Re: [ARSCLIST] Patents again

[James Lindner <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George has a good point - there are many reasons not to disclose and to keep
the invention as a trade secret - it really depends on the specifics. A case
in point is the discussion on the Agfa process that we believe to have been
heat. But we really don't know because it was a trade secret. As a large
chemical company - Agfa is no stranger to patents - but they chose NOT to
patent the process. Why?

Well I wasn't there so I don't know - but I suspect that they were concerned
that by disclosing the process they may have created more competition then
if they kept it a closed trade secret and a proprietary process which can
have some real market cache - so it may have been a marketing decision. They
created "cachet" by NOT having a patent. A very clever and very proven and
successful marketing technique.

Years ago I became very involved with a video facility that did standards
conversion. MANY years before my involvement they developed a "proprietary"
process that they trademarked and marketed extensively in advertisements and
elsewhere for over 30 years. Now it turns out that this process in fact may
have been a real trade secret when it was employed in the early 70's but by
the time I was involved in the early 90's the process that had been
developed had not been used for MANY years because it was hopelessly
obsolete and gave very inferior results to what a purchased Standards
Converter used, and in fact they used a standards converter just like
everyone else did. The "process" at that point was simply a name. It really
had little substance. They of course did not go out of their way to tell
people that there really wasn't any special proprietary process - but if
they asked we told them that it was the "special" things we did - trade
secret of course! But they kept the trademarked name and kept marketing it
- and to this day I suspect that people go to this company just to get this
special process that has not been used in over 30 years. But from a
marketing point of view - it was very valuable.

There was no patent and no public disclosure and was probably more valuable
kept that way. So there really are many reasons.

*
        Jim Lindner
*
        Media Matters, LLC
*
        Email: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*
        Address: 500 West 37th Street, 1st FL
        New York, N.Y. 10018
*
        eFax (646) 349-4475
*
        Mobile: (917) 945-2662
*
        www.media-matters.net



-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Brock-Nannestad
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 2:11 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Patents again

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Hello,

fortunately a lot of the activity surrounding patents is just common sense.
However, there is a real explanation why

>  - frequently people choose to
> keep processes as trade secrets to protect their intellectual property
because
> one of the down sides - is that by definition a patent is a full
disclosure.
> Sometimes (and this may be one of those times ) enforcing and getting
license
> fees or royalties is not worth the effort - and so the time and money
> associated with getting the patent never really pays back - other then the
> pride in having gotten one - it is a very neat accomplishment.
(James Lindner)

------ the real reason is that it may be very difficult to see from the
result of such a process that it is really the one that has been used. The
patent holder has to prove infringement, not the accused to disprove. If it
is a process that uses an uncommon chemical as a part, then proof of a large
consumption on the part of the accused would indicate such infringement.

Kind regards,


George