This Week's installment of American Inventor Commentary
The thing missing on American Inventor or at least the segments broadcast is any discussion of the patentability of the inventions. Many of the inventions that have got through to the second round are just not patentable.
And the producers of the show are not going to give a one million dollar advance on royalties to an invention that cannot be protected. Why? Because if the invention is not protectable, any number of competitors will simply copy the device potentially undercutting the manufacturer chosen by the producers.
Actually, I shouldn't be so harsh; there is a chance that an unprotectable invention can be successful. But the chances are just so much smaller than with an invention that can be protected with a strong broad patent.
The panel of judges just don't seem to get the importance of protection. Tonight a nice old lady with paper sheets was passed on to the next round. I would be shocked if the product or the method of using the product could be protected. I suspect with a few minutes or the help of my expert patent searcher I could show that a significant portion of the inventions that advanced to the next round over the last three weeks are not even novel. In other words, they were likely invented by others before the new inventors decided to appear on the show.
What the show needs is a patent attorney judge to render an opinion on the protectability of the inventions. I really expected to see one among the panel. Instead they appear to have a businessman, a couple of marketing types, and a very successfully inventor/engineer. While Doug Hall, the inventor, comes close to filling the role an attorney would fill, he isn't a patent attorney and he just doesn't approach the decision of who to pass the same way a patent attorney would.
So Simon, if you by some strange coincidence you come to read this, I am available ;>)
1 Comments:
I agree that the problem with the show is that there is too much emphasis on the marketability of a product and not enough on the potential for obtaining a patent on the commercial embodiment (at the least).
As a patent attorney, I get some enjoyment out of the show in trying to decide whether (arrogantly perhaps) I could obtain a meaningful patent on some of the products / ideas presented. But, I am often frustrated b/c I do not see many products that are (a) capable of meaningful patent protection and (b) commercial marketable.
I was particularly bothered that the panel passed on the young man with the improved dog house / carrier. It seemed to be an improvement over the art, and although in a somewhat "niche" market, probably could command a nice dollar amount in a multi-billion dollar industry. I formerly worked at one firm where our biggest client was in the pet product industry, and it generated a hefty chunk of change, and this business was not the biggest player in the market.
BTW - I enjoy your blog. One of these days, I will finally commit to offering a patent law blog worth reading.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home