I wonder why inventor cannot patent solution if he demonstrated it earlier

[Pawelk198604]

In Poland Mr Ã…ÂÄ…giewksa tried to patent his invention but our Polish Patent office declined because he demonstrated his invention earlier

http://www.euroinfrastructure.eu/en/safety/byl-zderzak-lagiewki-bedzie-bariera-lagiewki/

[magnemoe]

Sounds very weird for me, no issue having an prototype and test it, it even makes getting the patent easier. Not an problem if the test leak or is pretty public.

Also pretty common to keep an design an trade secret and just patent it before it going into production, This gives the competitors and dual handicap.

However it might be an time restrain, if you do an public test then wait five years before filing the patent it might be to late. Far more an issue if you are not the same as the one who did the test, so If you did the test for one company while claims patent for another this might not work.

As this is an bumper with high performance it might be something who require an test to patent as its probably an composite of various sort of rubbers

[Pawelk198604]

Sounds very weird for me, no issue having an prototype and test it, it even makes getting the patent easier. Not an problem if the test leak or is pretty public.

Also pretty common to keep an design an trade secret and just patent it before it going into production, This gives the competitors and dual handicap.

However it might be an time restrain, if you do an public test then wait five years before filing the patent it might be to late. Far more an issue if you are not the same as the one who did the test, so If you did the test for one company while claims patent for another this might not work.

As this is an bumper with high performance it might be something who require an test to patent as its probably an composite of various sort of rubbers

Mr Ã…ÂÄ…giewksa was not rich at that time he can't afford patent cost, he shown his invention on tv to gather some money. He also never get formal college education yet he invented this. I wonder how many scientists made great discoveries, despite the lack of higher education

[cantab]

The intention behind patent law...you know, I don't think I can discuss this, since the law and the reasons for the law is basically politics.

[cpast]

The basic reason is that patents have to be for something new - you can't patent what's already known. When you allow someone to work with their patents publicly and only file later, it means that you can have situations where someone else has built on your work before you file the patent application, which means that your application is pulling something that had been free for all to use out of the public domain and into patent protection. That's particularly problematic if they filed patent applications building on your invention before you filed your application -- the patent office then has to sort through who invented what when, knowing that they can't rely on a patent application's date to establish by when something was invented (the whole idea of first-to-file is based on the notion that the first person to file the patent application must be the inventor, because they knew about it before anyone else).

Letting you file after disclosure also goes against the point of patents, which is to promote disclosure -- a patent is an incentive to tell the public how your invention works (you give up your trade secret in return for extensive protection for a term), and there's not really much reason to give you that protection if the public already knows what the invention is.

[Pawelk198604]

The basic reason is that patents have to be for something new - you can't patent what's already known. When you allow someone to work with their patents publicly and only file later, it means that you can have situations where someone else has built on your work before you file the patent application, which means that your application is pulling something that had been free for all to use out of the public domain and into patent protection. That's particularly problematic if they filed patent applications building on your invention before you filed your application -- the patent office then has to sort through who invented what when, knowing that they can't rely on a patent application's date to establish by when something was invented (the whole idea of first-to-file is based on the notion that the first person to file the patent application must be the inventor, because they knew about it before anyone else).

Letting you file after disclosure also goes against the point of patents, which is to promote disclosure -- a patent is an incentive to tell the public how your invention works (you give up your trade secret in return for extensive protection for a term), and there's not really much reason to give you that protection if the public already knows what the invention is.

Thanks

[Tommygun]

Patent laws vary by country, but most patents on physical objects are only good for about 20 years, so even if he had filed for one back in the 1990's it would be expired or close to it by now.

[KSK]

Just to add a wrinkle to that, in some countries you get a 6 or a 12 month grace period between disclosing your invention and filing your patent. In theory at least - in practice, the rules for figuring out whether the grace period applies are complicated and vary from country to country. So as a rule of thumb, file your patent before disclosing your invention.

The debate over grace periods is a long running one. On the one hand, they make things much easier for the inventor, particularly in an academic environment, where publishing your work is key. On the other hand - what cpast said basically.

[KerikBalm]

And it is for this reason that many people will file a provisional patent application immediately prior to publication of a scientific publication.

They can then "flesh out" the full patent later. The provisional patent application is often simply the body of the scientific publication + some claims.