New to me - and very useable:
http://www.google.com/patents
:razz:
Jakob E.
http://www.google.com/patents
:razz:
Jakob E.
Google Patents..
- Thread starter gyraf
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Greg
Well-known member
Neat-O !
clintrubber
Well-known member
Nice !
:thumb:
And hands up who was so modest not to check for his/her own eventual patent(s) :twisted:
:thumb:
And hands up who was so modest not to check for his/her own eventual patent(s) :twisted:
Wow, first thing I see is a patent for "COMBINED SCARECROW AND ADVERTISING DEVICE"!! How awesome is that! How often have I needed that in the past?!?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=DBNPAAAAEBAJ
Time for serious DIY...
http://www.google.com/patents?id=DBNPAAAAEBAJ
Time for serious DIY...
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
Butthead: I just came from seeing a lawyer. I'm filing for a patent.
Beavis: A patent! On what?
Butthead: I going to call it Method and Apparatus for Kicking Your Ass... dickwipe!
(Sorry... I couldn't resist posting that again).
Seriously, though, thanks for the link. That is damned useful for searching patents. Once you've found a patent you'd like to save on your hard drive, you can copy and paste the number into www.pat2pdf.org which then spits out a PDF, ready for downloading. Gotta love it!
[quote author="gyraf"]New to me - and very useable:
http://www.google.com/patents
:razz:
Jakob E.[/quote]
Google's advanced search screen looks similar to PTO's capability, a little easier to use. A little faster.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
JR
http://www.google.com/patents
:razz:
Jakob E.[/quote]
Google's advanced search screen looks similar to PTO's capability, a little easier to use. A little faster.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
JR
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
The USPTO site is "searchable only by Issue Date, Patent Number, and Current US Classification" (their words) for patents issued before 1975. The Google site is not thus restricted, judging by the number of old patents I managed to find via keyword searches.
bcarso
Well-known member
This could be very useful indeed---thanks Jakob!
As many probably know, people often pick perverse and misleading titles for their patents. It hurts the patent process too---there are some blatant cases of patents being granted that ought not to have been---some soundfield virtualization ones in particular come to mind. I don't want to mention any names because the later inventor might be moved to put out a contract on my head---he's pissed off enough already as it is.
As many probably know, people often pick perverse and misleading titles for their patents. It hurts the patent process too---there are some blatant cases of patents being granted that ought not to have been---some soundfield virtualization ones in particular come to mind. I don't want to mention any names because the later inventor might be moved to put out a contract on my head---he's pissed off enough already as it is.
Kev
Well-known member
[quote author="NewYorkDave"]
Butthead: I going to call it Method and Apparatus for Kicking Your Ass... dickwipe!
[/quote]
I seem to remember that we did actually find a patent for a mechanical butt kicking machine
seriously ... a real patent
I had a print of it on the door of my office at my old work
Butthead: I going to call it Method and Apparatus for Kicking Your Ass... dickwipe!
[/quote]
I seem to remember that we did actually find a patent for a mechanical butt kicking machine
seriously ... a real patent
I had a print of it on the door of my office at my old work
[quote author="bcarso"]This could be very useful indeed---thanks Jakob!
As many probably know, people often pick perverse and misleading titles for their patents. It hurts the patent process too---there are some blatant cases of patents being granted that ought not to have been---some soundfield virtualization ones in particular come to mind. I don't want to mention any names because the later inventor might be moved to put out a contract on my head---he's pissed off enough already as it is.[/quote]
I too have seen some odd word choices in descriptions and claims presumably to conceal likeness or make some hypothetical distinction from similar art. My first patent (4,166,245) was for a meter system that displayed peak and average simultaneously on a single display (peak was a dot floating above the solid bar representing average). A few years later another inventor added some verbiage about loudness and persistence, made the display curved instead of a straight line, and also won a patent for essentially the same thing (4,528,501). I guess they were issued an improvement patent for some minor distinction, but that does not give them any right to use the basic technology. They even cited my patent as a reference. :roll:
By the time I learned of their product I was no longer in control of my patent. It was assigned to a company I consulted for who later went bankrupt. Since I had no desire to enrich the new holder of the patent who was clueless about what he had and also an a__hole, I didn't bother to challenge their IMO open infringement.
In general all a patent does is give you the right to sue, and makes pretty (expensive) wall paper, but that's better than nothing.
JR
As many probably know, people often pick perverse and misleading titles for their patents. It hurts the patent process too---there are some blatant cases of patents being granted that ought not to have been---some soundfield virtualization ones in particular come to mind. I don't want to mention any names because the later inventor might be moved to put out a contract on my head---he's pissed off enough already as it is.[/quote]
I too have seen some odd word choices in descriptions and claims presumably to conceal likeness or make some hypothetical distinction from similar art. My first patent (4,166,245) was for a meter system that displayed peak and average simultaneously on a single display (peak was a dot floating above the solid bar representing average). A few years later another inventor added some verbiage about loudness and persistence, made the display curved instead of a straight line, and also won a patent for essentially the same thing (4,528,501). I guess they were issued an improvement patent for some minor distinction, but that does not give them any right to use the basic technology. They even cited my patent as a reference. :roll:
By the time I learned of their product I was no longer in control of my patent. It was assigned to a company I consulted for who later went bankrupt. Since I had no desire to enrich the new holder of the patent who was clueless about what he had and also an a__hole, I didn't bother to challenge their IMO open infringement.
In general all a patent does is give you the right to sue, and makes pretty (expensive) wall paper, but that's better than nothing.
JR
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4166245.pdf Filed Nov. 14, 1977
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4528501.pdf Filed May 14, 1982
Well, that was educational! I'd always believed the conventional wisdom about it being Dorrough's idea because I'd never heard otherwise. But there it is, in black 'n white.
The granting of patents for circuits well-described in prior art, incremental improvements thereon, or others which are simply "obvious to those versed in the art", is a topic that's come up many times around here. Some names to look for: Aspen Pittman, Randall Smith, John Cun!bert!. (Replace those exclamation points with "ayes." I've already locked horns with him on another forum and, peace-loving teddy bear that I am, I'm not raring for another pissing match. So I've masked his name because he seems to have a strange way of turning up whenever his name or that of his product are invoked).
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4528501.pdf Filed May 14, 1982
Well, that was educational! I'd always believed the conventional wisdom about it being Dorrough's idea because I'd never heard otherwise. But there it is, in black 'n white.
The granting of patents for circuits well-described in prior art, incremental improvements thereon, or others which are simply "obvious to those versed in the art", is a topic that's come up many times around here. Some names to look for: Aspen Pittman, Randall Smith, John Cun!bert!. (Replace those exclamation points with "ayes." I've already locked horns with him on another forum and, peace-loving teddy bear that I am, I'm not raring for another pissing match. So I've masked his name because he seems to have a strange way of turning up whenever his name or that of his product are invoked).
Kev
Well-known member
yes
it was fun the first time but it got boring pretty quickly
... best to just let it all go
'tis just the way of the world
it was fun the first time but it got boring pretty quickly
... best to just let it all go
'tis just the way of the world
[quote author="NewYorkDave"]http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4166245.pdf Filed Nov. 14, 1977
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4528501.pdf Filed May 14, 1982
Well, that was educational! I'd always believed the conventional wisdom about it being Dorrough's idea because I'd never heard otherwise. But there it is, in black 'n white.
The granting of patents for circuits well-described in prior art, incremental improvements thereon, or others which are simply "obvious to those versed in the art", is a topic that's come up many times around here. Some names to look for: Aspen Pittman, Randall Smith, John Cun!bert!. (Replace those exclamation points with "ayes." I've already locked horns with him on another forum and, peace-loving teddy bear that I am, I'm not raring for another pissing match. So I've masked his name because he seems to have a strange way of turning up whenever his name or that of his product are invoked).[/quote]
One thing I've always had difficulty with is the concept of "obviousness". I even saw a recent court decision on the subject that wasn't very illuminating. Many great ideas seem incredibly obvious after you see them. However technology that is published and already in the art should be far easier to identify. Unfortunately many patent examiners are inexperienced junior types, getting on the job training so they can move across the street and make the real bucks as patent lawyers. Many patent lawyers make a good living by obscuring comparison. Some argue a patent isn't real until tested in court. I have no desire for such testing which makes the filing cost look like chump change.
I had one inventor who had convinced the PTO to give him a patent on a balanced input phono preamp come after me because of a kit design I published back in the '80s. I bought a copy of his patent file wrapper (record of all file arguments and correspondence). It was remarkable to see the junior examiner wowed by the very basic concept of differential inputs he was apparently ignorant of and thought this guy invented.
I sent the inventor a copy of a (balanced) transformer coupled phono preamp schematic out of an old tube manual that predated his invention by decades. By law an inventor is supposed to notify the PTO if he learns of a defect in his patent but if the penalty for not doing so is losing a patent they would lose by delivering such notice, I don’t expect many will.
JR
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4528501.pdf Filed May 14, 1982
Well, that was educational! I'd always believed the conventional wisdom about it being Dorrough's idea because I'd never heard otherwise. But there it is, in black 'n white.
The granting of patents for circuits well-described in prior art, incremental improvements thereon, or others which are simply "obvious to those versed in the art", is a topic that's come up many times around here. Some names to look for: Aspen Pittman, Randall Smith, John Cun!bert!. (Replace those exclamation points with "ayes." I've already locked horns with him on another forum and, peace-loving teddy bear that I am, I'm not raring for another pissing match. So I've masked his name because he seems to have a strange way of turning up whenever his name or that of his product are invoked).[/quote]
One thing I've always had difficulty with is the concept of "obviousness". I even saw a recent court decision on the subject that wasn't very illuminating. Many great ideas seem incredibly obvious after you see them. However technology that is published and already in the art should be far easier to identify. Unfortunately many patent examiners are inexperienced junior types, getting on the job training so they can move across the street and make the real bucks as patent lawyers. Many patent lawyers make a good living by obscuring comparison. Some argue a patent isn't real until tested in court. I have no desire for such testing which makes the filing cost look like chump change.
I had one inventor who had convinced the PTO to give him a patent on a balanced input phono preamp come after me because of a kit design I published back in the '80s. I bought a copy of his patent file wrapper (record of all file arguments and correspondence). It was remarkable to see the junior examiner wowed by the very basic concept of differential inputs he was apparently ignorant of and thought this guy invented.
I sent the inventor a copy of a (balanced) transformer coupled phono preamp schematic out of an old tube manual that predated his invention by decades. By law an inventor is supposed to notify the PTO if he learns of a defect in his patent but if the penalty for not doing so is losing a patent they would lose by delivering such notice, I don’t expect many will.
JR
bcarso
Well-known member
The current state of incompetence in the USPTO is disgraceful, no doubt about it.
At least there is patent purgatory now, where you can see what kind of malarkey is being attempted for a while at least, and notify them about prior art etc., before it gets impractically late. But who has the time?
I wonder if Einstein was a good patent examiner? I suspect he wasn't paying much attention to his work---probably gazing into space and doing Gedankenexperimenten when the boss wasn't checking :razz:
At least there is patent purgatory now, where you can see what kind of malarkey is being attempted for a while at least, and notify them about prior art etc., before it gets impractically late. But who has the time?
I wonder if Einstein was a good patent examiner? I suspect he wasn't paying much attention to his work---probably gazing into space and doing Gedankenexperimenten when the boss wasn't checking :razz:
> very useable
http://www.google.com/patents?q=Leo+Fender
A very large lot of Mr Fender's work, nearly all his own work sorting to the top, some references to car-parts, and some patents which cite Fender (in the Description, which Google does not give in plain-text, but does highlight-inside...)
Hmmmm.... it is not finding Leo's older Tremolo patents. It isn't a date limit: a random lower number found duPont's 1939 patent on Polyamides.
Ah! He used to be Clarence L. Fender, was C Leo Fender later.
http://www.google.com/patents?q=D186826 changed history.
The text is OCR-ed. Many small typos.
I wonder why Google won't sort by date. It seems obvious.
http://www.google.com/patents?q=Leo+Fender
A very large lot of Mr Fender's work, nearly all his own work sorting to the top, some references to car-parts, and some patents which cite Fender (in the Description, which Google does not give in plain-text, but does highlight-inside...)
Hmmmm.... it is not finding Leo's older Tremolo patents. It isn't a date limit: a random lower number found duPont's 1939 patent on Polyamides.
Ah! He used to be Clarence L. Fender, was C Leo Fender later.
http://www.google.com/patents?q=D186826 changed history.
The text is OCR-ed. Many small typos.
I wonder why Google won't sort by date. It seems obvious.
