I had been alone doing some part-time development of a product for the last two years. The product itself helps collaborating on rich data mainly targeted at the SMB.
The idea has some novelty and it has made me look into several technology areas like Semantic web, text mining, Software architecture, Visualization etc. At the end of it all before I put it out on the web I thought I had some interesting way to solve some of these problems and approached a patent attorney only to know that I cannot apply for a patent if it is published on the web. Or rather if I wanted to patent some of the ideas I need to do it before I put it out even if it is a beta.
The next thing was, I paid close to 500+ USD in Indian rupees to go for a prior art search. And boom came a bunch of patents, one of them had 100s of pages of write up which were all laid before me with some sections across each of these patents marked to be resembling the write up I gave about my invention. My attorney had advised that if my invention (as given by me) is found in one or more patents in a scattered manner and there is nothing non-obvious over and beyond what is already there the chances of getting a patent granted would be negative.
I have been reading them for a week now. I have gone nuts literally trying to understand the soupy noodles like language only to ask myself 'What the heck are you trying to say at last?'. I did find some parts of those patents talking similar terms and methods of solving it. But I did figure out that either some of them are overtly broad and vague to even realize them as them or they ended up solving different problems, even though some parts of the methods are similar. I got a feeling that I still have something exclusive that can be patented.
But now I started to think if I should do a 'Provisional patent' which is like adding myself to the beginning of a queue which denotes my invention allowing me to go back and file a proper patent application within a year. This gets me the right to say 'Patent Pending' and probably prevents some one else coming out with similar stuff and claiming rights over it. A non-provisional one is a proper one. The cost of a provisional one is another 1000+ USD more (over and above the prior art). Non-provisional would be like 4500+ USD (over and above prior art). Which one should I choose? You can help me with your experience and thoughts. However, here is what I am thinking about this.
I will go for a provisional one. Mainly because, I feel I have to do a clean job of depicting the problem space and the method to solve it, highlighting the novelty, adequately bringing out the differences from existing patents. This is a time consuming affair. Also, I would be able to understand what I have been doing even clearer. If you ask me the question of how can I do something in the first place without knowing what I was up to, the answer would be like 'not all problems are definite. Some times, you start building stuff with an idea of solving a class of problems, which can cut across domains and as you do it, you may find more interesting ways to solve even a broader set'. This may go well against the notion of a start up which should always be closing on their goals and coming out with an answer quickly. I somehow could not do this party due to my part-time work and partly because it was a broader, generic problem cutting across domains.
Anyways, coming to the issue of prov or non-prov.., I would like to get a year's time to better understand the work I have done, the future expansions to it and the work that has already been done by others. This may mean I blow away 1000 USD. However I do not feel it to be something big given the value I may end up generating on this one.
The other thing is about the fact that I need to get some funding going forward mainly due to the need for me to realize a domain specific use case over the generic tool I have been building. This phase 2 requires business partnering, marketing, some hands to help me out on the tech side and others. So, I have come to realize that I cannot move forward without a VC funding on this phase 2 thing. I believe a patent pending status gives a very good value in terms of some one who has thought through a lot about the problem area and also have a beta ready application. It will help me strike the right notes.
On the other hand, say I do not see a traction in what I have done in the next one year and if I can evaluate it to be negative, I will drop the idea of patenting without incurring a major cost. It allows me time to toy over the idea, improve it and present it when the context around you begins to show the right way.
Let me know what you think.
The idea has some novelty and it has made me look into several technology areas like Semantic web, text mining, Software architecture, Visualization etc. At the end of it all before I put it out on the web I thought I had some interesting way to solve some of these problems and approached a patent attorney only to know that I cannot apply for a patent if it is published on the web. Or rather if I wanted to patent some of the ideas I need to do it before I put it out even if it is a beta.
The next thing was, I paid close to 500+ USD in Indian rupees to go for a prior art search. And boom came a bunch of patents, one of them had 100s of pages of write up which were all laid before me with some sections across each of these patents marked to be resembling the write up I gave about my invention. My attorney had advised that if my invention (as given by me) is found in one or more patents in a scattered manner and there is nothing non-obvious over and beyond what is already there the chances of getting a patent granted would be negative.
I have been reading them for a week now. I have gone nuts literally trying to understand the soupy noodles like language only to ask myself 'What the heck are you trying to say at last?'. I did find some parts of those patents talking similar terms and methods of solving it. But I did figure out that either some of them are overtly broad and vague to even realize them as them or they ended up solving different problems, even though some parts of the methods are similar. I got a feeling that I still have something exclusive that can be patented.
But now I started to think if I should do a 'Provisional patent' which is like adding myself to the beginning of a queue which denotes my invention allowing me to go back and file a proper patent application within a year. This gets me the right to say 'Patent Pending' and probably prevents some one else coming out with similar stuff and claiming rights over it. A non-provisional one is a proper one. The cost of a provisional one is another 1000+ USD more (over and above the prior art). Non-provisional would be like 4500+ USD (over and above prior art). Which one should I choose? You can help me with your experience and thoughts. However, here is what I am thinking about this.
I will go for a provisional one. Mainly because, I feel I have to do a clean job of depicting the problem space and the method to solve it, highlighting the novelty, adequately bringing out the differences from existing patents. This is a time consuming affair. Also, I would be able to understand what I have been doing even clearer. If you ask me the question of how can I do something in the first place without knowing what I was up to, the answer would be like 'not all problems are definite. Some times, you start building stuff with an idea of solving a class of problems, which can cut across domains and as you do it, you may find more interesting ways to solve even a broader set'. This may go well against the notion of a start up which should always be closing on their goals and coming out with an answer quickly. I somehow could not do this party due to my part-time work and partly because it was a broader, generic problem cutting across domains.
Anyways, coming to the issue of prov or non-prov.., I would like to get a year's time to better understand the work I have done, the future expansions to it and the work that has already been done by others. This may mean I blow away 1000 USD. However I do not feel it to be something big given the value I may end up generating on this one.
The other thing is about the fact that I need to get some funding going forward mainly due to the need for me to realize a domain specific use case over the generic tool I have been building. This phase 2 requires business partnering, marketing, some hands to help me out on the tech side and others. So, I have come to realize that I cannot move forward without a VC funding on this phase 2 thing. I believe a patent pending status gives a very good value in terms of some one who has thought through a lot about the problem area and also have a beta ready application. It will help me strike the right notes.
On the other hand, say I do not see a traction in what I have done in the next one year and if I can evaluate it to be negative, I will drop the idea of patenting without incurring a major cost. It allows me time to toy over the idea, improve it and present it when the context around you begins to show the right way.
Let me know what you think.
