How Inventors Always Get Screwed
informationweek.com
informationweek.com
It does not hold water, there are plenty of inventors that did really well from their inventions, there are also quite a few that did not profit at all. On the whole it is as with any other creative job, if you're not good in both the business side and the creative side team up with somebody who is (it still exposes you to the risk that they'll take your money).
The Armstrong story is quite sad by the way, he committed suicide because he lost a patent fight he should have won.
"You cannot develop a reputation for somebody who gives up. You have to be known as a fighter for your rights. Otherwise, you'll never license anything...Even Thomas Edison had a tough time supporting and protecting his patents. He spent about $1.4 million [to defend his inventions], and this was around the turn of the century, when beer was a nickel." -Jerome Lemelson
Jerome Lemelson, who was arguably the most successful American inventor (in terms of money received, not brilliance - some of his 600 patents are questionable) in decades, was a patent-holder of many key patents relating to magnetic recording. And stuff like the flexible track used by Mattel's Matchbox cars.
He spent years in court suing the big players like Sony to pay him licensing fees. He ultimately prevailed in many cases and now his foundation helps support patent rights for inventors and helps bootstrap and reward promising inventors.
To me, the Kearns case was just an early example of an obvious patent that would never have been granted by any examiner smart enough to fog a mirror.
Five years and several million cars later, Kearns jumps out of the bushes and whacks you in the kneecap with a lawsuit. What should your penalty be? Do you agree with the judge that you owe some guy $10,000,000 for a trivial idea that he happened to have before you did?
[Kearns] first patent for the [intermittent wipers] was filed on December 1, 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
The 555 timer, however, was designed and invented by Hans R. Camenzind ... in 1970 and introduced in 1971 by Signetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC
The 555 didn't exist when he invented his wipers. What is your solution now?
Given almost any mechanical or electrical technology, there exists means of using that technology to control the duty cycles of machines. The 555 was just an example of what you might use to implement an intermittent wiper.
As I understand it, accessories like windshield wipers originally operated from manifold vacuum, so the patent probably describes some sort of vacuum-based contraption which would be as obvious to MEs as a timer circuit is to EEs.
Another point being, even if it were a novel concept when implemented with vacuum lines and valves, it certainly wouldn't be novel or unexpected when cheap solid-state electronics did arrive on the scene. But chances were good that the patent claims were broad enough to hold sway over future implementations. (Disclaimer: I haven't read it.)
So fast-forward your 8-track to the early 70s: windshield wipers are now run from the car's electrical system, and wow, hey, cool, here's the 555... and meanwhile the goofy patent's still in force.
That said, Its not about how simple or how hard an idea is right? Its about how much value it adds.
EDIT: In your example, as long as it is not willful infringement and as long as he started making them before he patented it, there will not be any penalty. But in case of ford and Chrysler, its willful infringement.
If the plaintiff can show that you did know about the patent and infringe it willfully, the damages are tripled.
Our cost of living would go down and progress would go up if more folks invented stuff because there was money in it. Why is that a bad thing?
It's entirely possible to imagine a patent system that would work against the goals of lowering the cost of living and making progress 'go up'; such a system would be one in which:
- patent infringement carries heavy penalties when successfully prosecuted
- individual patent licenses must be negotiated individually; there's nothing resembling a compulsory licensing scheme
- researching the existing body of patents is difficult, expensive, and often inconclusive (bonus points: in addition to upfront cost of researching, actually having done the research potentially opens you to steeper penalties than would be the case had you not done the research)
- so many patents have been granted that in many fields it is hard to produce a product without using patented technology in some way (either by infringement or by licensing)
- maintaining ownership of a patent carries minimal ongoing expense, carries no obligation to put the patent to use (in licensing or in direct production)
- there's essentially no economically significant 'time-out' or statute of limitations on filing charges for past infringement
I leave as exercise to the reader deriving optimal strategies under such a system for inventors, patent-holding firms, and manufacturers.
Whether the system we have resembles the system sketched above depends greatly upon who you ask, what field with which they happen to have the most experience, their previous professional background, and from whence their current livelihood derives.