Carry on believing it, the essence of a patent is that it proves novelty/invention and
subject artefact  is not based on prior art/common knowledge. The enemy of this is
premature disclosure. Having said that, big money is changing this. In the US in
particular companies now appear to be to be able to patent discoveries, (I refer to
genetics), but that's a long way from electronic assemblies.

Incidentally my experience of protecting IP was that it  was better to copyright it.
Certainly in program codes on projects we worked on, connecting our devices (or any
product using our pirated code) to a PC com port  produced an on screen message stating
stolen from "our name" also details of our legal representative.....

Mike Fenner


----- Original Message -----
From: joyce <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 28 January 2000 20:42
Subject: Re: [TN] patents


> What is going on in the world?  I always believed that "common knowledge" is
> not patentable.  Anything that were published prior to patent (application
> file date) are not patentable.  That is why some of the industry guide their
> dearest IP as "Trade Secret", the boardest possible claim as "patent", and
> fight to publish papers if it is potentially might hurt the chance to get
> some patent out (avoid it to become "common knowledge")...Is that all
> changed lately?
>                                     jk
> At 07:39 AM 1/28/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >No, patents are really quit useful. How else could you protect your
> >investment of time and effort in inventing a new mousetrap.
> >
> >But a long time ago I was taught a few easy rules to determine whether or
> >not an invention was worthy of a patent:
> >        Is there no prior art?
> >        Is the invention not obvious to someone skilled in the art?
> >        Is the invention being reduced to reality? (are you "building a working
> >one"; due diligence)
> >And if I could answer those questions in the positive it would be time to go
> >for it.
> >
> >The most used circumvention is of the third one and these days due diligence
> >seems to stretch into many years and now the word used when one of those
> >patents pops up after everyone has become accustomed to using the
> >unannounced patent  is "submarine patent". (Is machine-vision one of those?)
> >
> >Ahne.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:   TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ryan Grant
> >Sent:   Thursday, January 27, 2000 15:00 PM
> >To:     [log in to unmask]
> >Subject:        [TN] patents
> >
> >I hear you loud and clear Paul.  I'm not a fan of patents in general.
> >ESPECIALLY when a tangible product is not made before the patent.  For
> >example, the guy that has a patent on the vision systems used on pick and
> >place machines.
> >
> >At the risk of being flamed, I think most patents get in the way of
> >technological development.  Very few individuals hold patents; the company
> >they work for hold the patent.  So in a sense, an individuals idea is being
> >stolen by the company they work for anyway since that individual can't take
> >their patented idea to the next company they work
... snip

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################