What I am wondering is whether or not having an idea for a product constitutes any sort of intellectual property?
Let me use an example to explain. Say I have an idea that people would rush out to buy a combination televsion / toaster. Of course there is the problem that I know absolutely nothing about the manufacture of either televisions or toasters. But say I’ve got a list of all the features, how I would like it to perform (from a user’s or consumer’s perspective), perhaps an idea or two for a marketing campaign. Does this idea constitute anything that I could approach a manufacturer of either televisions or toasters with and not be laughed out the door? Of course the tv / toast idea is absurd, but if the idea had some merit, do I have myself something I can sell? Or am I just the crazy uncle that sees a new product on televison and screams, “Toast from your TV! That was my idea!” You know, the uncle you forget to invite to family functions.
I think semantically you could say it’s intellectual property, but legal protection is thin unless you have a patent. And IANAPA but I think you have to have more than the concept to get a patent, though IIRC you no longer need to provide a working prototype.
I think there are probably lots of examples where someone like you walked into the door of a company with an idea, they laughed them out the door, then 3 months later the company was raking in the dough from selling that very product.
No; invention is concept and implementation; it’s no use me saying that I have a wonderful idea for, say, a personal fusion reactor - unless I can detail how it works - otherwise it would just be a license to steal the glory and rewards for someone else’s effort when and if they actually manage to invent a personal fusion reactor.
Yes, your idea is your intellectual property, and you can apply for a document which legally recognises that property, called a patent. The patent must disclose all the details necessary for someone skilled in the relevant field to make your invention. Marketing and such is utterly irrelevant: only the technical contribution is relevant. It gives you the right to a monopoly on your invention, just like the deeds to your house gives you and you alone a monopoly on living there.
Unfortunately, to get such a document, you must declare it to the Patent Office first, before any other public declaration. Like the one you just made on a message board.
As for your toaster/TV idea itself, a monopoly will only be granted if it has never been done before (ie. is novel) and is not “obvious”. Simple “collocations” like putting two or more arbitrary things together fall foul of being “obvious”.
To clarify, your idea would only be patentable if it made a technical contribution to the art of either televisions or toasters. Merely putting the two together would not be patentable unless you could argue that some new technical result was effected by putting the two together.
Another thing to consider is that you have no way of knowing someone else hasn’t already had that idea. (How would you know you aren’t stealing ‘their’ idea?)
For combining two products like tv/toaster, it’s a pretty safe bet that someone, somewhere in the entire world, has already had that idea.
Most manufacturers don’t entertain unsolicited concepts from outside their own development department, and if they do, they require you to sign an agreement that protects them from litigation in case they already have a television/toaster in development. Basically, they won’t even look at an outside idea unless you wave your rights to sue them if they steal it.
With regard to patents, this is known as “prior art”. I’ve heard it said that most patents are weak in this area - if you look hard enough, you can find something in print that mentions the idea and pre-dates the patent.
Quite a few persons/companies were working to develop a practical lightbulb before Edison nailed it. His contribution was in figuring out a proper filament, in his case tungsten for durablitiy and efficiency. That technical contribution allowed him alone to be recognized as the Inventor of the light bulb. He was not the only one, or even the first to think of it.
It’s European law. Here nothing is patentable that is publicly known - even if it was published by the inventor. As far as I know that is different in the US.
Outside of questions of law, to me it wouldn’t be an invention. Many many people before the Wright brothers had the idea of making a flying machine, but none were successful.
Without wishing to appeal solely to authority, it’s actually my job! I’m not so familiar with US patent law, but the US is rather lax in granting monopolies left, right and centre on ‘inventions’ which would be rejected almost immediately in the rest of the industrialised world. Here, any details disclosed in public become “prior art”. Some careless applicants have become extremely frustrated when their own prior art has been cited against the novelty of their application.
And if your patent is still “pending”, it hasn’t been granted yet: whatever was found might still impugn your application.
Fascinating. So it all comes down to the definition of “published” or “disclosed in public.” I included some of the details in a book I was working on, which was published the year after the patent application was filed. My understanding was that once the paperwork has been filed with the USPTO, you can disclose anything you want to anybody you wish.
The disclosures prior to filing the patent application were all to potential customers, as we were trying to guage the market value of the invention. I’m still safe then, right?
