Her advice is amazing and detailed and encompasses so many important aspects of writing Valuable claims. Had to watch a few times and take notes, to grasp meanings. One of the best go to Videos on TH-cam - my opinion. Thank you for sharing this information with the public.
Her advice is priceless; she not only explains about patents & claims but also in how to protect ourselves against money hungry patent lawyers and agents that only care about billing and not caring to understand our product, never mind writing strong claims. See her explanation at 25 minutes into her video. My mistake as well, I have since learned how to vet an attorney and or agent. An $800.00 lesson, actually it was $1600 - I wasn't going to complain initially and ask for a refund, but when he could not justify his findings and his answer was wormy, he knew he was negligent and careless in his handling of my case, he asked me what he could do. I then asked for a refund, nicely. I told him, everything he found, I had easily found in a google patent search. He offered to re do his search, I told him I don't want to work with him anymore. I was fair in asking for a 50% refund, I thought I would be fair... but I'm still upset. I have not left any google reviews etc. for this fellow, I still may! I will only state the facts in my review. Also, he very quickly and easily gave me the refund I asked for. She explained things wonderfully, mind you, I did have to watch this video a few times to grasp everything and digest what she was saying - as she is a very smart - fast thinking and speaking attorney. No wonder she made partner at such a young age. You go girl !
The America Invents Act changes things: 1) not disclosing best mode will not cause you to risk losing the patent, 2) not correctly indicating the inventors will also not cause you the same risk (in Section 20 of the bill, all language referring to "deceptive intent" has been erased), 3) under First-to-File, your risk of disclosing your invention confidentially greatly increases. The new laws are bad for independent inventors and good for vested interests and those who intend to deceive.
First, great discussion. Really helped me clarify my understanding of how to read a patent / from a drafting perspective. Question RE: Public Disclosure - As the internet continues to capture and catalog every comment and thought that we all have, how will the courts determine if the published ramblings of the masses constitute a "publication" of the idea, thereby preventing patenting and inhibiting the incentive for the hard work of bringing the idea(s) to market? Thank you.
great advice,thank you all. just wondering if someday, u guys would do another simular updated (2013), presentation video,only this time,include a real live patent. with u folks holding the consumers hands.
@Piscivorus "Our tangible property does not [infringe] on other people's rights." It does, as much as IP does. If I own a piece of land, it restricts your right to utilize your own labor and capital however you want, in that I can restrict you from building a factory on my land, and I can restrict you from working on my land.
Thanks Katherine for the complete simplistic explanation and illustrations for patent claims and infringement which was extremely overwhelming for me to understand until now. You are great, but could slow down a bit. Thanks for your help.
@Piscivorus "that only applies when I'm on your land." It does indeed. What is "my land" used to be part of the commons. You used to be able to travel on it, build factories on it, work on it, etc., until I confiscated it from the commons. Now that it is my private land, I restrict you from doing what you used to be able to do upon that land. I have restricted your rights.
And as it is hard to research patents. Researching a patent is a 7-day job, and furthermore a patent can appear on the very day before you launch your product. Sometimes patents just don't mention the thing you're thinking of building in any reasonable combination of words. So sometimes the evil infringer will have done their very best to not infringe any patents, and still been trapped.
Its all important information. Some parts are less important than others, but you have to understand it all to understand the full scope of the patent process. So to answer your question, she did a simple discussion over the patent process and setup... there's FAR MORE to learn about it though. This was too short for my tastes.
It's not a dying field, I meant more about the lifestyle. If you go into prosecution it's a pretty repetitive job where you're not doing anything significant with your life. If you actually like the idea of creating things and using your BSEE to create then it's not the job for you. If you like writing and arguing over the meaning of words then maybe its a job for you. But, once you start going down that rabbit hole it's hard to get out because of the debt from law school and other obligations.
@Piscivorus "I don't know of any [stifled patented-inventions] but I know they exist." Then what makes you think they exist? (You are aware that patents are made available for public search and view, yes? Inventors do not patent things they intend to keep secret.)
@Piscivorus "a patent is [...] a legal right to infringe upon everyone else's right to utilize their own labor and capital" Isn't that what any other private deed to property does? If you privately own a given piece of land, doesn't that give you the right to infringe upon other's rights to use that same piece of land?
@Piscivorus "Money" Any individual company gets the money from marketing the product of the R&D, whether or not he contributes to the community R&D effort. What, then, is the individual incentive to cintribute to a community R&D effort?
How about just a big reform: 1) No patents for mathematical algorithms (this rule exists but is ignored) 2) patents should be cheaper (innovators don't always come from big business, although they perhaps usually do, who knows?) 3) Patents should last only for a brief period (single digits in years); say, long enough to forge brand recognition and trust. Can anyone tell me of an example where a patent does any good for your country in the 21st century? Cite reputable references.
I am looking for a patent attorney who I can count on with advise and patents for the ideas I have. One is this how can I protect an idea that can improve company in servicing potential customers without a patent.
(collectivised R&D, cont.) en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Droughts_ and_ famines_ in_ Russia_ and_ the_ USSR "The second Soviet famine happened during the collectivisation in the USSR. In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities caused a famine which affected more than 40 million people, especially in the south on the Don and Kuban areas and in Ukraine, where by various estimates from 5 to 10 million may have starved to death (the event known as Holodomor)."
Unused patents can be sold: whynot. net/ideas/3553 "Part of the reason for so many unused patents is that firms do not realise that their patents may have value to others. The patent itself may be of little use to the firm that invented it (the invention may have been 'accidental') and therefore they just sit on it unaware that others might like to use it. Some companies are now realising this and are offering unwanted patents for sale through patent auction websites." Problem solved.
@Piscivorus [collectivised R&D] What would be the incentive for any individual company to contribute? en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons How would collective R&D be different from collective agricuture? en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine "farming was organized into communes and the cultivation of private plots forbidden. This forced collectivisation substantially reduced the incentives for peasants to work well."
Yes. We're saying the same thing. The R&D that benefits the world gets done because of IP rights. If there were no IP rights, the R&D would not get done, and the world would therefore be poorer.
Very good inputs. I have a question and i woould appreciate if someone answers it. If i am a inventor of a idea bud don't want to patent it. I have no problem if anybody copies my idea but i don't want to be in a situation where somebody patents the same idea and does not allow me to use it.
I have a major Doubt, what if the Attorney leaks my Idea, so some one else will get the patent, just before me, due to the attorney's cunningness. I suppose all Patent attorney's will be having good links with corporate industries and big figures, so he will get a huge ransom, if he leaks some others Idea to these industries..so they will have the patent legally, as if they invented it. So i suppose, If one has the Idea - one has to do all the work himself totally, finally contact a Attorney
In principle it can't be patented if it is obvious - but I hear in America they let you patent any old thing. I hear Microsoft has a patent for putting a networked computer in a car, for example. Not only is it obvious, there was prior art, so it really shouldn't be patented at all. Not to bash Microsoft, it was the first example to jump into my head. I think that basically all you need to get a patent in America is A LOT OF MONEY. All the other requirements are only "guidelines".
@Piscivorus "It's their right to do whatever they want with their capital but that's no justification for IP rights." If they couldn't protect the novel resources created with those billions of R&D dollars, then the R&D would not get done in the first place and thus the world would never be able to benefit from the would-have-been-created novel resources. Are you saying that none of the drugs or chemicals that have been marketed in the world had any value to society?
@Piscivorus "ownership is only necessary for tangible things" You're contradicting yourself. Previously, you said that the reason IP is no good is that it restricts the rights of others. Now, you say that TP (tangiible P) is okay, even though it restricts the rights of others. Under that one test of yours, both fail, but you claim that TP should be given a pass anyway, even though it fails. Can you produce any non-fallacious reasons why IP might not be okay, while TP is okay?
@Piscivorus "Ideas are not tangible" Ideas require capital in order to develop them into marketable products. If one company spends all the capital required to develop a product, and fails to secure IP protection, other companies get to ride for free. I the real world, otherwise-good ideas that are not IP protected are simply never never brought to market by anyone. No one gets the benefits from them. No one can ever use them. IP protection allows good ideas to benefit the world.
@Piscivorus "The endless pursuit of [...]" ...might not be exclusive to humans living in the United States. In my question to you, I was referring to your own reasoning behind your conclusion that the US is more corrupt than any other nation? What evidence are you gong on? This evidence?: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index You are positive that the US is more corrupt than Somalia, Myanmar, Iraq, Haiti, and Afghanistan?
@Piscivorus "unfair advantage" Presumably, the same would go for any type of law. The United States has laws, and therefore it is susceptible to corruption. Yet, the United States is less corrupt than most other nations. nationmaster. com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption
Let me unglamorise Patents. Its not as valuable as you are made to believe. Why? EEVRY Patent can be improved or designed around. This means , no patent can prevent competitors from making use of your patent to leap frog you. You are farked! The only ones that are guaranteed to profit immensely are the lawyers and the governments. You are just the suckers!
Her advice is amazing and detailed and encompasses so many important aspects of writing Valuable claims. Had to watch a few times and take notes, to grasp meanings. One of the best go to Videos on TH-cam - my opinion. Thank you for sharing this information with the public.
Her advice is priceless; she not only explains about patents & claims but also in how to protect ourselves against money hungry patent lawyers and agents that only care about billing and not caring to understand our product, never mind writing strong claims. See her explanation at 25 minutes into her video. My mistake as well, I have since learned how to vet an attorney and or agent. An $800.00 lesson, actually it was $1600 - I wasn't going to complain initially and ask for a refund, but when he could not justify his findings and his answer was wormy, he knew he was negligent and careless in his handling of my case, he asked me what he could do. I then asked for a refund, nicely. I told him, everything he found, I had easily found in a google patent search. He offered to re do his search, I told him I don't want to work with him anymore. I was fair in asking for a 50% refund, I thought I would be fair... but I'm still upset. I have not left any google reviews etc. for this fellow, I still may! I will only state the facts in my review. Also, he very quickly and easily gave me the refund I asked for. She explained things wonderfully, mind you, I did have to watch this video a few times to grasp everything and digest what she was saying - as she is a very smart - fast thinking and speaking attorney. No wonder she made partner at such a young age. You go girl !
Great lecture, simple explanation of complicated subject. Thank you!
The America Invents Act changes things: 1) not disclosing best mode will not cause you to risk losing the patent, 2) not correctly indicating the inventors will also not cause you the same risk (in Section 20 of the bill, all language referring to "deceptive intent" has been erased), 3) under First-to-File, your risk of disclosing your invention confidentially greatly increases. The new laws are bad for independent inventors and good for vested interests and those who intend to deceive.
Great presentation. Thanks a lot, Katherine White.
Very useful. Many more inventors need to see this
First, great discussion. Really helped me clarify my understanding of how to read a patent / from a drafting perspective.
Question RE: Public Disclosure -
As the internet continues to capture and catalog every comment and thought that we all have, how will the courts determine if the published ramblings of the masses constitute a "publication" of the idea, thereby preventing patenting and inhibiting the incentive for the hard work of bringing the idea(s) to market?
Thank you.
great advice,thank you all.
just wondering if someday, u guys would do another simular updated (2013), presentation
video,only this time,include a real live patent. with u folks holding the consumers hands.
Great presentation, thank.
@Piscivorus "Our tangible property does not [infringe] on other people's rights."
It does, as much as IP does. If I own a piece of land, it restricts your right to utilize your own labor and capital however you want, in that I can restrict you from building a factory on my land, and I can restrict you from working on my land.
Thanks Katherine for the complete simplistic explanation and illustrations for patent claims and infringement which was extremely overwhelming for me to understand until now. You are great, but could slow down a bit. Thanks for your help.
Fluent, concise and clear
This was very helpfull, i´ve watched more video´s like this, but this one is great. Will implement right away!
Very informative! Thank you for posting this.
@Piscivorus "that only applies when I'm on your land."
It does indeed. What is "my land" used to be part of the commons. You used to be able to travel on it, build factories on it, work on it, etc., until I confiscated it from the commons. Now that it is my private land, I restrict you from doing what you used to be able to do upon that land. I have restricted your rights.
NIce man i needed this little lesson thankz a lot..
And as it is hard to research patents. Researching a patent is a 7-day job, and furthermore a patent can appear on the very day before you launch your product.
Sometimes patents just don't mention the thing you're thinking of building in any reasonable combination of words.
So sometimes the evil infringer will have done their very best to not infringe any patents, and still been trapped.
Thank you, Ms. White.
Good information for engineer Lawyers. keep it up.
@Piscivorus
Indeed. When you are marketing only your own IP, I can't restrict you.
Its all important information. Some parts are less important than others, but you have to understand it all to understand the full scope of the patent process.
So to answer your question, she did a simple discussion over the patent process and setup... there's FAR MORE to learn about it though. This was too short for my tastes.
It's not a dying field, I meant more about the lifestyle. If you go into prosecution it's a pretty repetitive job where you're not doing anything significant with your life. If you actually like the idea of creating things and using your BSEE to create then it's not the job for you. If you like writing and arguing over the meaning of words then maybe its a job for you. But, once you start going down that rabbit hole it's hard to get out because of the debt from law school and other obligations.
@Piscivorus "I don't know of any [stifled patented-inventions] but I know they exist."
Then what makes you think they exist?
(You are aware that patents are made available for public search and view, yes? Inventors do not patent things they intend to keep secret.)
What's the most critical piece of information in this video? I'd love to point my clients to it.
@Piscivorus "a patent is [...] a legal right to infringe upon everyone else's right to utilize their own labor and capital"
Isn't that what any other private deed to property does? If you privately own a given piece of land, doesn't that give you the right to infringe upon other's rights to use that same piece of land?
@Piscivorus "Money"
Any individual company gets the money from marketing the product of the R&D, whether or not he contributes to the community R&D effort. What, then, is the individual incentive to cintribute to a community R&D effort?
How about just a big reform:
1) No patents for mathematical algorithms (this rule exists but is ignored)
2) patents should be cheaper (innovators don't always come from big business, although they perhaps usually do, who knows?)
3) Patents should last only for a brief period (single digits in years); say, long enough to forge brand recognition and trust.
Can anyone tell me of an example where a patent does any good for your country in the 21st century? Cite reputable references.
I am looking for a patent attorney who I can count on with advise and patents for the ideas I have. One is this how can I protect an idea that can improve company in servicing potential customers without a patent.
Bishop Charles Byrd
(collectivised R&D, cont.)
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Droughts_ and_ famines_ in_ Russia_ and_ the_ USSR
"The second Soviet famine happened during the collectivisation in the USSR. In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities caused a famine which affected more than 40 million people, especially in the south on the Don and Kuban areas and in Ukraine, where by various estimates from 5 to 10 million may have starved to death (the event known as Holodomor)."
Honest answer, you'll probably be happier doing something with the BSEE than you would be as a patent attorney.
So the only reason we create patents is in the hope that "The Evil Infringer" will infringe the idea? Never saw it from that perspective before, wow.
Thank you!
Thankyou
Unused patents can be sold:
whynot. net/ideas/3553
"Part of the reason for so many unused patents is that firms do not realise that their patents may have value to others. The patent itself may be of little use to the firm that invented it (the invention may have been 'accidental') and therefore they just sit on it unaware that others might like to use it. Some companies are now realising this and are offering unwanted patents for sale through patent auction websites."
Problem solved.
@Piscivorus [collectivised R&D]
What would be the incentive for any individual company to contribute?
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
How would collective R&D be different from collective agricuture?
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
"farming was organized into communes and the cultivation of private plots forbidden. This forced collectivisation substantially reduced the incentives for peasants to work well."
Yes. We're saying the same thing. The R&D that benefits the world gets done because of IP rights. If there were no IP rights, the R&D would not get done, and the world would therefore be poorer.
Very good inputs.
I have a question and i woould appreciate if someone answers it. If i am a inventor of a idea bud don't want to patent it. I have no problem if anybody copies my idea but i don't want to be in a situation where somebody patents the same idea and does not allow me to use it.
The firm she was working for is no longer and I can’t find her thru an internet search
I have a major Doubt, what if the Attorney leaks my Idea, so some one else will get the patent, just before me, due to the attorney's cunningness.
I suppose all Patent attorney's will be having good links with corporate industries and big figures, so he will get a huge ransom, if he leaks some others Idea to these industries..so they will have the patent legally, as if they invented it.
So i suppose, If one has the Idea - one has to do all the work himself totally, finally contact a Attorney
How does IP-law reward marketing delays?
In principle it can't be patented if it is obvious - but I hear in America they let you patent any old thing. I hear Microsoft has a patent for putting a networked computer in a car, for example. Not only is it obvious, there was prior art, so it really shouldn't be patented at all. Not to bash Microsoft, it was the first example to jump into my head.
I think that basically all you need to get a patent in America is A LOT OF MONEY. All the other requirements are only "guidelines".
@Piscivorus "It's their right to do whatever they want with their capital but that's no justification for IP rights."
If they couldn't protect the novel resources created with those billions of R&D dollars, then the R&D would not get done in the first place and thus the world would never be able to benefit from the would-have-been-created novel resources.
Are you saying that none of the drugs or chemicals that have been marketed in the world had any value to society?
@Piscivorus "ownership is only necessary for tangible things"
You're contradicting yourself. Previously, you said that the reason IP is no good is that it restricts the rights of others. Now, you say that TP (tangiible P) is okay, even though it restricts the rights of others. Under that one test of yours, both fail, but you claim that TP should be given a pass anyway, even though it fails.
Can you produce any non-fallacious reasons why IP might not be okay, while TP is okay?
@Piscivorus "Ideas are not tangible"
Ideas require capital in order to develop them into marketable products. If one company spends all the capital required to develop a product, and fails to secure IP protection, other companies get to ride for free.
I the real world, otherwise-good ideas that are not IP protected are simply never never brought to market by anyone. No one gets the benefits from them. No one can ever use them.
IP protection allows good ideas to benefit the world.
How would that tell me why you think they exist?
There is nothing wrong with provisional patent applications, just inadequate provisional patent applications
Really? Examples, please.
How does hiding useful concepts, instead of developing and marketing them, help maximize company profits?
Major patent law changes, not good ones, were signed into law by Obama after this video was made. Very onerous
@Piscivorus "There are thousands of inventions that we don't benefit from right now because of IP rights."
Please name some of them.
@Piscivorus "The endless pursuit of [...]"
...might not be exclusive to humans living in the United States. In my question to you, I was referring to your own reasoning behind your conclusion that the US is more corrupt than any other nation?
What evidence are you gong on? This evidence?:
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
You are positive that the US is more corrupt than Somalia, Myanmar, Iraq, Haiti, and Afghanistan?
@Piscivorus "unfair advantage"
Presumably, the same would go for any type of law. The United States has laws, and therefore it is susceptible to corruption. Yet, the United States is less corrupt than most other nations.
nationmaster. com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption
Only lawyers are guaranteed to profit from patents.
Cosmo John Google, is that you?
Girl, you're smart but you need to slow down! :)
:)
Let me unglamorise Patents. Its not as valuable as you are made to believe. Why?
EEVRY Patent can be improved or designed around.
This means , no patent can prevent competitors from making use of your patent to leap frog you. You are farked! The only ones that are guaranteed to profit immensely are the lawyers and the governments. You are just the suckers!