

Yes, that's the (excuse me) idea.  One can't broaden one's idea
that's being covered to include any previous art, but if the
idea is *entirely* new, then they can.  There's a name for patents
with broad far ranging coverage, but I forget what they are.  Many
are in fact subordinate patents  Example:  one person can invent
the idea of a pencil, and another can invent an attached pencil
eraser.  *Neither* can produce pencil's with attached erasers w/o the 
other's patent -- but the former can produce pencils w/o attached erasers,
so the latter is a subordinate patent.  The former has far ranging
control, but not "total" control.  They may just trade rights so
that both can produce pencils with attached erasers so that they can
compete with pens better (which don't have attached erasers).

Let me pose a question.  Patents have been shown to have been
granted to things which have not ever been implemented and the
inventor has said that he didn't expect to ever implement it.

If patents only patent implementations, then how was a patent
granted for something that was never implemented?

I still think it's the semantics of what constitutes an "idea".
To me it's an "idea" if there's more than one way of useful
implemenation (like my previous example of covering different
"image storage" implementations within the general stated idea).

Mike K.



> 
> RM
> 
> 
> 


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