Re: ATM 16" F/33 - Patents

[Hermit <klowther@cisnet.com>]

Daniel Fundo wrote:
> 
> <<  Unless he patented some mechanical peculiarity related to his
> implementation I cannot see how it could ever stand up in court.  >>
> 
> Several years ago, my one of my employers tried to get a patent.  The
> patent attorney told him it would get turned down because of S.A.T. -
> Simple Application of Technology.  I recall seeing that only one idea in
> 500 is patentable today for the above reason.
> 
> Unless the patent office has become very lax lately, I don't see how the
> original optical design could have made it past the initial review by
> the P.O.
> 

It is my understanding they are very lax.  Going to the attorney first
probably saved your employer the hassle of seeing his patent infringed
and then losing in court anyway.  I remember seeing the guy that
invented the "Weed Whaker" on tv.  When he saw the knock offs he went to
his attorny who told him not to bother trying to enforce the patent.  He
insisted, his attorney sued and they lost.  Why?  Because the design was
"obvious".  So obvious that once every one else saw it they could make
one. ;-)

But, if you go to one of these places that make money off of encouraging
you to persue a patent, it may be easier to get one.  The patent office
probably takes the companies word that it has done the nessecary
research.

-- 
Ken Lowther
Youngstown, Ohio
http://www.atmsite.org
http://www.atmsite.org/mailman/listinfo/atmswap
http://www.atmsite.org/mailman/listinfo/raytrace