P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 2539

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >>>In my designs, I can get around a patent by implementing a function
> in a different manner than what a patent covers.  However, "the manner"
> that the patent covers is itself an idea of how to do whatever it is.
> 
> Hey Mike, my suggestion would be to talk with a Lawyer who understands
> Patents. You say that you can "get around a patent by implementing a

Hopefully the one's I've talked to do.  :-)

> function in a different manner than what a patent covers." This is what
> usually happens in the real world. 

Yes, I'm a person who actually does this in the real world.  :-)

> A device is patented and someone
> improves it and patents the changes, which get improved again, patented
> again, and on and on.  However, even though you implemented something
> differently, you still need to protect it, and that is what a patent does.

You don't need to protect it.  Vast majority of the patentable things 
I've done were not patented for various internal company reasons.  These
ideas just become part of the public domain (and are thereafter
unpatentable due to being "prior art").  Probably varies with the
particular marketplaces involved.

If one improves on another's patent, and patent your improvement, 
you are still subject to the original patent, you haven't gotten
around it.  To get around it you need to come up with another way
to do things that doesn't fall within the other's patent claims
*at all*.  In other words, a completely different idea on how
to accomplish the same objective.  Note that one doesn't always just
come up with new ways of doing the same-o same-o, one sometimes comes
up with things that are completely new (for others to get around).  
This is why I'm glad that I've worked "on the bleeding-edge" most of 
my career, more opportunities for unique things -- even if they're
public domain'ed.  

> 
> Actually, this is partially true. However, you will often find some very
> specific detailed information in patents as well.
> 
> Finally, a patent is as strong as the legal people backing you in court.
> Some patent fights go on for decades and decades, even though most
> reasonable observers can clearly see the infringer is harming you.

Quite true.  The head patent lawyer at my last company said something
like "when things get to the courts, being right still gives you only
a 50-50 chance of prevailing".  :-(

Don't know if he was just in a sarcastic mood or not, but this also
is why I mentioned in a previous post about having a good patent
lawyer write the proper gobbly-gook. 

So it's true that a patent is only as good as it is in an actual court
case.  As I've mentioned before, I've seen patents disclosing ideas that
I had used ten years prior.  Although the patent exists, it's invalid.
But having the patent puts the burden of proof on the "other guy"
and that can be significant.  :-)


Mike K.



> 
> RM
> 
> 
> 


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