The patent and trademark systems around the World differ.
USPTO is very open to business method patents, and software patents.
In EPO countries software has to have a real World effect, mostly, to be patentable.
Patent agents/attorneys do specialise.
Defensive publication is cheap, no need to get a patent to defend yourself. Though if you want to retain a "secret sauce" as part of your product they could probably help there.
Passing Off is a thing in lots of jurisdictions, like an unregistered trademark. Geography and company size matter in UK/EU trademarks (don't know about others), and you have to trade to retain trademark protection.
>This may help in getting the patent, but it also enables someone else to exploit the same loop holes to file a patent for the copy of our invention by just changing the grammar/vocabulary because our patent was too generic. //
That's not how that works.
I think the takeaway of "capital management might mean patents are a bad fit" is a good one.
In the UK one of the first questions asked of most companies in Dragons Den (equivalent to Shark Tank; an investor seeking "game" show on TV) is "do you have a patent" because they are seeking secure investments. Investor expectations is a big reason to get a patent.
[I'm imagining the author is not in a Western country based on the dropped indefinite articles?? Some idea of their experience would help give authority to the article.]
tl;dr it's a good attempt at an overview, but some things you can't broadbrush. At least seek an overview tailored to your target market.
>>This may help in getting the patent, but it also enables someone else to exploit the same loop holes to file a patent for the copy of our invention by just changing the grammar/vocabulary because our patent was too generic.
>That's not how that works.
I think, it's incomplete when the prior argument for that is not included.
This is the complete argument -
>Unfortunately, patent attorneys tend to force the inventor to not to be specific in describing their invention in the patent application in order to exploit the loop holes in patent examination; This may help in getting the patent, but it also enables someone else to exploit the same loop holes to file a patent for the copy of our invention by just changing the grammar/vocabulary because our patent was too generic.
That is, if you compromise while drafting patent someone else will exploit it the same way.
>Investor expectations is a big reason to get a patent.
I agree, especially if it's a 'proven' HW startup. Emphasis on 'proven', if the patent is not for a solution which solves a real problem with commercial viability, no investor is going to turn your side even if you get a patent i.e. in other words if you are not sure about the success of your product, patents are just a waste of time and wouldn't bring investors magically.
>I'm imagining the author is not in a Western country based on the dropped indefinite articles??
True.
>Some idea of their experience would help give authority to the article.
Close family member is a patent attorney with 20 years experience, having worked for largest multinational companies and current work being facilitating patent deals(usually worth several millions) in a foreign country (My arguments in this content was validated with that attorney). I have personally applied and later abandoned International patents for my products in my earlier startup (The said attorney was not involved in my patent application due to work clauses).
I appreciate what you are trying do here. Startups can always use more education about IP protection. But IP law is very country specific, and it is one of the most complex areas of law.
Some of your myths/truths are dangerous and may cause companies to irrevocably lose IP rights that they probably should protect.
I think that's exactly what I state in explaining the myths, there are 13 occurrences of the word 'country/countries' in my reasoning, I have linked to WIPO and PCT source article where necessary. I don't see a place, where I state universal applicability of my reason; I would definitely correct if mentioned.
>Some of your myths/truths are dangerous and may cause companies to irrevocably lose IP rights that they probably should protect.
That could be dangerous, point me to a specific statement. Much of the criticism by the parent (Which I heartily welcome) comes from picking up a sentence at random but not the prior argument; so they're incomplete.
Agreed. Author is not a patent attorney, I’m willing to bet, and shouldn’t be doling our advice about an intricate and complex area of law that they apparently don’t have a deep understanding of. Approach with caution.
The patent and trademark systems around the World differ.
USPTO is very open to business method patents, and software patents.
In EPO countries software has to have a real World effect, mostly, to be patentable.
Patent agents/attorneys do specialise.
Defensive publication is cheap, no need to get a patent to defend yourself. Though if you want to retain a "secret sauce" as part of your product they could probably help there.
Passing Off is a thing in lots of jurisdictions, like an unregistered trademark. Geography and company size matter in UK/EU trademarks (don't know about others), and you have to trade to retain trademark protection.
>This may help in getting the patent, but it also enables someone else to exploit the same loop holes to file a patent for the copy of our invention by just changing the grammar/vocabulary because our patent was too generic. //
That's not how that works.
I think the takeaway of "capital management might mean patents are a bad fit" is a good one.
In the UK one of the first questions asked of most companies in Dragons Den (equivalent to Shark Tank; an investor seeking "game" show on TV) is "do you have a patent" because they are seeking secure investments. Investor expectations is a big reason to get a patent.
[I'm imagining the author is not in a Western country based on the dropped indefinite articles?? Some idea of their experience would help give authority to the article.]
tl;dr it's a good attempt at an overview, but some things you can't broadbrush. At least seek an overview tailored to your target market.