SONY and three layer sensor patent

[DaSonyGuy]

There need to be an implementation for a patent to be valid.

Whats an implementation can be discussed of course. And it is in particular problematic with regard to programming, where the difference between algorithm and implementation not always is glass clear.

But - the idea to use a layered design for color sensors is not patentable I would say.

But - an actual implementation is patentable - even an impractical one.

An implementation that does not work? Hmmmm .. dont know. It feels like its against the idea of patents. But several levitation machines are patented. And I have never seen one that works.

Actually I think you have, because a Helicopter can be classed as a levitation machine

What you wont have seen working are perpertual motion machines, which impossible or not, have also been patented.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Actually I think you have, because a Helicopter can be classed as a levitation machine

no no ... an helicopter does not levitate. It pushes an airflow downwards ... and climbs on it. A truly levitation machine does not use such cheap trick ... nor does it use a magnetic field. It just levitates.

What you wont have seen working are perpertual motion machines, which impossible or not, have also been patented.

I think perpetual motion machines are no longer allowed.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[Roland Karlsson]

The main reason for patents is to avoid the situation where inventions are kept secret.

Not really. The main reason for patents is to allow the inventor/s to reserve and protect the sole right to capitalise finacially from an invention for set number of years...Normally 20 years if I recall correctly.

Thats not the reason ... thats the method. The reason for introducing patents was to enhance the development in companies. The means for this purpose is to protect the inventor.

I have several inventions I'm keeping secret, but purely because I cant afford to patent them.

Then ... why dont you tell the world about them? What would you lose?

A British patent, which currently costs about £200 per year, is'nt worth the paper its printed on as it only covers an invention in the UK and there are plenty of other countries, such as the USA, China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan to name a few, that can and will happily exploit your invention with no means of redress. This means having to get a worldwide patent, and that can cost many thousands of pounds, and because its so expensive it could mean that right now there could be thousands or even millions of world changing inventions like mine out there that will never see the light of day:-(

US has a simplified patent application that is very cheap. If you then find that it is a good idea ... then you can extend the patent ... with the original priority date.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[DaSonyGuy]

The main reason for patents is to avoid the situation where inventions are kept secret.

Not really. The main reason for patents is to allow the inventor/s to reserve and protect the sole right to capitalise finacially from an invention for set number of years...Normally 20 years if I recall correctly.

Thats not the reason ... thats the method. The reason for introducing patents was to enhance the development in companies. The means for this purpose is to protect the inventor.

But it does'nt, it just protects the company...If someone invents something while working for a company, its the company that gets the patent and the inventor loses all his rights.

I have several inventions I'm keeping secret, but purely because I cant afford to patent them.

Then ... why dont you tell the world about them? What would you lose?

Potentially, billions of pounds!

A British patent, which currently costs about £200 per year, is'nt worth the paper its printed on as it only covers an invention in the UK and there are plenty of other countries, such as the USA, China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan to name a few, that can and will happily exploit your invention with no means of redress. This means having to get a worldwide patent, and that can cost many thousands of pounds, and because its so expensive it could mean that right now there could be thousands or even millions of world changing inventions like mine out there that will never see the light of day:-(

US has a simplified patent application that is very cheap. If you then find that it is a good idea ... then you can extend the patent ... with the original priority date.

If it is'nt a good idea then it is'nt worth patenting it in the first place.

 

[Mostly Lurking]

Thank you. After a quick read---and re-confirming that I'm certainly no expert in either the technology or patent law---I still believe that Sony's device must be 'subservient' to Foveon's. It appears to me that Sony's method is simply a more complex way of implementing the same thing and that Foveon's patent covers the concept / use as much as the implementation.

Regardless, regards!
--
William Wilgus

 

[Mostly Lurking]

The main reason for patents is to avoid the situation where inventions are kept secret. Any reward and remuneration of the inventor is solely a company decision and has nothing to do with patent law.

Patents protect the inventor against un-compensated use of the invention or discovery. No person or entity may use the invention or discovery without the permission of the patent holder. Therefore, the inventor says ' pay me royalties and you may use my invention / discovery'.

--
William Wilgus

 

[Mostly Lurking]

the preparation of the application is not. It involves patent lawyers, patent searches, etc.
--
William Wilgus

 

[Mostly Lurking]

Whether an invention or discovery by an employee belongs to the company or employee depends upon whether the invention or discovery was made on company time or personal time, with company resoources or personal resources, . . . and the employee's employment contract.

--
William Wilgus

 

[Mostly Lurking]

--
William Wilgus

 

[Mostly Lurking]

There's no guarantee that its entries are correct. I've seen some wrong information there.
--
William Wilgus

 

[DaSonyGuy]

the preparation of the application is not. It involves patent lawyers, patent searches, etc.

Patent searches are done by the patent office whilst patent is pending and you dont have to pay anything until the patent is granted.
The use of patent lawyers is optional.

 

[DaSonyGuy]

Actually I think you have, because a Helicopter can be classed as a levitation machine

no no ... an helicopter does not levitate. It pushes an airflow downwards ... and climbs on it. A truly levitation machine does not use such cheap trick ... nor does it use a magnetic field. It just levitates.

Anything that defies gravity can rightfully be said to be levitating...How something achieves the levitation is not important.

What you wont have seen working are perpertual motion machines, which impossible or not, have also been patented.

I think perpetual motion machines are no longer allowed.

If Sony can get a patent on a multi layer sensor I dought a new type of perpetual motion machine could'nt be patented.

 

[Mostly Lurking]

Regardless of where, I could be mistaken. However, I would never attempt to patent anything without a prior search and the help of lawyers.
--
William Wilgus

 

[LUIS A GUEVARA]

Sony has been making 3 CCD video cameras for a long time and integrating 3 discrete sensors into an integrated one in only a design variation, most likely covered by their existing patents.

And they are not the only ones making 3CCD cameras, without patent conflicts across Brands.
--
Luis

Please visit our new Forum ; http://sigmacumlaude.com/yetanotherforum/

http://photo.net/photos/Luis-A-Guevara
http://www.pbase.com/luis_a_guevara/galleries
http://www.lfi-online.de/gallery/index.php?cat=12629
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/LUIS%20A%20GUEVARA/
http://www.summiluxart.com/
http://www.sigmacumlaude.com/
http://luis-a-guevara.deviantart.com/

[email protected]

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Roland Karlsson wrote:

But it does'nt, it just protects the company...If someone invents something while working for a company, its the company that gets the patent and the inventor loses all his rights.

Exactly ... whenever you accept to become employed then you also accept that the company has the first right to all the patentable things you develope and also all related stuff you invent, even on your spare time.

A big company I worked for had what they called A, B and C patents. A patents that was patents that was strongly related to the work I did. Those I got nothing for - they was just owned by the company. B patents was things that was interesting for the company but not directly related to my work. Those the comapny baoght for some few thousands of dollars. Then there were the C patents - patents they dont were interested in. Those I was free to do whatever I wanted with.

Potentially, billions of pounds!

Its VERY seldom inventors get rich. You almost always need funding to realise your idea. And those funding inventors, those are NOT the nice guys.

If it is'nt a good idea then it is'nt worth patenting it in the first place.

Its not always possible to know until you try. The US cheap patents are for those that are not rich but have an idea but dont know if its possible to realise it. I assume the main reason for US to have those patents is that guys like you shall make your ideas public and described instead of they laying in some drawer in your home and never become known.

That said - I also have lots of "invention" that I have made over the years that I never have used or published. Maybe I shall make a book? My never used inventions ...

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Anything that defies gravity can rightfully be said to be levitating...How something achieves the levitation is not important.

Hi Alf, we are not splitting words here. We are not analysing the English language.

I started tjis discussion and I mentioned levitation patents. And there are a few that not are based upon propellers and magnetic fields and other obvious physical methods. Its those I am talking about - nothing else.

If you want to talk about helicopters - thats another subject.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Whether an invention or discovery by an employee belongs to the company or employee depends upon whether the invention or discovery was made on company time or personal time, with company resoources or personal resources, . . . and the employee's employment contract.

Yes, or rather the contract plus applicable law. It looks different in different companies and different countries.

Generally, technology companies wants all patents related to the work, for free or with a relatively small bonus.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[Roland Karlsson]

There's no guarantee that its entries are correct. I've seen some wrong information there.

Thats irrelevant. I have seen correct information in Wikipedia and I have seen incorrect information elsewhere ... even in dictionaries.

You shall use wikipedia with the same caution as anything else.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Patents protect the inventor against un-compensated use of the invention or discovery. No person or entity may use the invention or discovery without the permission of the patent holder. Therefore, the inventor says ' pay me royalties and you may use my invention / discovery'.

Thats only if you are not employed.

Patents are not like Copyright, patents can be transferred. And you usually sign a contract with your employer that he gets all related patents.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[DavidMillier]

I'm not a lawyer and it's what the law says rather than what it ought to say that seems to count, but reading through the supposed purpose of patents, it doesn't make sense that you can patent something you didn't invent (a thing or a process).

Genes are no more invented than atoms are invented so how could you patent one. If the law allows this, it's wrong and needs to be changed.

I find the idea that you can patent a naturally occuring chemical an odd one, too. I could understand a patent on, say, a clever, innovative way of mass producing natually occuring proteins using vats of GM modified bacteria or perhaps for synthesizing a new form of a known chemical. But patenting a chemical like adrenaline, which presumably exists naturally in hundreds of variants throughout different species is plain weird and does the reputation of the law no good at all.

I'm thinking I could make a fair bit of money by patenting electricity...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml