Myths about Patents and Trademarks in startups • Hacker News Board

Re: Myths about Patents and Trademarks in startups

#31

Post by pnw_hazor » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #24

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #7

A few comments: The patent and trademark systems around the World differ. USPTO is very open to business method patents, and software patents. In EPO countries software has to have a real World effect, mostly, to be patentable. Patent agents/attorneys do specialise. Defensive publication is cheap, no need to get a patent to defend yourself. Though if you want to retain a "secret sauce" as part of your product they co…

Author here. >>This may help in getting the patent, but it also enables someone else to exploit the same loop holes to file a patent for the copy of our invention by just changing the grammar/vocabulary because our patent was too generic. >That's not how that works. I think, it's incomplete when the prior argument for that is not included. This is the complete argument - >Unfortunately, patent attorneys tend to force…

I appreciate what you are trying do here. Startups can always use more education about IP protection. But IP law is very country specific, and it is one of the most complex areas of law.

Some of your myths/truths are dangerous and may cause companies to irrevocably lose IP rights that they probably should protect.

Re: Myths about Patents and Trademarks in startups

#32

Post by Abishek_Muthian » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 4:11 AM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #31

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. >>This may help in getting the patent, but it also enables someone else to exploit the same loop holes to file a patent for the copy of our invention by just changing the grammar/vocabulary because our patent was too generic. >That's not how that works. I think, it's incomplete when the prior argument for that is not included. This is the complete argument - >Unfortunately, patent attorneys tend to force…

I appreciate what you are trying do here. Startups can always use more education about IP protection. But IP law is very country specific, and it is one of the most complex areas of law. Some of your myths/truths are dangerous and may cause companies to irrevocably lose IP rights that they probably should protect.

>But IP law is very country specific

I think that's exactly what I state in explaining the myths, there are 13 occurrences of the word 'country/countries' in my reasoning, I have linked to WIPO and PCT source article where necessary. I don't see a place, where I state universal applicability of my reason; I would definitely correct if mentioned.

>Some of your myths/truths are dangerous and may cause companies to irrevocably lose IP rights that they probably should protect.

That could be dangerous, point me to a specific statement. Much of the criticism by the parent (Which I heartily welcome) comes from picking up a sentence at random but not the prior argument; so they're incomplete.

Re: Myths about Patents and Trademarks in startups

#33

Post by Abishek_Muthian » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 4:21 AM UTC

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #24

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #7

A few comments: The patent and trademark systems around the World differ. USPTO is very open to business method patents, and software patents. In EPO countries software has to have a real World effect, mostly, to be patentable. Patent agents/attorneys do specialise. Defensive publication is cheap, no need to get a patent to defend yourself. Though if you want to retain a "secret sauce" as part of your product they co…

Author here. >>This may help in getting the patent, but it also enables someone else to exploit the same loop holes to file a patent for the copy of our invention by just changing the grammar/vocabulary because our patent was too generic. >That's not how that works. I think, it's incomplete when the prior argument for that is not included. This is the complete argument - >Unfortunately, patent attorneys tend to force…

P.S. I also have trademarks(wordmark/devicemark) for my products.

Re: Myths about Patents and Trademarks in startups

#34

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

patentatt wrote: post #20

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's the "before" you're questioning ... You can't do it afterwards: USA has now aligned with the rest of the World as a first-to-file patent system. Your product, if available to the public, would be a prior art citation against your patent.

Incorrect. There is a 1-year ‘grace period’ for an inventor’s own work. And if someone ‘stole’ your idea and tried to patent it before you, there is a process to invalidate it because they derived the patent from your work.

I think incorrect is a bit strong, but you're right. ;o)

Isn't there another slight proviso, before the USPTO, that a third party disclosure is still a valid prior art citation, in the Grace Period if its source is not the applicant/inventor?

Also, outside USA (UK & Aus at least) there are specific international trade fairs that are recognised and disclosure at these gives a sort of grace period similarly to USC grace periods.

Like you say, there's account for abusive disclosure in various laws; also more countries accept grace periods for utility model patents than do for regular patents AIUI.

This is the problem with reducing complex laws to broad brush advice, lack of vital nuance; there's lots of geographic variation too.