Alternatively, the cleaning staff will become very well paid. Unfortunately, something like this is very specific, so it is likely that, while the cleaning staff will get a bump in pay, any increases in cost will be offset by decreases elsewhere. Like to food staff. Or professors. Or to scholarships.
If two people invented the same thing together (or, more commonly, one person invents feature A, and another invents feature B, where both feature A and feature B are part of one invention), then they are joint inventors (and without an assignment or an obligation to assign, they are both joint owners). On the other hand, if two people invent the same thing separately (e.g., similar research goals at two competing pharmaceutical companies), then the first to file gets the application.
It still must be an enabling disclosure, though. That is, it has to teach the public how to make and use the invention.
Whoever is an inventor and gets to the PTO first gets rewarded. The patent system is an exchange. Inventor teaches the public how to make and use his invention, and the government gives the inventor a limited right to exclude others from practicing the invention. The switch to "first to file" encourages early disclosure, rather than inventing something in secret and waiting to file, or waiting until the inventor's one year bar period was about to run, then filing. Under the new system, if it's valuable and likely that someone else is working on the same system, early filing will be encouraged.
Disclaimer: I am a former software engineer turned patent attorney. However, I am not your lawyer, nor am I the lawyer of anyone who reads this. (Sorry, I have to say that)
Anyway, another thing that many people miss on the "first to file" issue is that it's the first INVENTOR to file. So, employee can't leave company, steal the invention, then file if employee was not the inventor.
The law really is only changing in the situation where two people invent the same thing, independently of one another. Under the current law, if both inventors file, only one is entitled to the patent - the inventor who actually invented it first (perhaps determined in an interference proceeding in the patent office or perhaps in court). Each inventor would try to prove the date of invention through documentation (keep those lab notebooks - or that git repo, or the old svn or cvs repo backed up!). Whoever successfully proves an earlier date of invention wins.
Under the new law, it's just who filed first. If two people file for the same invention, there will be a "derivation" proceeding in the patent office to determine whether one of the inventors "derived" his/her invention from another (ie, is that person actually the inventor).
The period to file was supposed to be important though in non-conflicting applications. It allowed, for example, potential applicants to seek investment in various ways without fear of a specified disclosure causing loss of priority. Do you know how much inventors availed themselves of that ability?
This career choice is not for everyone. It can be very stressful, but also very rewarding.
Although I do write software patents for some clients, my practice is more broad than that. I deal with patent, trademark, and copyright (intellectual property) issues, as well as contracts regarding software, books, art, and ip issues. I also handle litigation about all of those issues.
No. We are afraid that someone will read what we say and think that we represent them or are giving them legal advice. We have to be very careful about what we say we are doing and what we say we're not doing. If you go to your doctor and he says you need to have a mole removed, if you don't schedule an appointment to have the mole removed, it's your fault. With legal services, if I tell someone they need to file a patent or what not, if it's not really clear that I'm not doing it unless they engage me to, then they might have an argument that they thought I was taking that action.
So, on most legal blogs, you'll see something that says "I'm not the reader's lawyer."
I disagree it happens on "most" legal blogs, maybe legal blogs written by lawyers who don't understand the law. Show me one case where a lawyer has been successfully sued for "offering legal advice" through a public blog post or comment. There is no basis for these disclaimers and the practice just pollutes discussion.
Disclaimer: I am a former software engineer, now a patent attorney. But, I am not your lawyer, nor am I the lawyer for anyone who reads this. (Sorry, I have to say that).
Anyway, the USPTO has had 50% lowered fees for "small entities" for some time now. The patent office will soon add a new "micro entity" classification (paying 75% of fees) that might help individuals without a lot of money. The total filing cost as a micro entity will be just over 300 bucks. That's pretty reasonable considering the work involved in examining a patent application.
Thanks! I do think they could lower fees for individuals,
but put a limit on the number of patents, or Trademarks
a person could file--maybe just one at the reduced fee?
Corporations and LLC's would not get the discount.
I don't think their would be a rush of individual inventors
overloading the department with frivilious, Nolo Press enabled patent requests.
Plus, if that became reality; they could drop the program.
If anyone reads this, avoid any patent service that advertises on t.v.. Research your patient before you
hire a attorney, or DIY.
My main gripe was with the Tradmark fees. I don't
remember the fee, but even if it was $300.00--that's still
too high--especially for a www.mywebsite567.whatever?
I personally think the larger the company, the higher the
fee. Didn't Apple try to patent rounded edges?
This is a pretty cool idea, and something I would have considered trying to get my boss to pay for when I was a developer. I didn't see on your website - do you test on a wide variety of hardware platforms, or just iPhone 5 and iPad? Different versions of iOS?
Also, do you have any terms, in particular, regarding confidentiality?
Thanks for asking! We do test on common devices (retina/non-retina iPad, iOS 5/6), and we're going to carefully consider which devices to cover as we grow. I am also very aware of the importance of confidentiality, such as keeping test results private -- I think the service wouldn't make sense without it. Our exact terms will be available before we publicly launch.
