[Stoves] New US Patent law change

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Dan

 

I am happy to hear you want to keep the noise level down!

 

The ‘prior art’ term must be clearly understood: something you are working on which is not public knowledge and has not become known through unauthorised disclosure, is not prior art. That is ‘secret art’ I suppose.

 

If it is known to exist – patented or (usually) not – and is in the public domain and it reached the public domain not through unauthorised disclosure, then the game is over. You can’t patent something in the public domain and enforce it. You can get the patent in many countries including the UK and South Africa and exploit various (deliberate) legislative loopholes, but that does not make the patent enforceable in court, and a patent is really a licence to sue. 

 

Generally it is taken that a patent is not really valid unless it has been upheld in a USA court which costs $180,000. Good luck.

 

There is a new form of patent on recent re-inventions or adaptions (which can easily apply to many stove ideas) that you can get in Africa under something called African Model Law. I explained this some time ago on this list. It is basically a 1-country protection of a device available to local (resident)especially indigenous producers. That is certainly a description that covers stove manufacturers. It prevents, or can be used to prevent, people duplicating the device in that one country for a fixed period. I do not personally know anyone who has received such a patent but they probably exist by now.

 

So, prior art still destroys novelty. It is unpatentable, or, patentable in some places but no enforceability (because it is a hollow patent). 

 

With many devices or inventions you see marketed that are patented, it not the obvious function that is patented, it is some minor aspect of how it is held together or how the plastic parts are injection moulded. The ‘patented’ sticker is just part of the value proposition. Don’t be bamboozled.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

+++++++

DD : I have just picked up on this conversation because I've been busy getting ready to move the business. Last night I was shocked when I heard the President mention patent law changes. If what you say is true then we are back to using AK - 47's to defend our patent rights. This to me is an even worse system because it throws all the power into the hands of the patent office, those who can hire the most expensive lawyers and file the most paper. 

    That means that while I develop a project, that I need to post a guard or be a guard so no one breaks into my facility and steals a look at my work before I file the patent. Maybe booby traps and land mines will be ok if they kill or capture the thief for disposal before he gets away. Some projects need years even decades to improve to make them successful. Under this new system, an inventor must constantly update his patents as the work progresses. The companies like Halliburton that make a living filing as many patents as possible on everything will prosper. I see few upsides to this law. 

    What am I missing here? What happened to prior art being king? Let's just ditch the whole patent office or ignore it and the lawsuits that follow. This upgraded patent process does even more to kill the small inventors it was designed to protect.  AK -47's and hit men will take care of nasty infringement suits. Law of the jungle will prevail. Personally, I'm taking up axe and knife making and throwing, It's quieter ;-) . 

    I rest my case, 

        Dan Dimiduk  

    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110909/214750f6/attachment.html>