Re: WTF patents
- From: "Clark" <CP@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:52:27 -0600
Another thing is the Patents do not have to work, and in many cases some
could never work.
"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:55:54 +0100, the renowned Rene Tschaggelar
> <none@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Walter Harley wrote:
>>> I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art. Consider US
>>> patent application 20050218880 (http://tinyurl.com/al578), "Apparatus
>>> powering an electronic musical instrument".
>>> I cannot figure out what this guy thinks he is patenting, that is not
>>> already prior art (consider in particular the "phantom power" scheme for
>>> microphones, and the fact that Alembic basses in the 1970s used external
>>> power sources). The only part of this that *might* be novel is the idea
>>> having an on-board rechargeable energy source, and recharging it by
>>> a power adapter into the signal jack.
>>> But IANAL.
>>> Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent (application) is
>>> actually defensible?
>>> And, is there any way for a member of the general public (me) to weigh
>>> with prior art on a patent application, before it's granted?
>>> FWIW, the application was filed March 31 2005, and the device was
>>> demonstrated by the "inventor" at the NAMM show in January 2005. I
>>> public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it?? Maybe
>>> confused about that.
>>Basically yes, making it public before the
>>application invalidates it.
> In the US there is a grace period of one year in which to file after
> public disclosure, but merely announcing the existence of the
> invention or demonstrating it does not necessarily constitute "public
> disclosure"-- you pretty much have to spill the beans on *how* it
> works, not just what it does. Offering it for sale has the same effect
> as public disclosure in the US. In Europe disclosure is a bar to
> patent. standard disclaimers: AFAIUI. IANAPL.
>>Having been granted a patent means the application
>>fulfilled some formal requirements. The content
>>is not regarded. A patent is only valid until
>>it is defeated.
> Or until it times out.
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany
> "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
> speff@xxxxxxxxxxxx Info for manufacturers:
> Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
- Prev by Date: Re: Difference between a DLL and a PLL
- Next by Date: Re: IC capable of driving 30MHz 10 Vp sin into 300pF
- Previous by thread: Re: WTF patents
- Next by thread: Re: WTF patents