Quote:
Originally Posted by unclebilly
Milt - you are a nice guy, heck so was zeke... I'm not going to get into a peeing match over this. This is what I get paid to do when I go to work every morning.
I am an engineer who has worked in R+D at various companies since 1997. Some of the stuff I design (invent) gets patented, most does not. Most things don't make sense to patent.
One of my more recent success stories is a horizontal multi stage completion system I concieved. In just over a year, this system has brought over $50M in work to the company I work for. It has been featured in several trade magazines, in the local news papers, and I was interviewed on camera for some kind of TV feature. Sadly, I don't get a royalty for this, merely a job with good compensation and excellent benefits. Getting this system off the ground took a major personal sacrifice in terms of extra time.
Getting back to the point I was trying to make earlier; Copyrights are for literature, artwork, and software code. Trademarks are for logos and trade names. Patents are for designs, methods, and a combination thereof. You can't copyright an invention nor can you register an invention as a trademark.
|
No need to pee. You just see things from your engineering standpoint. I see things from my educational standpoint. I was a marketing major at USC when Viet Nam came along. Let's just say that after that VN period passed, I was not a college kind of guy.
It came back to me 20 years later, what I learned in college (maybe the haze wore off
). Patents have their place, as I mentioned. They are not in any way helpful for success in launching a new novelty product, which this thread is all about.
"Copyrights are for literature, artwork, and software code. Trademarks are for logos and trade names." That's what I'm talking about. When the new product is named and the packaging is designed with the name and point-of-purchase advertising in place, you have about as much identity (read: product) protection as you need, patent or no patent.
Now, if you don't believe me on this, read the book I linked and let a multi-millionaire tell you. BTW, I know this man personally, he was a junior partner at my father's advertising firm until he branched out with his own product, gained and lost a fortune and went on to represent 100's of inventors becoming quite wealthy.
Copyrights and trademarks have bee his main allies from the first time he had to defend his product...... wait for this ........... from a Canadian copycat. He won. copyright infringement because of similar packaging and design even though they had a different product name for pretty much the same product.
You know what, the Canadians would have won had they kept the similar product, but sold it differently, i.e., in a different looking package scheme. This was not the Pet Rock, but might have well been. Same time in history and sold on the same shelf. As I said, no patents for rocks.