Patents, My Word!...............

dindude

Think I'm being tested - a US customer asked for an almost direct copy of a PT Nano, just a little longer. I had a look and politely declined knowing that I would infringe on PT's US Patent (which I thought was pretty much for a rail type board). Then he came back wanting a Tier and if this would get around the Patent.

Anyway, having read the below, the first time I've read a Patent it has to be said, what a load of wordy nonsense! But it seems to cover everything from the tilt to having a system of cables passing underneath.

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6459023

For anyone who has a life and doesn't want to read it, here's a short extract.

"Further improvements include a frame support base for inclining the effect mounting surface and the addition of a frictional element to allow for repositioning and removal or replacement of an effect on the effect mounting surface"

Hmmm, legs and velcro then.

Bottom line, Smorg not available to the US I guess!

Branshen

Fascinating. Did the UK patent office not approve their patent then? I'm sure they tried.

dindude

Branshen said:

Fascinating. Did the UK patent office not approve their patent then? I'm sure they tried.

Probably deemed as not big enough a market to justify the expense. I wonder too if UK Patent's are a little more sensible.

Don't get me wrong, I've huge respect for Pedaltrain and what they have achieved, and their design was unique, but US Patents seem to be as much about "first with the money and inclination to stifle competition", as much as it is about inventing and protecting a unique product. Mesa Boogie is probably as good example here.

FelineGuitars

I've patented a system for musicians to breathe whilst playing - it involves drawing air in through the nose and shortly later out through the mouth. This can be either with or without added sound (aka singing).

Please all cease and desist or pay me money.

martinw

dindude said:

 ........ US Patents seem to be as much about "first with the money and inclination to stifle competition", as much as it is about inventing and protecting a unique product.

Bingo.

That's America for you. Yay for unregulated free-market capitalism.

Now apply the same principles to politics and heath care and you're done. Anything else makes you a socialist.

Danny1969

I wanted to patent one of my ideas in the UK but a quick google on the Gov patent website suggest it cost around £4000 and takes around 5 years. If that's the case then I can't afford it

mgaw

my idea was to create a system by which people with good ideas would pay me say  £4000 to protect there ideas

 from copycats, i reckoned i could spend maybe a couple of minutes a day working on this and take maybe 5 years....

genius i thought until i tried to secure a patent on my patent idea.

Modulus_Amps

You have to apply for patents in different regions, when I last did one the cost for world wide coverage was around £15k

If you can find prior art then the patent doesn't have a leg to stand on, even if you can find one the patent owner put into the market before the file date, what is the unique concept in the patent, a pedal board is not a new thing by any means, a tilted pedal board is not new, cables wired under the board?

Patent lawyers will put through anything that you can argue a good case for, get prior art of anything similar and you can tell them to get stuffed. 

Sporky

There are also lots of patent-breaking techniques (I did a TRIZ course some years back which is extensively used for this). They can't protect the idea itself, only the execution, so if you can find another way to solve the same problem you're OK. Too wide a patent makes it weaker too, so if they try to cover too much ground it becomes easier to break.

crunchman

It was filed in Sep 2000.  US patents last 20 years from date of filing so it's not that long (in the big scheme of things) until it expires anyway.

If you look at the bottom of the page under legal events, there was a request for re-examination filed on 01 Sep 2015.  It doesn't say what the outcome of the process was.

According to Wikipedia:
In United States patent law, a reexamination is a process whereby a third party or inventor can have a patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify that the subject matter it claims is patentable. To have a patent reexamined, an interested party must submit prior art that raises a "substantial new question of patentability". The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act makes substantial changes to the U.S. patent system, including new mechanisms for challenging patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. One of the new mechanisms is a post-grant review proceeding, which will provide patent challengers expanded bases on which to attack patents.

I guess it's possible that it could be struck down in the near future.

hywelg

I thought patents could only be applied to non-obvious developments. In what way is a PT non-obvious? It is the epitome of the bleeding obvious and I bet someone made one similar in a garage somewhere in the 1970's.

Now come to think of it I seem to recall a mate made one from an old changing room slatted thing and raised it up at the back, hence the slantinuss.

jpfamps

A lot of patenting is quite frankly nonsense.

I used to work in academic biochemistry and worked with a couple drugs companies during this time. Bearing in mind that unlike the music instrument industry there is some real money in the pharma industry, some of the patents I saw were risible.

Essentially the patent office makes money from awarding patents, and there is an army of lawyers who also want to get their nose in the trough, so as long as the patent looks vaguely plausible then it generally get awarded. I've seen patent lawyers produce copy about subjects that have no clue about that then get awarded! It's merely a conjuring trick.

Patents are often designed to cover as much ground as possible too, so that any future uses are covered.

Many of these patents, and indeed many in the music instrument industry such as Blackstar's ISF, would not stand up in court, however getting to court is expensive, success is never guaranteed, and a victory is often Pyrrhic in nature.

Why do companies like spending money on patents then?

Firstly it allows them to issue an initial (and relatively cheap) "cease and desist" which often does the trick.

Secondly it can add value to your company as you now have some exclusive ip.

ThorpyFX

dindude said:

Think I'm being tested - a US customer asked for an almost direct copy of a PT Nano, just a little longer. I had a look and politely declined knowing that I would infringe on PT's US Patent (which I thought was pretty much for a rail type board). Then he came back wanting a Tier and if this would get around the Patent.

Anyway, having read the below, the first time I've read a Patent it has to be said, what a load of wordy nonsense! But it seems to cover everything from the tilt to having a system of cables passing underneath.

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6459023

For anyone who has a life and doesn't want to read it, here's a short extract.

"Further improvements include a frame support base for inclining the effect mounting surface and the addition of a frictional element to allow for repositioning and removal or replacement of an effect on the effect mounting surface"

Hmmm, legs and velcro then.

Bottom line, Smorg not available to the US I guess!

Sounds just like a test to me...... Id check if any other pedalboards are for sale in the USA. Your board is fundamentally different to the Pedaltrain (due to your flat base..... I seem to remember a lawsuit against trailertrash (may be another coy) a few years ago that failed due to them not having slots in their boards.

andypwudtone

Danny1969 said:

I wanted to patent one of my ideas in the UK but a quick google on the Gov patent website suggest it cost around £4000 and takes around 5 years. If that's the case then I can't afford it

Hi @Danny1969, when we first looked at how you get a patent we were told loosely by IP lawyer types the av cost was around 12k , it actually cost £250 to get patent granted in the UK,  ours is here http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20151001&CC=US&NR=2015279340A1&KC=A1 , it took approx a year.  

The best way to proceed is make an appointment, get down to talk to a member of staff in the UK Patent office in Newport. You basically complete a form , submit drawings and claims. If you are going to go for a patent, it is important to understand timing re, going public/ marketing the invention and the patent process ( be careful you don't go public too early) . A specialist officer will help you hone in on what the real novelty / inventiveness is, assuming there is some. This is where experts like to keep it loose, argue for ages ( at £250 an hour) . Better way forward is to meet with the Patent Office person and actually agree what claims you can have granted.     

Once you are into the UK patent process,  you have a certain amount of time to enter national phase for other countries (more costs) , or spend something like £1.6K to go into an International PCT treaty. This doesn't get you international protection, basically buys you 18mnths, plus an opinion from an expert in the WPO. You then decide which other countries to enter in their own national phase. WE have applied for the USA and also been accepted on a Patent Prosecution Highway scheme. This basically saves the officers in the USA from starting again and speeds things up. 

There can be considerable costs down the line, so you need to make sensible business decisions re cost  v market value for your invention etc ,. but as mentioned, it only cost £250 ( plus expenses to travel to three meetings in Newport) to actually get granted a UK Patent. 

Anyone in Britain with an inventive and patentable idea and would happily bet £250 on it, should go for it,  rather than be put off by loose and exaggerated costs being thrown at them.  One thing Brits are still good at is being empirical and inventive. I do believe that misleading barriers to entry,  on patent costs etc are put up, simply to sustain, self-serving IP based organisations who predominatly work for corporations who can afford their costs etc. 

kind regards

juansolo

Sporky said:

There are also lots of patent-breaking techniques.

The biggest and most obvious one, that makes a mockery of the electronics industry, is that you can't effectively patent circuits. Circuit boards and schematics are actually protected as artwork. So you cannot directly copy either. However if you reverse engineer a circuit and come up with exactly the same schematic but it looks different, that's fine. Like wise if you do your own layout on a circuit board that uses that schematic, which to all intents and purposes is the same effect, you've just got around the patent.

That said, there are an odd few who have gone to town with their patents and aggressively go after anyone who does the above (ISP are known for this with the Dominator, it's why there are no clones). Which they have to as it's all well and good having patents, but if you don't defend them, they're about as good as a chocolate fireguard. Then it comes down to who has the biggest pockets for the legal fees.

Sporky

juansolo said:

The biggest and most obvious one, that makes a mockery of the electronics industry, is that you can't effectively patent circuits. 

You can if they are genuinely innovative.

But it's darned rare to see genuine innovation in the guitar world. We don't like it.

juansolo

damn straight!

octatonic

What do we want?

The same as yesterday!

How long do we want it?

Forever!

octatonic

What do we want?

The same as yesterday!

How long do we want it?

Forever!

andypwudtone

the link in my previous post wasn't the actual UK database records as that service wasn't running when I did that post. The UK one is here https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2506743   

and the first four docs, abstract, description, claims, drawings show you basically what is needed to file. 

by all means look at the sequence and search reports , how we had to adjust claims etc, Start date was 14 Aug 13, letter of patent grant notification 5 Aug 14 so just under a year and so far worth every penny at £250. 

re   as it's all well and good having patents, but if you don't defend them, they're about as good as a chocolate fireguard. Then it comes down to who has the biggest pockets for the legal fees.

maybe, unless you defend yourself and in any case the very existence of a patent may well be all that is needed to prevent others, morally or in terms of brand / expense risk, copying. It has already proven to be enough to prevent at least one company ( we are aware of ) from copying the approach taken with the Wudtone CP Trems. I do agree it is most certainly a game of bluff but it isn't as out of reach / expensive as some want you to think it is. I would say just do you own careful empirical research and liase  direct with the actual office, not experts, certainly not ip lawyers.

andypwudtone

Sporky said:

juansolo said:

The biggest and most obvious one, that makes a mockery of the electronics industry, is that you can't effectively patent circuits. 

You can if they are genuinely innovative.

But it's darned rare to see genuine innovation in the guitar world. We don't like it.

thankfully some, enough do