I agree that there should be a time limit on action takent to bring your product to market. This way it gives someone else a chance.

Mark – how much longer until the 1973 patent expires? Is there a pre-exiting life of a patent or do you have some say in that???

That’s a great philosophical question Mark.

One common misconception is that a “million dollar idea” is worth a million dollars. Another is that if you patent a “million dollar idea” it’s suddenly worth a million dollars – or more.

I don’t think anybody ever patents an idea to deprive the world of innovation. (Well, maybe some industry leading corporations do just so their competitors don’t change the status quo on them but that’s a different story.)

A great idea is worth exactly whatever you do with it. If you patent it and let it sit on a shelf, it’s worth nothing. If you patent it (or don’t patent it) and take it to market, it could make millions (insert reference to the Crest Spin Brush and the $450 million payout when licensed to P&G). This is a bit of shameless plug but which idea has more value to the inventor and the world – the idea that is patented and shelved or the idea that you came up with one night out of the blue that wins one of our Live Product Searches?

The point is that no independent inventor wants to see his or her ideas languish. They just get stuck sometimes and don’t know where to go. That’s one of the main reasons we made Edison Nation – to help you guys push through the hard times.

The USPTO tries to help flush out shelved patents by having increasing maintenance fees throughout the years. They start off pretty inexpensive but escalate as the years go on. I’m not sure how much further they could take it. I bet there are examples of life-changing patents that never saw the light of day until their twilight because they required 15 more years of research to make commercially-viable.

I just checked it. I was going from memory when I type that. It was actually issued in Jan 1979. I don’t know when it expires. Of course when it expires, anybody can make it, but that causes everybody to wait X number of years, then the inventor gets no credit. I am wondering about a midpoint where a manufacturer can make the product, as long as it is not licensed, and give the inventor a set percentage, without the threat of being sued.

The maintenance fee is a really good point. I did not think about that aspect. If an inventor drops a product, then he would also, assumably, drop the maintenance fee.
This relates to what Palin has been doing with oil fields in Alaska and what Obama mentioned in last night’s debate. If you do not produce it, you lose the lease.

Can’t you find out the day that it expires and file your own patent in your name?

How does somebody check if a patent is maintained, and how do we know if it has expired?

If I am correct, A patent becomes “prior art”, therefore, once it expires, it is no longer patentable.

correct!

[edited by author] However if your version significantly improved on the original patent I think it sould be patentable then. Not sure though, maybe someone else will chime in to help with that.

Mark,
Tom Bobo told me how to do this once but my directions are at home. I think it is something very simple like; when you go to the USPTO site you just click on the link to pay the maintenance fee. I can not check my file at home until late this evening but I will check back with the forum and if no one has answered you I will send you the directions.

Yes it is, as long as it has been improved/better.

I am going under the assuption that my product is already different enough to avoid the original patent altogether. But, as I earlier stated, I would be happy just to buy the other product. I feel this is such a good product, that even if my design is a simplified version of the other patent, it should be persued. Trust me. This solves a problem that YOU have had to deal with since you were a child, and probably dealt with within the last month. :)

My Mother?

LOL, it’ll solve her problem too.

When you check on patented works at the USPTO
you will notice references at the bottom that
superceded your invention. That is all prior art
relating to your idea. The object is to make yours better. Like doing a search you come up with a bunch of other products that are similar
to yours but different to some degree.

Did you check the USPTO site for the maintenance fee?

Mark – If your invention is significantly different than the patented version and they are not doing anything with it, WHY aren’t you persuing it???

If we all stand to benefit from it, why wouldn’t you take action on it?

Why wait for them?

I’m aware of the references listed in a patent. My product was just an example. Like I said, my product is not affected by the other patent. My question, and the intent of this thread is the question of forcing an invention to market.

Nice catch Toni -

I was totally going to burn you on how you spelled “IDEAR” but it seems you’ve edited that :)

No Cheryl, this information was given to me by
my patent attorney.

I do try Patrice, especially since I started the
Spelling Mistakes Forum. But I am going to
refrain from correcting people. It seems people
get offended and I do not want to offend anyone.

I’m not waiting… It is in the EN system….

My point is if this guy got his product to market, you would already have one or two in your house, and a few at work. But, this guy shelved it, so you have to wait for WestPoint to decide if it falls into their product line.

Sorry Toni my question on the maintenance fee was meant for Mark. I think we were typing at the same time and I hadn’t seen your post.

Okay Cheryl.

Patents issued by the Patent Trademark Office (PTO) grant patent holders the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention. The granting of this exclusive right is designed to encourage innovation. The patent holder is likely to reap greater profits if protected from direct competition. These profits are intended to serve as incentives for creating innovative products that benefit the public.

The Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465), which became effective on June 8, 1995, changed the patent term in the United States. Before June 8, 1995, patents typically had 17 years of patent life from the date the patent was issued. Patents granted after the June 8, 1995 date now have a 20-year patent life from the date of the first filing of the patent application.

Domestic and Foreign Patent Applications as Prior Art
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2127.htm

Mark, the other side of the coin is, maybe the
patent the other fellow filed was to costly for
a company to make for some reason or another.
Or, market research did not please the mfg.
I was told by one of the mfg. I am dealing with
that if a product they mfg. can’t bring in
atleast 1 million they do not bother to mfg.

This is such a teaser. I want to know what it is!

I agree that there should be a clause on patents that stipulates that you must take proven action steps toward brining your invention to market or else the patent becomes null and void.

Maybe if the patent has a 10yr life it should have some sort of action by yr 1 or 2 and then increasing action as the years go by. Not saying successful action, just any substantial action that can be proven.

I agree that it’s not fair to anyone if a patent is not being exercised.

What if the patent holder dies?

I’ve had 2 that I created, prototyped at home, used for a while and then later found on a research (not the first time around). Obviously I made them because I needed the product and most definitely would have bought them had I been able to find them. One of them has 3 similar patents too.

“Better” isn’t always patentable, it is whether or not you have something on your invention that is patentable period. Say you added a clip to the item that the original did not have – well clips themselves have been around for eons, so unless there is something making that clip part unobvious and unique, then it probably won’t be patented.

I don’t believe in setting a deadline for someone to bring it to market – it may take some of us years to reach the goal due to financing, but it doesn’t mean they should lose out on what they rightfully invented. If that patent is more than 20 years old, then you aren’t infringing on their patent when you just up and make it and market it.

It’s been a while, but I thought you could check online whether or not the patents are maintained….it’s in a category link I can’t remember the name of, but you can view all transactions that have taken place, dates of them, etc.

And as a society, we are all missing out because of this. Which brings us back to the moral question; Should ideas be shelved for 20 years if the inventor is unsuccessful, or too lazy, to get the product to market?

If I was a phylanthropist, I would search the patent office for worthwhile shelved patents, and offer deals to the inventor. We need to get some of these products moving.

That’s called shared equity. Go gettem Mark!

Nice idea Mark!

Find out which patents have 10inches of dust on them and then offer the creator money or a % to take that bad boy off their hands!

I think it would be a nice idea for me first to afford being a phylanthropist. :)

Everybody, send me your money.

Each patent has the name of the inventor on it
and who if any it was assigned to and who the
attorneys are. All you would have to do is call
the attorney of the inventor and ask him/her to
have his client get in touch with you.

You may also ask why he never went forward with
his invention. It might be for the reasons I stated below or not.

Who are you kidding Mark?

You just offered Mathew $1k to shape up and then took that money and donated it like you were giving $1.00 to a little kid.

You’ve got money.

What else is there to do in Alaska but save your money :)

I bet his barkeeper would differ with you. :D

BURN!

Dejavu!!!

Settle down Raf….don’t get too excited now.

See what you did Mark, you got Raf all excited.

I know exactly where you’re going with this Raf so simmer down…

“Should a person getting a patent have a moral responsibility to get their product to market?”
NO!

“…and if they fail to market their product, should there be some sort of action or procedure allowing others to try to bring your invention to market if a timeline is not met?”
The government and its laws should not be manipulated to allow others to strip independent inventors of their patents. This type of manipulation of the law would be a great tool for marketers and “go-getters” who rather take because they cannot generate original ideas of their own. If someone tried to take what was rightfully and lawfully mine (that I worked so hard to obtain and invested my very own blood, sweat, and tears) they would wake up with their hands, toung, and eyes in a plastic baggy on their nightside table. I feel as strongly about this as NRA card carrying members feel about the 2nd Amendment. If you want my patent, yer gonna have ta pry it from my cold dead hands!

On the other hand, I like Toni’s line of thinking. Purchasing the patent from the inventor is the RIGHT thing to do, the HONEST thing to do. This way keeps the government out of it. The government has way too much control as it is, don’t you think?

Take a Vitamin Big Guy :)

Thanks JBB – I agree.

Jefferson, I’m not talking about ripping off a guy for not using his patent, I am talking about something like what Patrice alluded to “If the patent holder can not show any effort or advancement in sales or marketing within 7 years, an application may be presented to the USPTO, for non-exclusive license assuption, granting patent holder XX percent of net profit from said patent.” The patent holder can still persue his own avenues, but will also get sales and marketing help from another manufacturer, while making a profit from the sales. And, if the inventor is truely lazy or unable, he will profit from this agreement. The patent holder can still license the product to a competitor of the “assuming manufacturer”. It would be a win-win, unless the inventor is truely trying to bury the patent.

I wouldn’t want to rip off the inventor, but get the ball rolling on his patent, even if he is unable or unwilling to do anything with it.

Then why get the government involved to strong arm the inventor to do business? Why not approach the inventor directly?

Patrice said: “I agree that there should be a clause on patents that stipulates that you must take proven action steps toward brining your invention to market or else the patent becomes null and void.”

Patents are personal property. The government or its people DO NOT have the right to it whatever. The idea presented erodes the very essence of the idea of offensive rights awarded to the inventor.

Knowledge and advancements can not be owned by one individual. The patents can be owned, but to stiffle advancements in society is morally wrong. Yes, contacting the patent holder would be ideal, but there is no saying that the patent holder can be contacted, or is even alive, or even wants anybody to use his idea. Just like the provisional patent gives you a year to get your ass in gear, I am talking about adding another stage in the patent lifecycle.

“If the patent holder can not show any effort or advancement in sales or marketing within 7 years, an application may be presented to the USPTO, for non-exclusive license assuption, granting patent holder XX percent of net profit from said patent.”
So, what you are saying is: The “presented application” to the USPTO for “non-exclusive license assuption” is an office action to force the patent holder to licence the invention to said applicant. The “applicant” will assume partial rights provided by the patent, thus making the applicant part inventor.

You are asking for rights that are not yours. America was a great country because s**t like this use to never happen. If a particular innovation is truly needed by the public (and not individuals and/or corporations looking to profit) there are measures set in place by the USPTO to “Fast Track” an application.
“stiffle advancements in society is morally wrong” Are we talking about medical advancements and the like that can save lives or are we talking about sensors in your mailbox to let you know you have mail. I hardly think novelty items fall in the category “Social Advancements”. And if an inventors invention was truly beneficial to the advancement of society, I hardly think it sitting on a shelf would be an issue.

You can’t add an inventor to a patent that is already issued, and you don’t become an inventor if you don’t invent anything. This would be a licensing issue, not an inventor issue, and only if the inventor sits on his hands and does nothing with his patent. The inventor would also be able to protest the application by just showing that he has made a valid effort to license or market the product.

Say I just received my patent. Now the 7 year clock is ticking. I find a company interested in my idea. We sit down and begin to hammer out an exclusive rights agreement. Before we begin, I have them sign a NDA. They refuse and present to me their own NDA. Their NDA is the only one they will sign. So, I agree. Stipulated therein, “I, the inventor cannot solicit and/or share my invention to any other manufacturer and/or individual during the negotiation and R&D period.” They sit for 7 years, then the “ASSUME” rights to my patent. Next day: many, many little baggies filled with many, many little hands, tongues, and eyes. Nothing good can come of this. It will be used as a loophole and a weapon by people with money against people with not. These type of things already happen, it will just pave the way for more of the same. This would be a huge injustice to the everyday working man trying to carve out a future for themselves. O-Kay brain boy, you got what we want, now cough it up!

“The inventor would also be able to protest the application by just showing that he has made a valid effort to license or market the product.”

How would that play out Mark? Can you say “Court Hearing”?
Am I right? A contested office action set in motion by a 3rd party (not by the USPTO) would have to contested in court. And we all know what that means. Highly paid corporate sharks against one dude with an original idea. Where is the justice in that.

“You can’t add an inventor to a patent that is already issued…”

You can’t now but that is essentially what you are proposing.

Dear Mr Jefferson,

Thank you,
USPTO

On your last comment, what in anything I have said, even references adding inventors or re-writing a patent?