Trying to Steel another Idea

td873 said:
Just a couple quick comments:
-> but keep in mind this will eventually cost you in upwards of $100,000 if you try to get patents across the globe.

Good luck!

-td
Click to expand...

That's reality, about $100.000. Another thought is to what extent those countries even care about patents or rather respect them. Yes many do but many do not. You could open a web site to sell from in a soviet country, duplicate the product and your in business. I have spoken to companies that have paid that kind of money and afterwords felt that it was a waste for them (Global).
 
Mungtor said:
While I'll admit that the patent process these days (especially in the case of software patents and companies building "patent portfolios") is messed up, your reasoning is a bit shaky.

The patent process was developed to encourage innovation, not to "kill compretition". It ensured that an inventor would have legal rights to his invention and not have it copied or stolen the minute he introduced it. The man who invented a car (to use your example) would have been perfectly entitled to a patent which allowed him the exclusive right to produce it and recoup his investment in R&D. After his patent expired (17 years after issue), the concept would become public domain and everybody could make cars. Or, as is much more often the case, he would allow licensed the technology to other companies to make cars.

It also encourages further innovation to find a better way to do something without violating a previous patent. GIF used to be pretty much the standard for images until somebody (CompuServe?) decided to try to enforce the patent on LZW compression after years of ignoring it. Now you have JPEG (which has better compression) and PNG (which is a completely open format for those who are wary of JPEG).

How badly the process has been abused is up for discussion, but it was certainly NOT designed to "lessen progress."
Click to expand...

Hi Mungtor,
Nothing the government does is said to be done to "lessen progress" but it is the unintended result of almost everything they do.

If my reasoning seems shaky, it is probaly because it is so brief. There is actually very reasoned arguments againts IP laws such as patents and copyrights. I do believe we would be much better off if we scrapped all current IP laws.

Most are extremely arbitrary if not rediculous much like the anti-trust laws which make it a crime to sell at a higher price than your competitors (gouging), at the same price as your competitors (fixing), charging lower prices (dumping or unfair practices). These laws make every business transaction criminal.

If anyone's interested in knowing more about the argument against Intellectual Property (IP) laws here is a good article to get you started.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella7.html
 
Colin Colenso said:
Hi Mungtor,
If my reasoning seems shaky, it is probaly because it is so brief. There is actually very reasoned arguments againts IP laws such as patents and copyrights. I do believe we would be much better off if we scrapped all current IP laws.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that many in your country don't believe in patents.

What many in your country believe is that they should be able to STEAL the sweat and hard work of others.

If we in America stopped inventing, your factories would have nothing to produce because 99% of what is produced is designed by foreign customers or stolen.

The concepts you're basing your reasoning on are shaky because they're sponsored by thieves.
 
Regulator1956 said:
Seems to me that many in your country don't believe in patents.

What many in your country believe is that they should be able to STEAL the sweat and hard work of others.

If we in America stopped inventing, your factories would have nothing to produce because 99% of what is produced is designed by foreign customers or stolen.

The concepts you're basing your reasoning on are shaky because they're sponsored by thieves.
Click to expand...

My ideas come from leading American intellectuals in the fields of economics and law.

Do some reading on the subject rather than making ad hominem attacks on me or baseless assertions as to my motivations.

btw: China is not my country, I just happen to live and work here. I am Australian.
 
I Have Read

Colin Colenso said:
My ideas come from leading American intellectuals in the fields of economics and law.

Do some reading on the subject rather than making ad hominem attacks on me or baseless assertions as to my motivations.

btw: China is not my country, I just happen to live and work here. I am Australian.
Click to expand...


I'm a technology executive, so I have read quite a bit on the subject.

And, the country you work in has just about the highest rate of STEALING software that others have poured their blood, sweat and tears into.

I use to work at a software company that today makes millions of dollars. 4 people risked their houses and kids education, plus a couple investors put up a couple million dollars. They made it, but the competitors didn't.

Greed is why many things are invented. Greed is also why people steal. I believe we should have strong laws that protect the greedy that invent.
 
To Regulator,
I'm not completely against protecting ideas that were formulated through investment, but it is very hard to do it well.

We have strong laws on medicines that the FDA oversees with disastrous results with powerful companies gaining a monopoly in the patenting process.

That is why I believe, on balance, we would be better off without patenting laws.

But there is room for differing opinions here regarding how people's investment into intangible properties could be protected.

Regarding software theft in China, it is enormous and most probably of great benefit not just to the Chinese but to the world in the increase of productivity it is assisting.

The average Chinese (those is cities at least), I believe, is much more technologically capable than the average westerner these days.

If anyone doesn't know what 'mercantalism' or 'the law of comparative advantage' means, please don't respond with attacks until you do, at least then you might know what you are arguing about instead of paraphrasing socialist, protectionist dogma.
 
Colin Colenso said:
A concept few of you may ever have heard of:

Patent laws are generally destructive. They are simply government granted monopolies that lessen progress through competition.

Imagine if the first guy who invented a car was granted a patent on the concept of a car. He could lope along in business without improving his product without the pressure of competition.

Usually only the already powerful companies can extract value out of patents these days anyway.

Another concept is that there are a million good ideas for every one that can be turned into fruition via good business sense and capability.

My recommendation to your friend would be to improve his marketing, branding, distribution and product and use traditional methods of authentication of product via approved distributors.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!! Out market the competition and the money flows to you. That is where the inventor holds the most power and control, not from lawyers, imho.

Colin, Reason magazine had a good article about the pluses and minuses of patents a few months ago. It's probably on their web site.

Jeff Livingston
 
chefjeff said:
Bingo!!! Out market the competition and the money flows to you. That is where the inventor holds the most power and control, not from lawyers, imho.

Colin, Reason magazine had a good article about the pluses and minuses of patents a few months ago. It's probably on their web site.

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

Hi Jeff,
Always good to see my libertarian-ish brother here lending some intelligent support.

I'm not sure if this is the exact same Reason article to which you refer, but I found a good one there that explains my arguments quite well.

A Quote:
"Copyrights, patents, and similar government-granted rights serve only to reinforce monopoly control, with its attendant damages of inefficiently high prices, low quantities, and stifled future innovation, they write in "Perfectly Competitive Innovation," a report published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. More to the point, they argue, economic theory shows that perfectly competitive markets are entirely capable of rewarding (and thereby stimulating) innovation, making copyrights and patents superfluous and wasteful."

Read the entire article here:
Does innovation require intellectual property rights?
 
Maybe we should ask Ron Popeil why he believes in patents:

1 6,874,408 Rotisserie cooker
2 6,840,161 Food injection device
3 6,837,150 Food cooking rotisserie
4 6,814,957 Baldness cosmetic and method of application
5 6,782,806 Food cooking rotisserie
6 6,782,805 Food cooking rotisserie
7 6,743,007 Pasta, pastry, cookie, and hors d'oeuvre maker
8 6,742,445 Horizontal rotisserie oven
9 6,658,991 Barbeque grill spit assembly
10 6,578,470 Food injection device
11 6,568,316 Rotisserie spit attachment
12 6,568,315 Rotisserie and spit assembly
13 6,536,334 Spit assembly for rotisserie oven
14 6,450,087 Rotisserie oven having a shaped food basket
15 6,436,380 Baldness cosmetic and method of application
16 6,422,136 Rotisserie cooking oven
17 6,408,742 Spit rod assembly for rotisserie oven
18 6,393,972 Rotisserie oven having tracks for loading a spit assembly
19 6,330,855 Rotisserie oven having a heat shield
20 6,280,092 Thrust bearing to be used in a contaminated environment
21 6,253,665 Spit basket for rotisserie oven
22 6,250,214 Spit rod assembly
23 6,240,838 Dual spit rotisserie assembly and method of cooking therewith
24 6,173,645 Convenient food supporting vessel for use on a rotisserie cooking spit
25 6,170,390 Enclosed rotisserie with added convenience
26 6,142,064 Enclosed rotisserie with added convenience
27 RE36,147 Pasta, pastry, cookie and hors d'oeuvre maker
28 5,731,012 Pasta, pastry, cookie and hors d'oeuvre maker
29 5,720,991 Multi-shaped ravioli maker
30 5,515,990 Pot with tilt insert
31 5,421,713 Pasta, pastry, cookie and hors d'oeuvre maker
32 5,324,185 Pasta, pastry, cookie, and hors d'oeuvre maker
33 5,221,962 Subliminal device having manual adjustment of perception level of subliminal messages
34 5,195,145 Apparatus to record epidermal topography
35 5,017,143 Method and apparatus for producing subliminal images
36 4,948,106 Food cutting apparatus
37 4,807,862 Food cutting apparatus
38 4,385,911 Air filtering device
39 4,112,127 Method for processing and filling a dough product
40 D249,044 Food slicer with indexing turret
41 4,079,917 Whipper
42 4,077,123 Knife for a flat cutting surface
43 4,065,115 Foldable cutting board
44 4,038,892 Food slicer with indexing turret
45 4,031,650 Retractable net
46 4,027,419 Fishing rig
47 4,015,330 Cutting board case and knife set
48 3,976,413 Adjustable fish bait forming device
49 3,955,278 Cutting board and knife set
50 3,933,315 Food chopper & cutting surface
 
JohnnyP said:
Maybe we should ask Ron Popeil why he believes in patents:

1 6,874,408 Rotisserie cooker
2 6,840,161 Food injection device
3 6,837,150 Food cooking rotisserie
4 6,814,957 Baldness cosmetic and method of application
5 6,782,806 Food cooking rotisserie
6 6,782,805 Food cooking rotisserie
7 6,743,007 Pasta, pastry, cookie, and hors d'oeuvre maker
8 6,742,445 Horizontal rotisserie oven
9 6,658,991 Barbeque grill spit assembly
10 6,578,470 Food injection device
11 6,568,316 Rotisserie spit attachment
12 6,568,315 Rotisserie and spit assembly
13 6,536,334 Spit assembly for rotisserie oven
14 6,450,087 Rotisserie oven having a shaped food basket
15 6,436,380 Baldness cosmetic and method of application
16 6,422,136 Rotisserie cooking oven
17 6,408,742 Spit rod assembly for rotisserie oven
18 6,393,972 Rotisserie oven having tracks for loading a spit assembly
19 6,330,855 Rotisserie oven having a heat shield
20 6,280,092 Thrust bearing to be used in a contaminated environment
21 6,253,665 Spit basket for rotisserie oven
22 6,250,214 Spit rod assembly
23 6,240,838 Dual spit rotisserie assembly and method of cooking therewith
24 6,173,645 Convenient food supporting vessel for use on a rotisserie cooking spit
25 6,170,390 Enclosed rotisserie with added convenience
26 6,142,064 Enclosed rotisserie with added convenience
27 RE36,147 Pasta, pastry, cookie and hors d'oeuvre maker
28 5,731,012 Pasta, pastry, cookie and hors d'oeuvre maker
29 5,720,991 Multi-shaped ravioli maker
30 5,515,990 Pot with tilt insert
31 5,421,713 Pasta, pastry, cookie and hors d'oeuvre maker
32 5,324,185 Pasta, pastry, cookie, and hors d'oeuvre maker
33 5,221,962 Subliminal device having manual adjustment of perception level of subliminal messages
34 5,195,145 Apparatus to record epidermal topography
35 5,017,143 Method and apparatus for producing subliminal images
36 4,948,106 Food cutting apparatus
37 4,807,862 Food cutting apparatus
38 4,385,911 Air filtering device
39 4,112,127 Method for processing and filling a dough product
40 D249,044 Food slicer with indexing turret
41 4,079,917 Whipper
42 4,077,123 Knife for a flat cutting surface
43 4,065,115 Foldable cutting board
44 4,038,892 Food slicer with indexing turret
45 4,031,650 Retractable net
46 4,027,419 Fishing rig
47 4,015,330 Cutting board case and knife set
48 3,976,413 Adjustable fish bait forming device
49 3,955,278 Cutting board and knife set
50 3,933,315 Food chopper & cutting surface
Click to expand...


Ron Popiel doesn't apply for patents, he buys them. Most people who get patents never actually get to market. People like Popiel are always on the lookout out for these and buy them up cheap. Ideas that are not necessarily great, but with the right promotion and made cheaply enough they can make a few bucks on. They also pick up patents as they expire. Read his book Salesman of the Century, it's pretty good and inspirational. Unless you have an ability to manufacture and market your product you will most likely not make any money from even a great idea. Once you have your patent, it is usually best to shop it around to a large manufacture to get it produced for either a residual or just sell it outright. My neighbor invented the thing you see at tennis courts that they pick up the balls with. It is a basket with rollers on it and the balls pop up into the basket. He tried to produce them in a shop he set up and after a while he was losing money and gave up. He then sold it to a manufacture who paid him a residual every year for five years and then had the option to buy it from him outright. In the end he made around $700,000 from his idea. The reality is, on his own he would have made nothing. To give you an idea how bad it can be being a small guy trying to do manufacturing, My friends name is Campbell and the original name of the product was "The Campbell Scoop" He was sued by the Campbell soup company for stealing their name, I guess it sounded too much like theirs, and lost. It's rough out there.
 
Last edited:
Unites States patent Office FAQ sheet:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/

Who May Apply For A Patent

According to the law, only the inventor may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions. If a person who is not the inventor should apply for a patent, the patent, if it were obtained, would be invalid. The person applying in such a case who falsely states that he/she is the inventor would also be subject to criminal penalties. If the inventor is dead, the application may be made by legal representatives, that is, the administrator or executor of the estate. If the inventor is insane, the application for patent may be made by a guardian. If an inventor refuses to apply for a patent or cannot be found, a joint inventor or, if there is no joint inventor available, a person having a proprietary interest in the invention may apply on behalf of the non-signing inventor.

If two or more persons make an invention jointly, they apply for a patent as joint inventors. A person who makes only a financial contribution is not a joint inventor and cannot be joined in the application as an inventor. It is possible to correct an innocent mistake in erroneously omitting an inventor or in erroneously naming a person as an inventor.

Officers and employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office are prohibited by law from applying for a patent or acquiring, directly or indirectly, except by inheritance or bequest, any patent or any right or interest in any patent.

Popeil's name is on the patent as the inventor.

search patents
Enter "popeil" in term one, then click on "inventor's name" in Field 1's drop down menu.
 
JohnnyP said:
Unites States patent Office FAQ sheet:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/

Who May Apply For A Patent

According to the law, only the inventor may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions. If a person who is not the inventor should apply for a patent, the patent, if it were obtained, would be invalid. The person applying in such a case who falsely states that he/she is the inventor would also be subject to criminal penalties. If the inventor is dead, the application may be made by legal representatives, that is, the administrator or executor of the estate. If the inventor is insane, the application for patent may be made by a guardian. If an inventor refuses to apply for a patent or cannot be found, a joint inventor or, if there is no joint inventor available, a person having a proprietary interest in the invention may apply on behalf of the non-signing inventor.

If two or more persons make an invention jointly, they apply for a patent as joint inventors. A person who makes only a financial contribution is not a joint inventor and cannot be joined in the application as an inventor. It is possible to correct an innocent mistake in erroneously omitting an inventor or in erroneously naming a person as an inventor.

Officers and employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office are prohibited by law from applying for a patent or acquiring, directly or indirectly, except by inheritance or bequest, any patent or any right or interest in any patent.

Popeil's name is on the patent as the inventor.

search patents
Enter "popeil" in term one, then click on "inventor's name" in Field 1's drop down menu.
Click to expand...

I can only go by what he says himself, I have met him. He may pick them up when they are still in the patent pending stage or just have an open door policy for people to bring them their Ideas and he buys them, I don't know. I would also say he may steal ideas that are already patented but not being produced with a few small changes. What is someone going to do about it. You can't fight a guy like him, a patent fight could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the end you could not even show damages if you were to win, which would be remote, since you never even produced the first unit. I wouldn't be surprise if he did get caught stealing before it even got to court he would just pay the guy a few bucks to go away. Lets face it, Ron Popeil does not come across as the most honest guy you will ever meet. Also when it comes to a patent, the name Ron Popeil on it will scare off anyone wanting to steal it. They know he has the means to protect himself, the average Joeblow can't. It is not an even playing field when it comes to patents.
 
Last edited:
I haven't met him, but I suspect you are right, especially your last sentence.

I got a quote of $4000 (to file) from a friendly patent attorney. He said it's about half his normal price.

A consultant friend said it's a waste of money, unless you are a big company and can afford to defend it in court, if it ever issues. Could cost $100,000 to defend.

He says just start making and selling your product. If it's any good, someone will invent around it or steal it anyway. sigh.

Does the BreakRak guy post here? CeeBee (Charlie Bond) on the other forum. He went through the process. Don't know if he thinks it was worth it.

From what I can see, a patent only protects you from honest people.
 
Colin Colenso said:
Hi Jeff,
Always good to see my libertarian-ish brother here lending some intelligent support.

I'm not sure if this is the exact same Reason article to which you refer, but I found a good one there that explains my arguments quite well.

(snip)
Read the entire article here:
Does innovation require intellectual property rights?
Click to expand...

I think that's it...I didn't think it was so long ago, but you know, old age and all...

Colin, maybe you could help someone...In the UPPERS thread, I've been trying to talk to LastTwo about meth and have basically been banging my head against the wall. I'd be interested in your thoughts there as maybe you could help LastTwo understand better what I've been trying to convey. If you haven't been there yet, be sure to read my first post so you have a better idea why he reacted to it, and me, as he did.

Thanks,

Jeff Livingston
 
JohnnyP said:
I haven't met him, but I suspect you are right, especially your last sentence.

I got a quote of $4000 (to file) from a friendly patent attorney. He said it's about half his normal price.

A consultant friend said it's a waste of money, unless you are a big company and can afford to defend it in court, if it ever issues. Could cost $100,000 to defend.

He says just start making and selling your product. If it's any good, someone will invent around it or steal it anyway. sigh.

Does the BreakRak guy post here? CeeBee (Charlie Bond) on the other forum. He went through the process. Don't know if he thinks it was worth it.

From what I can see, a patent only protects you from honest people.
Click to expand...


Quote

"He says just start making and selling your product. If it's any good, someone will invent around it or steal it anyway. sigh."

That is the best advice you will get. Get the product out there, get dealers and wholesalers and make as much as you can with the knowledge you will be copied. And so what, you will have made money and still have a percent of the market since you were there first and you are the original, a good thing to always have in your advertising. You always try to have the next thing on the back burner ready to go. You know there are people with ideas they don't produce just because they are afraid it will be stolen. They make nothing, what good is that. With the Internet and web sites almost anyone can go into business today and be a success if they have something to sell worth selling, even if they never get beyond ebay.
 
david hodges said:
Yes billiard club network and Rob Sokora has stolen my product and idea. He was my distributor for a year. Rob Sokora demanded that I give him and vested interest in my company or he would ditch me and copy my product. Sure enough this is what he has done. What he is doing is a switch and bait on his site. If you call he will bad talk my cleaner and tell you his is better. He has also put pressure on the promoter of the US Open to be the official cleaner. I got the title because I had a product that worked. It takes a LOW kind of person to use pressure to get my title. If the industry stands for this we will never have a sport that is recognized. Rob Sokora has made it where nobody or their products are safe not to say that we have taken a step in the wrong direction.

David Hodges
Click to expand...

FYI - I had read here and elsewhere about how great Quick Clean is, and was aware that there was an unauthorized imitation being marketed....

I just received from pooldawg.com a package of three Quick Clean cans that I ordered. They look to be David Hodges' product, but on each of them, where the label's emergency contact number is listed (866-240-2789), a white sticker has been pasted over it, saying to call a number (866-774-8770) or go to www.Chalk-Off.com.

When one goes to www.Chalk-Off.com, it redirects automatically to http://pooltablecleaner.com/shop/index.php . You see there both the Quick Clean and Chalk-Off products listed for sale. If you click on the 12 cans of Quick Clean, you are sent to this page: http://pooltablecleaner.com/shop/product_info.php/products_id/47 , where the following text appears:

"There's a limited quantity available, so get yours today! This offer is good for the current inventory only. When it's gone, it's gone forever.

There's a new formula and label, and that's Chalk-Off the NEW and IMPROVED Pool Table Cleaner."

Mr. Hodges, if you wish to protect your product, you should see a good intellectual property lawyer. I can help you find one, if you don't have one already. Meanwhile, you might be wise to contact pooldawg.com and complain that I, one of its customers, was shipped your product, with a label altered to direct me to your unauthorized competitor's phone number and website.
 
here's an article i just read that shows the complexity involved in enforcing patents.

Creative's patent award could hit Apple
Maker of portable music players says it has patent covering iPod technology; could go after Apple.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Creative Technology, a maker of portable music players, said it was awarded a U.S. patent that applied to Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod and other rivals.

Creative (Research) said late Tuesday it was considering its alternatives, but did not say whether it would file a patent suit, which is typically an expensive process, seek licensing agreements or whether if it had even talked with Apple.

Apple (Research) had no immediate comment.

Analyst Phil Leigh of Inside Digital said he considered the patent award a significant development for both companies.

"We consider it a dead certainty that Creative will go after Apple for royalties or some other type of compensation for what Creative will assert is infringement of its patents, currently and in the past," Leigh said.

But Leigh said it was highly probable that Creative will have a hard time getting its "bite" out of Apple because the applicability of patents can be difficult to prove.

Creative's shares jumped 2.5 percent to close at $7.94 on Nasdaq on Tuesday, while Apple's shares rose 1.6 percent to $46.57.

Creative said the patent covers the way music tracks are selected on a device using a hierarchy of three or more successive screens. On the iPod, for instance, users can scroll from artists to albums to songs.

Creative ranks far behind Apple in the market. Apple dominates over 70 percent of sales for music players that use hard drives to store music.

"We're pleased about the patent and the protection it provides us. We're evaluating all the alternatives," Craig McHugh, president of Creative Labs, the firm's U.S. unit, told reporters on a conference call.

Creative said it had applied for the patent -- dubbed the Zen patent after its Zen player -- on January 5, 2001, and it was awarded on August 9, 2005.

"The first portable media player based upon the user interface covered in our Zen Patent was our NOMAD Jukebox MP3 player," Sim Wong Hoo, chairman and CEO of Creative, said in a statement. He said Creative had shipped the NOMAD Jukebox to U.S. retail customers in September of 2000.

"The Apple iPod was only announced in October 2001, 13 months after we had been shipping the NOMAD Jukebox based upon the user interface covered by our Zen Patent," he said.

The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office recently rejected a request filed by Apple in October 2002 to patent some of the device's technology. Microsoft Corp. (Research) had filed a similar application in May 2002.

Microsoft had no immediate comment, although Creative's McHugh said Microsoft's patent application covers different technology from that covered in its patent application.
 
cuepaul said:
I just received from pooldawg.com a package of three Quick Clean cans that I ordered. They look to be David Hodges' product, but on each of them, where the label's emergency contact number is listed (866-240-2789), a white sticker has been pasted over it, saying to call a number (866-774-8770) or go to www.Chalk-Off.com.

When one goes to www.Chalk-Off.com, it redirects automatically to http://pooltablecleaner.com/shop/index.php . You see there both the Quick Clean and Chalk-Off products listed for sale. If you click on the 12 cans of Quick Clean, you are sent to this page: http://pooltablecleaner.com/shop/product_info.php/products_id/47 , where the following text appears:

"There's a limited quantity available, so get yours today! This offer is good for the current inventory only. When it's gone, it's gone forever.

There's a new formula and label, and that's Chalk-Off the NEW and IMPROVED Pool Table Cleaner."
Click to expand...

This is distressing to say the least. We get this product from a third party distributor and I personally have not seen one of these cans with a sticker on it. Just to let everyone know, we have no affiliation with the website mentioned above (Pooltablecleaner.com) nor were we aware of this issue. I will have our distribution partner look into this as well to see if they can determine how this happened.

Cuepaul, if you could, please call either myself or Travis Wilson at our toll free number so we can get additional details on this matter.

Thank you,

Mike Feiman
Director of Marketing
PoolDawg.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top