patent question

[Red Squirrel]

I've always wondered this, lets say I build something using a simple enough concept for my own personal use, like lets just use an electric car. I build it, and use it for myself and not sell it or anything. But the oil industry holds that patent. Would it be illegal? Or is it just illegal if you try selling it?

I always get ideas of alternative energy and such and I want to make it a goal later on in my life to actually build something of that nature, but I could never afford to patent something of that magnitude, or they may already be taken. If its not taken then if someone finds out of the blueprints or what not, then they could patent it if they can afford it. (this would probably be a danger with a car as it would grab people's attention more then some turbine thingy stashed in a garage). So if that happened would I be forced to destroy/give it up?

 

[Fern]

Generally, you'll be OK.

Yeah, it's basically about selling it, or making money with it.

Fern

 

[beyoku]

Good question ^

 

[OUCaptain]

What about the old "mail the plans to yourself and don't open it" routine. I thought if you could provide a dated proof of concept, someone else couldn't get the patent or they must at least pay you royalties. could be wrong though

 

[Modelworks]

Patents are viewable by anyone.
So you can look at someone elses patent anytime.
You might could see if you were infringing or not.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
Example enter Pepsi in term1 and hit search

The interesting thing to me is a 'Trade Secret'.
Patents expire, but trade secrets are forever.
The weak point on a trade secret though is that once it is discovered you lose your rights to it.
Patents you have to detail the whole idea when getting one, so anyone can view it.

Its why coke never patented its formula.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Its why coke never patented its formula.

pepsi actually knows coke's formula, but what would they gain by producing something that tastes just like coke? i only know this because of a trade secret case involving someone trying to sell coke's formula to pepsi.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Its why coke never patented its formula.

pepsi actually knows coke's formula, but what would they gain by producing something that tastes just like coke? i only know this because of a trade secret case involving someone trying to sell coke's formula to pepsi.

They don't know the forumla.
Coke employees tried to sell the formula but pepsi immediately called the fbi.
They said they were interested in being the better company but not by doing it that way.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: Fern
Generally, you'll be OK.

Yeah, it's basically about selling it, or making money with it.

Fern

"35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

Use of a patented invention = infringement. Don't have to sell or make money.

OP: Your second paragraph has a whole lot of questions. Most answers can be found in 35 U.S.C. 102. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic...appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

Legally speaking, if they don't invent it they can't get a patent. (They could lie and say they invented it, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

 

[axelfox]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Its why coke never patented its formula.

pepsi actually knows coke's formula, but what would they gain by producing something that tastes just like coke? i only know this because of a trade secret case involving someone trying to sell coke's formula to pepsi.

They don't know the forumla.
Coke employees tried to sell the formula but pepsi immediately called the fbi.
They said they were interested in being the better company but not by doing it that way.

Coke's formula is a trade secret, not a patent. If it was a patent, the protection would run out over time and then anyone could make it. IIRC.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: Fern
Generally, you'll be OK.

Yeah, it's basically about selling it, or making money with it.

Fern

"35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

Use of a patented invention = infringement. Don't have to sell or make money.

OP: Your second paragraph has a whole lot of questions. Most answers can be found in 35 U.S.C. 102. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic...appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

Legally speaking, if they don't invent it they can't get a patent. (They could lie and say they invented it, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

The use clause you refer to above would apply to, say for example, a manufacturing company that uses someone else's patented product/process in the manufacture of their products that they will then sell.

They aren't selling the patented product per se, but they are using it for profit/commerce. The company that owns the patent can take them to court and force them to pay rolyalties/fees based in the units solds produced/sold.

In the OPs original example, they got nothing.

Fern

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: Fern
Generally, you'll be OK.

Yeah, it's basically about selling it, or making money with it.

Fern

"35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

Use of a patented invention = infringement. Don't have to sell or make money.

OP: Your second paragraph has a whole lot of questions. Most answers can be found in 35 U.S.C. 102. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic...appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

Legally speaking, if they don't invent it they can't get a patent. (They could lie and say they invented it, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

Hmm so if I get this right, lets say I build some kind of energy machine, use it to power my house, and post the plans all over the internet, since I'm using it nobody can steal and patent it, stopping me from using it? Basically if I actually did succeed at something like this I would WANT everyone to use it, I just would not want a corporation to take it over and smuggle it away (like the oil industry does) or charge ridiculous money for it. if it can save the environment, I'd want it to get out and be on the public domain.

Also I think the mail to yourself thing is for copyright, but maybe it works for patents too.

 

[OUCaptain]

The mail it to yourself thing just provides a way to prove the you thought of it since the post mark is an official gov't stamp something something.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: Fern
Generally, you'll be OK.

Yeah, it's basically about selling it, or making money with it.

Fern

"35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

Use of a patented invention = infringement. Don't have to sell or make money.

OP: Your second paragraph has a whole lot of questions. Most answers can be found in 35 U.S.C. 102. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic...appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

Legally speaking, if they don't invent it they can't get a patent. (They could lie and say they invented it, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

The use clause you refer to above would apply to, say for example, a manufacturing company that uses someone else's patented product/process in the manufacture of their products that they will then sell.

They aren't selling the patented product per se, but they are using it for profit/commerce. The company that owns the patent can take them to court and force them to pay rolyalties/fees based in the units solds produced/sold.

In the OPs original example, they got nothing.

Fern

You are partially correct. Using a patented invention to make non-patented items subjects the user to liability. So that example is correct.

However, even non-commercial use of a patented invention is patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271. The patent holder can sue for damages (likely minimal in this case) and for an injunction preventing OP from using the patented invention. So in OP's example they may get nothing or next to nothing, but it's still patent infringement and if you do it you can get sued and lose.

So if I make a Horst-link full suspension bicycle for my own use, Specialized can sue me for patent infringement and get damages (likely a reasonable royalty for one bicycle) and possibly get an injunction (unlikely if I pay damages because of their history of licensing the HL patents).

It's unlikely a company will sue someone who built a patented invention themselves for personal use, but this is patent infringement nonetheless and actionable.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: Fern
Generally, you'll be OK.

Yeah, it's basically about selling it, or making money with it.

Fern

"35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

Use of a patented invention = infringement. Don't have to sell or make money.

OP: Your second paragraph has a whole lot of questions. Most answers can be found in 35 U.S.C. 102. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic...appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

Legally speaking, if they don't invent it they can't get a patent. (They could lie and say they invented it, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

Hmm so if I get this right, lets say I build some kind of energy machine, use it to power my house, and post the plans all over the internet, since I'm using it nobody can steal and patent it, stopping me from using it? Basically if I actually did succeed at something like this I would WANT everyone to use it, I just would not want a corporation to take it over and smuggle it away (like the oil industry does) or charge ridiculous money for it. if it can save the environment, I'd want it to get out and be on the public domain.

Also I think the mail to yourself thing is for copyright, but maybe it works for patents too.

If you put the plans all over the internet and use it, that is public disclosure that would thwart anyone trying to apply for a patent in a non-US country. In the U.S., if someone had invented the technology separately from you and before you, they'd have a year after the public disclosure to file a patent on it. 35 U.S.C. 102(b) currently gives inventors this one-year grace period.

That's assuming the relevant patent office finds your public disclosure when the other "inventor" files their patent application. This is unlikely. More probable is they'd get a patent. Then, when they sue you, you'd have to prove your public disclosure came before their patent filing (non-U.S.) or more than one year before their patent filing (U.S.).

So make sure you have easily provable publication dates if you publish to prevent others from patenting the invention you've published.