Anybody know about Patents?

[Cornucopia]

Hey guys

I have a method for enhancing DVD playback that I want to see if I can patent, and later sell. I know some of you are well connected. Do any of you know of a good patent attorney, or good website that clearly navigates the US patent morass (or both)? I'm in Central Illinois, US, if that helps.

Can't tell you more now, but once the process is further along, I'll let you guys in on my stuff. If all goes well, it'll be sweet!

Scott

[housepig]

I used to work for various law firms and as a private contractor at the Patent & Trademark Office in Arlington, VA.... spent about 15 years there, plus I grew up with a Patent Agent as a dad.

My suggestion to you is to contact someone to do a Patent search first, before you contact an attorney. (The first thing an attorney is going to do is have a search done for prior art or relevant patents... you can either pay someone a few hundred to do one first, or you can pay an attorney a few thousand to get started, and he'll pay someone a few hundred to do the search...)

I can recommend a couple of good guys who won't gouge you. Have someone do a search, and listen to what they say... you may find that your idea is already covered by existing patents, or that it will take extensive narrowing and revision before it's patentable. The more you can refine before filing, the less you'll have to pay out the nose to do the revisions back and forth with the Patent Examiner.

Also keep in mind that just because you have a patent on something doesn't mean it's marketable, or valuable. I've seen tons of great patents for stuff where I would have walked out and bought the product in a second... but it never got past the patent stage - no one wanted to manufacture it.

The last thing to think about - the Patent process has undergone serious revisions in the past decade, not all of them good. There are a lot of patents that are being granted that aren't worth the paper they are printed on, due to sloppy work and a sausage-grinder quota system (my brother in law is on the other side of the fence, he works for the gov't as an examiner, so I get to hear how the other half lives...). The upshot is that a patent issued in the last few years may not be valid, due to bad prior art searching.

So the nature of the business is changing from patentability ("hey! I've got a great idea! I'm going to patent it!") to validity ("I want to make this, but I'd be infringing this patent - let's see if we can get it tossed out because it never should have been issued in the first place!").

This is rife in software patents - you may end up with a spanking-fresh software patent, only to have Sony or somebody pay to have it "reexamined" and determine that it should not have been issued, because it's too broad, or it was anticipated by other patents, etc. etc. etc.

Think about that before you sink large dollars ($x0,000's) into getting a process. An initial search is a cheap way to float your idea and see if it's worth pursuing.

hope this wasn't more info than you wanted.....

[i_am_dave]

Yeah, the patent mill can be a real drag. Every year, the coporate patent attorney comes through looking for ideas.
I have submitted three in the last few years. Two were deemed not worthy, one is still in the works.
I think I get $25 if the company is granted a patent.

On the other hand, we are planning to release a product later this year when a competitors patent lapses.

[Cornucopia]

Not at all, Thanks, that helps alot!

I knew a Patent search would be involved, just didn't know when in the process it was needed. If you have those names, I'd be happy to contact them.

My worst fears aren't so much that it isn't marketable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think I could interest a number of chipmakers and software companies. My problem will probably be with members of the DVD Forum, who either will claim prior art via some "perceived" possibility that has since been secret and dormant, or they'll claim it messes too much with their own patents and spec-though it doesn't, and they'll muscle the player vendors into not accepting it.

Thanks again,

Scott

[housepig]

If you have those names, I'd be happy to contact them.

give me a couple of days to make a couple of calls to Virginia - I haven't worked out there in a few years, I want to make sure these guys aren't retired and get current numbers for them.

I'll drop you a PM with the info.

Also be aware that a software, electrical or chemical search is usually more expensive than a straight mechanical or design search, mainly because they require more book learnin'... I was able to do basic mechanical searches with no specialized schooling or training, just learning on the job, but chemical, electrical and software searches usually mean you have a degree or major field experience, and that costs more.

But I'll see who I can get you in touch with.

[Cornucopia]

Thanks for the help that you gave me. However,...

I don't know if you realized this, but you can now do light independent patent searches FOR FREE on the internet. (For US) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html. This is great for small inventor guys, like me, who don't want to spend $$$ and have enough knowledge to be able to read through the legalese of a patent. Great so far...

Unfortunately, my idea is already patented. By Panasonic/Matsushita in 1997/8. You can see what my idea was (is?) by looking up US Pat. # 6,574,423. It's almost completely identical to mine (except I was only concentrating on the stereo3d and not the progressive/HD stuff).

Now, I sure as H3LL hope they don't sit on their butts with this! It's still a great set of features, they just need to market it. Time seems to be about ripe for this kind of stuff.



I guess I'll just have to come up with something else...

Scott

[housepig]

Cornucopia -

sorry I haven't gotten back to you yet - had a crazy week, totally spaced on it.

I don't know if you realized this, but you can now do light independent patent searches FOR FREE on the internet. (For US) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html. This is great for small inventor guys, like me, who don't want to spend $$$ and have enough knowledge to be able to read through the legalese of a patent.

That's the kicker, though... most inventors are not familiar with the language of patents, and not familiar with the myriad ways something can be classified, so if you can successfully navigate that minefield without experience, you are truly one of the chosen...

The problem with the move to computer, keyword -based searches is that some of the stuff is not indexed by the keywords you'd ordinarily think of - so if you don't search the paper records and search by class & subclass, you may miss a pile of relevant art.

sorry you found ["killed"] your concept, but I'm glad the PTO site had the tools you needed - this stuff does get expensive. But I still think it's worth it - the people who have been there, doing this every day, it's like anything else - experience helps you think around corners.

come up with another idea, and I'll put you in touch with my guys

[thayne]

Whats your idea?

[Cornucopia]

Idea:

Enhance DVD player functionality to accommodate stereoscopic 3d videos.
Novel way to do it--make use of little-used "Multi-Angle" feature (e.g. LeftEye=Angle1, RightEye=Angle2). Player must be modified to include higher disc play speed (so buffer can fill fast enough), larger memory buffer (for dual picture sychronization), either dual decoding units-or 1 double-speed decoding unit, and the main thing--have player switch to "ignore" the usual response to multiangle--read as L1,R1,L2,R2,L3,R3 and toggle output to separate decoding spaces instead of reading AngleA1-skipB1-readA2-skipB2-readA3-skipB3-readA4 etc.
Then separate "output compositor" unit, which gives user choice of output type--single screen side-by-side, anaglyph, LC shutter field interlaced, LC shutter frame interlaced, double-frequency interlacing (for 120Hz progressive units), or simultaneous dual outputs for polarizing projectors or autostereoscopic displays.

Benefits: Total disc compatibility with std. 2d/monoscopic players, total player compatibility with std. 2d/monoscopic discs, output/display style independent of storage style--upgradeable, can mix and match 2d and 3d segments on same disc/title

Drawbacks: limited to lower max bitrate (7.8/8.0 max instead of 9.8 Mbps), double size of title means video must take up more space on disc or bitrate be lowered or must use dual-layer to get 2 1/4 hours (std length), video angles must be encoded identically as per multiangle GOP, etc requirements. That's it!

Not too bad, huh?
Scott

[thayne]

Went right over my head! LOL, sounds cool though. Would you need to wear 3d glasses?

[Cornucopia]

That's one of the cool things about it--since it's independant of the viewing style, all you do is just switch it to the type that you want to (and can afford) to use.

Example of 3d viewing types (in ascending order of goofy to cool, as well as ascending in cost):

1. Side-by-Side / view by crossing your eyes, free
2. Anaglyph / view with Red-Cyan glasses, $1.00each
3. LC-shutter Field Interlaced / view with LC shutter glasses & std TV, ~$50-550 for glasses & controller
4. LC-shutter double rate interlaced / view with higher quality LC shutter glasses & PC monitor or HiDef & double scan TV, ~$200---$4k?
5. Dual output, to Projector with double scan polarizing filters / view with Polarized glasses --$1.00-$10.00, projector--$2000-$20k?
6. Dual output to Autostereoscopic monitor / no glasses needed, $4k-$20k for monitor

Scott