Posts Tagged: "famous inventors"

This is an age old question that is really the patent/invention equivalent of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Moving forward with a patent doesn’t make a lot of sense if the invention is not likely to be marketable. I always tell folks that the best invention to patent is one you will make money with regardless of having a patent, so I do believe there needs to be market considerations factored into the analysis. After all, the goal is to make money. Investing in a business, or investing to obtain a patent only makes sense if there is a reason to believe more money will be made than spent. Having said that, without a patent pending you have absolutely no protection, at least unless you obtain a signed confidentiality agreement and even then the protection will be applicable only to those who have signed the agreement.

This experience in helping Southern farmers improve the soil in their fields soon led to what was to become a passion for Carver: peanuts. While peanuts were very useful in enriching the soil with nutrients, a new problem then arose: what to do with this plentiful crop of peanuts? And having now encouraged farmers to plant more peanuts to enrich the soil, Carver felt it was his obligation to find more uses for what was now becoming an overabundant commodity. So in 1903, Carver began working in earnest on peanut science, and especially on the potential uses of peanuts. This research by Carver on peanuts made him the innovator of what eventually became a highly marketable and profitable industry now worth well in excess of $500 million.

George Washington Carver was not only a talented innovator, but was also an extremely gifted educator and scientist.

“Today, Congress is under another call to weaken patent protection. This time the alleged culprit is a so-called “patent troll” who, according to some reports, hijacks inventions and while providing no product and therefore no societal value, extorts billions of dollars from the economy. This story could not be further from the truth. The argument is based on highly questionable data. Some of the claims are that patents asserted by so-called “patent trolls” are much weaker than patents asserted by others, that these entities cause billions of dollars of unnecessary cost, and that the number of patent infringement lawsuits has risen dramatically due to the so-called “patent trolls.” All of these assertions are highly disputed.”

The question should not be whether you can get a patent, but rather whether any patent you are able to obtain is worth the investment. In other words, is the scope of protection meaningful? But to answer that question you really need to consider several business questions first… Wrapped up in what we have been discussing is a very simple question that many inventors fail to ask. It is this: is a market for your invention… The goal of this article has been to point out that there are a great number of things that need to be considered before you decide to move forward down the patent path. As with many complex systems in life there is no single correct way to move forward. The goal should be to move forward in a business responsible manner.

There are some who say that the number of patents Woods obtained is at least 60, may be even much higher. But from Professor Fouché’s book, I’ve only identified 45 patents for Woods which is still a pretty awesome figure. These patents may be divided into essentially 4 technology categories: (1) induction telegraphy of which there are 8 patents; (2) electrical railways of which there are 20 patents; (3) other electrical devices of which there are 13 patents; and (4) 4 patents on “other inventions” that don’t fall into any specific category. This article focuses only the first category of inventions, induction telegraphy, for which Woods is most famous for. So why is induction telegraphy important? Well…

On January 27, 1880, Thomas Edison received U.S. Patent No. 223,898, which was simply titled “Electric Lamp.” Perhaps Edison’s most famous inventions were the phonograph, motion pictures and the light-bulb. Truth be told, however, Edison didn’t really “invent” the lightbulb, but rather he improved upon the technology by developing a light-bulb that used a lower current electricity, a small carbonized filament, and an improved vacuum inside the globe. Edison’s invention lead to a reliable, long-lasting source of light. Prior to Edison’s invention lightbulbs lasted only a few hours and now they could last 50 to 60 days, making them practical. So it is entirely fair to say that Thomas Edison invented the first commercially useful lightbulb.

Several years ago I was speaking to an inventor group about carefully selecting who they work with so they work only with reputable companies. At the time one particular invention promotion company, as near as I could tell had a remarkably low success rate. This company reported their successes all-time and reported the number of clients over 5 years, making it impossible to know what the success rate actually was. At best the success rate was approximately 1 in 2,700, but likely was much worse. I asked the room full of inventors this simple question: If I told you that only 1 in 2,700 inventors would ever succeed how many of you would be convinced that you would be the 1 and not the other 2,699? Virtually everyone raised their hand. That eternal optimism is wonderful, but it also contributes to getting taken advantage of by those who make money by telling you your invention is wonderful when that really isn’t the case.

It is absolutely critical to understand that a reference, such as an issued patent or published patent application, does not need to be identical to an invention in order for the reference to qualify as prior art. A reference can be used as prior art for whatever the reference explains. For example, if you design 5-wheel transportation device you are going to have to distinguish all other wheeled transportation devices, regardless of whether they are identical. So if a patent examiner finds a 4-wheeled transportation device that will be used against you as prior art. It will be up to you to explain why your 5-wheel device is not obvious in light of the 4-wheel device. The critical question will be this: Why wouldn’t it have simply been obvious to simply add another wheel?