Question about patents.

[notfred]

Pretend I invent something... a hoverboard, like in back tro the future 2. I patent it. This keeps others from biulding and selling hoverboards until my patent runs out. Here's my question: Does the patent keep other people from making hoverboards, or jsut from selling them? If some other guy could build a hoverboard based on his own design (even if it may be similar to mine) for his own personal use? Could he give that hoverboard away for free?

I'm curious as to what exactly a patent keeps competitors from doing.

 

[Yossarian]

He could build one for personal use. He could not give it away because it would be taking away a potential sale from the patent holder.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
He could build one for personal use. He could not give it away because it would be taking away a potential sale from the patent holder.

Wouldn't buildiung one for himself take away a potential sale for the patent holder, too? 😕

 

[CubicZirconia]

Although what Pipboy said may be true (I really have no idea), If he modified your design or improved upon it in any way, he could do whatever he wanted with it, including sell it or give it away. As long as his wasn't exactly the same as yours, your patent wouldn't mean anything.

Edit: this site says that a patent prevents someone else from even copying your design for personal use.

 

[conjur]

One could license the design from the patent holder, though, right?

 

[floccus]

You patent the technology that the hoverboard is based on, not the board itself. This is why we have so many similar products that acheive the same results through different means. The regulations are that things that are discovered using public funding is open for public use (generally), that royalties need to be paid for use of technologies that are parented, and that products that are under review for a patent are sort of fair game until the patent is given.

 

[theNEOone]

well just because you make a hoverboard, doesn't mean someone else can't. they can even sell them and make a profit, as long as they don't use your particular design and engineering. patent laywers exist that deal w/ precisely this, because wording in patents might leave holes, allowing other people to take advantage.

one example is with a major imaging company (i think it was kodak) copying polaroid back in the 80s. they wanted to make instant photos and used a "different" design. well, it turns out that kodak's design wasn't so different. the lawyers argued that the film was loaded differently in the polaroid's camera (from the back as opposed to kodak's design, which was loaded from the side) and thus was different. well of course this didn't fly w/ the court, but you can imagine some instances where you could make something w/ a different design and accomplish the same purpose as another product.

 

[brentman]

I don't remember a great deal of details, but when Smart Parts brought out the first electro-pneumatic paintball gun (the Shocker), they got a 5 year patent or something. And then others companies created their own electro-pneumatic based guns and had to pay royalties to Smart Parts.

For example, WDP had to pay a royalty for each Angel they sold because it was an electro-pneumatic paintball gun.

Legal stuff is so confusing anymore...

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: brentman
I don't remember a great deal of details, but when Smart Parts brought out the first electro-pneumatic paintball gun (the Shocker), they got a 5 year patent or something. And then others companies created their own electro-pneumatic based guns and had to pay royalties to Smart Parts.

For example, WDP had to pay a royalty for each Angel they sold because it was an electro-pneumatic paintball gun.

Legal stuff is so confusing anymore...

no, i really think you are mistaken on this. the angel uses a completely different firing mechanism than the shocker (although they are both electric), and it's my understanding that you can't patent the simple idea of a paintball gun that fires electronically as opposed to mechanicially. you have to patent a particular technology and design.

 

[huey1124]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: brentman
I don't remember a great deal of details, but when Smart Parts brought out the first electro-pneumatic paintball gun (the Shocker), they got a 5 year patent or something. And then others companies created their own electro-pneumatic based guns and had to pay royalties to Smart Parts.

For example, WDP had to pay a royalty for each Angel they sold because it was an electro-pneumatic paintball gun.

Legal stuff is so confusing anymore...

no, i really think you are mistaken on this. the angel uses a completely different firing mechanism than the shocker (although they are both electric), and it's my understanding that you can't patent the simple idea of a paintball gun that fires electronically as opposed to mechanicially. you have to patent a particular technology and design.

patent issues come up at my work all the time, and this is the way i understand it.

say we're developing a drug that infringes upon another company's patent. the other company would have no way of knowing if we infringed upon their patent until we decided to manufacture it for sale. but if we wanted to use it for research only, all we have to do is get their permission to use their patented technology for research use only. patents usually cover particular technology and/or design, so the finished product doesn't have to be exactly same for it to be infringing upon another's patent. but there are ways to get around it legally, that's why sometimes you see similar products on market at same time. (ie. Celebrex and Vioxx are both Cox-2 inhibitors, but they have their own patents. at same time, University of Rochester is suing Celebrex and Vioxx makers for "infringing" upon their claim to a patent of discovering Cox-2 enzyme by a professor at the university)

 

[Harvey]

Does the patent keep other people from making hoverboards, or jsut from selling them?

A patent gives you the right to control who makes, and sells the patented item.

If some other guy could build a hoverboard based on his own design (even if it may be similar to mine) for his own personal use?

Close doesn't count unless you can establish that the other guy used your specific patented technology or that his idea embodied your patented ideas. It may be enough if you can establish that the other guys ideas were obvious and derived from those in your patent.