Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Already Existing Ideas Can't Be Patented

Already Existing Ideas Can't Be Patented

Posted by: gaetanomarano - Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:36 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 19 posts ] 
Already Existing Ideas Can't Be Patented 
Author Message
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Already Existing Ideas Can't Be Patented   Posted on: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:36 pm
.

this is MY idea of ejectable crew cabin published TWO YEARS AGO (Dec. 9, 2006) on my website (visited and downloaded thousands times in latest two years!) and posted on DOZENS space forums and blogs around the world: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/01 ... uttle.html


Image


and this is the "original" idea patented by TAAS Company: http://spacefellowship.com/News/?p=7616


Image


so, my questions is: "Can ALREADY EXISTING IDEAS (published everywhere!) be patened?"

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:52 am
Posts: 1379
Location: Exeter, Devon, England
Post    Posted on: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:46 pm
I can't believe ive got involved with a reply to this, but here goes!

Where is the word "original" used in that story? (you highlight this word)

A plane with an escape vehicle..... wasnt this used with the early shuttle, many years before your idea two years ago?

I dont think anyone is trying to say this is original. You highlight the word "My" for it being your idea, are you saying a plane with an escape vehicle is your idea then? and are you saying it was your original idea, copied and used here at TAAS?

I have sort of lost why you made the post? other to link to an external site...

Regards

Rob

_________________
> http://www.fullmoonclothing.com
> http://www.facebook.com/robsastrophotography
> robgoldsmith@hotmail.co.uk


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:55 pm
.

1. you haven't said it's an "original" idea, but, ALL "patented" ideas, MUST be original!

2. the early Space Shuttles had escape SEATS (like military fighters) and NOT an "escape crew cabin"!

3. if this idea is not new, why did TAAS Company patented it?

http://www.taascompany.com/slide4.html

clearly, that statements can't be both true

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:04 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Norway
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:17 am
Looking at both of the drawings, the idea is not even similar. Theirs is actually a lot smarter than yours, which is just a copy of the principle behind the ejector seat.

And yes, you can patent a lot of things where the basics sounds similar, but the specs are different (enough).


My question is instead, have you checked that your idea is not already patented?


Back to top
Profile ICQ
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:11 am
First thing, The patent hasn't been court tested, secondly it hasn't been built yet.

The only thing patentable that they have might be the connectors, but they don't have enough detail for that.

Quote:
3. if this idea is not new, why did TAAS Company patented it?


That doesn't stop anything at the moment. You could repatent the light bulb and the American patent office would grant it.

And even if it stood up...

Quote:
5. An escape cabin according to claim 1 wherein said aircraft includes a jettisonable maneuvering rocket.


There are plenty of those sorts of trivial methods that could be left out of a competeting aircraft.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:16 am
To patent something like this dont you have to have a complete set of engineering drawings detailing dimensions and components?

If so I see no evidence that a patent can be issued or if one can it would be so vague as to make it worthless.

Also when the shuttle was being designed by NASA i. the 60s/70s an ejectable cew cabin was one of the things considered but was eventually replaced with ejector seats. I seem to remember seeing drawings of this design ages ago so this is not a new or original idea at all.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:52 am
Posts: 1379
Location: Exeter, Devon, England
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:06 am
Here is an Emal i got from Robert Talmage last night:



My patent was issued August 17, 2004 and my provision patent precedes that by a couple of years.

The unique aspect of my patent over the F-111 and other cabin ejection systems is the attachment technique and gliding capability.

_________________
> http://www.fullmoonclothing.com
> http://www.facebook.com/robsastrophotography
> robgoldsmith@hotmail.co.uk


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:23 pm
Rob Goldsmith wrote:
Here is an Emal i got from Robert Talmage last night:
My patent was issued August 17, 2004 and my provision patent precedes that by a couple of years.
The unique aspect of my patent over the F-111 and other cabin ejection systems is the attachment technique and gliding capability.


he sent me a similar mail that I can't publish here without his permission, but I can publish my reply emailed to him:

Robert,
I did NOT say you've "stolen" anything to me, but that (both) my design and your design can't be patented...
or they can be... but just like "patent the wheel" again
best regards
- gm


but...

1. he hasn't send to me a copy of his patent (that I hope he will post here as .pdf so we can read and evaluate it)

2. he (or we) can't patent something already existing just changing a few nuts and bolts... so the idea he has patented was/is NOT patentable

3. assuming his patent is 4.5 years old, it's unclear WHY he has revealed it just now, 4.5 years later!

there are (at least) TWO main reason why this "4.5 years delay" sounds incredible and absurd:

1. in his slides he suggest (like I do in my article) to apply the escape crew cabin idea to the Space Shuttle... so, WHY did he hasn't proposed the safety concept 4.5 years ago (that was 1.5 years after the Columbia accident) but reveals the idea NOW just two years before the Shuttle retirement???

2. from his drawings, the mail goal of his idea is to add an escape cabin to the suborbital spaceplanes like the SS2... so, WHY did he hasn't revealed ad proposed this concept 4.5 years ago rather than NOW while the SS2 is ALREADY BUILT and READY TO FLY soon???

however, I still think that (both) my idea and his idea was/are NOT patentable

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:02 pm
Posts: 19
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:09 pm
gaetanomarano WROTE:

"1. he (or we) can't patent something already existing just changing a few nuts and bolts... so the idea he has patented was/is NOT patentable

"2. assuming his patent is 4.5 years old, it's unclear WHY he has revealed it just now, 4.5 years later!

"there are (at least) TWO main reason why this "4.5 years delay" sounds incredible and absurd:

"3. in his slides he suggest (like I do in my article) to apply the escape crew cabin idea to the Space Shuttle... so, WHY did he hasn't proposed the safety concept 4.5 years ago (that was 1.5 years after the Columbia accident) but reveals the idea NOW just two years before the Shuttle retirement???

"4. from his drawings, the mail goal of his idea is to add an escape cabin to the suborbital spaceplanes like the SS2... so, WHY did he hasn't revealed ad proposed this concept 4.5 years ago rather than NOW while the SS2 is ALREADY BUILT and READY TO FLY soon???

"5. however, I still think that (both) my idea and his idea was/are NOT patentable"

Just to explain a bit about patents:

1. Yes you can, provided the few nuts and bolts are considered new art. It does not matter if the idea is brilliant. Only if it is new and has the promise of more than zero utility.

2. Um, the patent office publishes these. In public. You can look them up for yourself. There is no obligation to trumpet a patent.

3. see response to 2.

4. see response to 2.

5. That is apparently because you do not have much experience with how US patents work.

Different countries have different patent laws.

There are many stupid patents. However, the US patent office will NOT allow you to re-patent an existing design. But you CAN patent modifications of existing designs. It is a judgment call by the patent office.

The judgment nature of the patent process can make it difficult for people who are not experienced with the specifics of the design and the existing state of the art to ascertain the worthiness of a patent. And sometimes, this includes the workers at the patent office. It has been ever thus, but certainly as the pace of technological development gets faster, it makes the patent office's job more challenging.

The level of design detail in a patent is not pre-defined. For some patents, you will see only block diagrams. In others, you will get specific mechanical and material specifications.

The process may be different in different countries, but that is more or less how it works in the US. You can learn a lot by just browsing. Here's a link:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

It's really cool because many of the patents have links to related patents. You can spend literally HOURS reading from patent to patent. Or at least I can. I think my geek is showing.

2.71


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:19 am
.

@2.71

if you patent a PC's mouse with a different shape, you CAN'T re-patent THE MOUSE but just THE NEW SHAPE

so, if the TAAS' escape crew cabin has something new, they can surely patent the added device, but NOT re-patent (again) the full escape cabin

however, these are two links to the full TAAS patent:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6776373.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6776373/fulltext.html

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:31 am
gaetanomarano wrote:
.

@2.71

if you patent a PC's mouse with a different shape, you CAN'T re-patent THE MOUSE but just THE NEW SHAPE

so, if the TAAS' escape crew cabin has something new, they can surely patent the added device, but NOT re-patent (again) the full escape cabin

however, these are two links to the full TAAS patent:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6776373.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6776373/fulltext.html

.


Patents in the US have gone nuts. The American Patent office is about as solid as the US Banking system right now.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:02 pm
Posts: 19
Post    Posted on: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:41 pm
****************************
gaetanomarano wrote:
.

@2.71

if you patent a PC's mouse with a different shape, you CAN'T re-patent THE MOUSE but just THE NEW SHAPE

so, if the TAAS' escape crew cabin has something new, they can surely patent the added device, but NOT re-patent (again) the full escape cabin

however, these are two links to the full TAAS patent:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6776373.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6776373/fulltext.html

.
idiom wrote:

Patents in the US have gone nuts. The American Patent office is about as solid as the US Banking system right now.
***********************


@gaetanomarano:

Excellent. Then we agree.

@idiom:
Wonderfully insightful analysis. Thanks for the input.

2.71


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:34 am
Also patents don't apply in space.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:36 am
Posts: 2
Location: USA
Post TAAS Company Escape System   Posted on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:55 am
I wanted to try and clear up some issues about the article on the TAAS Company escape system and comments made by GM.

I am happy GM shares similar ideas about the need for an escape system for space vehicles and that a detachable crew cabin offers the most practical solution. I hope the following comments may clear up some issues about the article and our work.

Our US patent (# 6,776,373) was issued August 17, 2004 and the provision patent precedes that by another year.

The unique aspect of the TAAS escape cabin over the F-111 and other cabin ejection systems is the attachment technique and gliding capability.

The article discusses our presentation made May 1, 2008 at the AIAA International Space Plane Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference in Dayton, Ohio. The paper (A Safe, Economical and Versatile Space Flight Test Vehicle, #AIAA-2008-2659) discusses how our escape system compares to other escape systems and then outlines a proposal to demonstrate our technology.

The proposed project to demonstrate the escape cabin involves modifying an old Learjet. The proposed four million dollar cost would demonstrate the escape cabin and then the aircraft would be available to operate as a flight test vehicle. At this point the plan is to acquire additional funding to incorporate rocket engines and operate the modified vehicle as a sub-orbital space flight test vehicle.

The objective is to use this flight test vehicle to explore new sub-orbital trajectories and produce revenue as a space flight test vehicle. The concept can be scaled up to eventually fly orbital missions but this will be accomplished incrementally with progressive vehicles. Contracts, sponsors and revenue from the flight test vehicles will fund each new vehicle which will provide the data necessary to develop the next generation space planes.

I hope this clears things up.

Many Happy Returns,

Robert Talmage


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:04 pm
Thanks Robert, Welcome to the forum :)

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: kunchou and 12 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use