Comments on: Mood-sensing MP3 player

By: attorney blogs

attorney blogs — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:52:10 +0000

I wounder how much money it would take to get a lawyer and fight Disney so that that they get a little less money… More money, more money, more money!

robert
http://attorney-blogs.info/

By: pmd

pmd — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:47:47 +0000

Not sure if that is such a good idea. Some people would never get out of their funk.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:10:43 +0000

ahhhh crap I was going to use this idea for my senior project. now i’m back to square one. everything i seem to come up with has been made already!

By: Vitorio

Vitorio — Sun, 21 May 2006 10:01:22 +0000

Also see prior art from April 2005: The Next button should be huge (and it also needs to record use: hitting Next is a useful datapoint) and There are two buttons my screenless iPod shuffle really needs: Next Track and More Like This.

By: rfreebern

rfreebern — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:06:10 +0000

Meg,
Wow, that’s interesting. I didn’t actually expect to get an actual lawyer’s advice, and what he says pretty much confirms my suspicions — that, while it might be possible to fight Disney’s patent, it would be extremely expensive, difficult, and time-consuming to do so, and we’d most likely end up losing anyway.

I come up with ideas for inventions I’d like to see on a regular basis, but the patent application process is so expensive and difficult that I’ve really never given it a second thought. Besides, unless I’m really willing to commit myself to attempting to start an entirely new business, there’s probably no way I would make any money off the ideas. Too bad, ’cause I think most of them would be pretty useful.

By: Meg Freebern

Meg Freebern — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:50:42 +0000

I know that your question was somewhat rhetorical. I am very curious about patent law (the monster we have created!), so I asked Infineon’s patent counsel about it.

“Briefly, no, this discussion cannot be used as prior art. But, yes, it can be used as prior invention - but, it’s not easy. Your brother-in-law and other inventors would have to file a patent application with the hopes of accomplishing either of two things:

1. Obtain patent protection for claims that are different from what the large company gets - however, if the large company has good patent counsel, they will get the broadest coverage possible - unless your brother-in-law’s idea is different in some way; or

2. Essentially copy the claims of the application filed by the large company into your patent application to provoke what is called an “Interference” by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Once an Interference is declared between two applications, then the parties are required to provide evidence of dates of inventorship to try to determine who was the first to invent. As you may guess, Interference practice is a complicated, time consuming and expensive venture. Interference practice is a specialty area within patent law because there are many rules and deadlines that could easily be overlooked by an inexperienced attorney.

In most cases, the issue of who invented first arises out of some litigation involving multiple patents rather than in an Interference.

Another point to consider is that large companies move slowly. So, if the patent application was just filed, I would say that there is a 90% chance that the company can prove inventorship prior to a date six months ago (prior to documented discussion by your brother-in-law).

Finally, while the U.S. continues to use a “first-to-invent” system rather than a “first-to-file” system as in other countries, the reality is that it is best to file a patent application as soon as possible because it is tough/expensive to prove prior inventorship.”

By: DeeJToneh

DeeJToneh — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:05:15 +0000

I wish id really have a mp3 biult in like yours.