This week, Stan teaches you about patents. It turns out, they're patently complicated! So, patents have some similarity to copyright, in that they grant a limited monopoly to people who invent things. The key difference in patents and copyright is that patents are for THINGS. Copyright is for an idea. So, if you've come up with a great new invention, like for example, a condiment gun, you should get a patent. We'll also talk about some of the limitations and problems of patents, including patent trolls
Crash Course is now on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark Brouwer, Jan Schmid, Steve Marshall, Anna-Ester Volozh, Sandra Aft, Brad Wardell, Christian Ludvigsen, Robert Kunz, Jason, A Saslow, Jacob Ash, Jeffrey Thompson, Jessica Simmons, James Craver, Simun Niclasen, SR Foxley, Roger C. Rocha, Nevin, Spoljaric, Eric Knight, Elliot Beter, Jessica Wode
TO: Sarah M.
FROM: Anthony M.
Making our own history awesome! Happy 3 year Anniversary!
The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.
Thank you so much to all of our awesome supporters for their contributions to help make Crash Course possible and freely available for everyone forever:
Denis Anton Dagongdong-Thorpe
Caleb S Dockter
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashCourse
Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr - http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support Crash Course on Patreon: http://patreon.com/crashcourse
CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
Okay... but what if I use vacuum decay and apply it to the fabric of space in a specific manner so as to alter the existing laws of physics according to a well thought out critical design?
Wouldn't THOSE new laws of physics be my invention?
If governments really want massive developments in science and technology, filling patents must be free and the must last until inventor dies. Additionally, governments must ban employers from owning employees' patents.
I have a few questions about patents.
I have an idea for a patent. But it's the combination of two things that are already made but not working in the way I think they should be. I can prove that they work with math and through photos. Do I need to make the new product in order to file and obtain a patent? Or is it enough to just show how it works and prove that it can work?
Braden Smith Show the new combination And its Result being An New combination Of Two Innovations in to A new Invention, Provitional Patent it And Do "Constructive Reduction To Practice "plus Actual "Reduction to practice"
I have an interesting question in regards to "patent" topic: what if I invent something, which contains an invention of another owner who also patented his invention, but it is not the same invention, i.e. i use a light bulb in my invention that has got nothing to do with light source, lets say i need a light bulb in my electronic device to visually provide information. Do I have to gain licence for the light bulb in order to patent my invention? And if somebody will have to use my patented invention in theirs - do they have to gain licence from me only or down the line from the bulb invention also?
I have an idea that proposes the method of performing an experiment. I can't perform the experiment as it requires huge capital. I would like to give this idea to a medical institute. How can I protect my idea and 'sell' it to a medical institute without being conned. Do we need so much money for patents because I don't have so much money to spare at this point in my life. Thanks!
Discovering that a patent sets Piracy in motion. I
suggest (if your not wealthy) spending approximately one hundred and fifty
dollars to initiate a patent. Once you receive your file # abandon the patent
thus saving lots of money that you didn't have anyway. This will protect you of
Law suits from the pirates.
Sit back and wait. If your invention is
brilliant it won't be long before a pirate (that has lots of money) improves or
changes your idea and files his own patent.
Millions have now been spent
bringing your invention to fruition and you can easily (with all that free
advertising) go out and sell your improved prototypes.
SKATE WALKERS --- Canada patent file #2,116,091
money I contacted a large sport firm to sell them this patent. I was ignored and
a year later came across my invention all improved in nice packaging with patent
pending retailing for fifteen dollars.
Well my heart sank and I really
needed a cup of coffee.
I rationalized it this way. They have spent mega
bucks on dies, production, packaging etc. I will sit back and wait till these
become popular then re approach these people to buy my patent advising them that
I could produce my prototype like pop corn and put them in 7 ELEVEN retailing at
$3.75 a pr.
So in case I create something, fabricate it and sell it, but I do not file for a patent. Is somebody allowed to copy it? Is't it still my IP? Can somebody else file for a patent on my design? What would be my rights in that case?
Fun Fact: Tony Stark's ARC reactor is not protected by patent. Tony wants exclusive control of the technology so he can't *risk* filing a patent - even one held as a state secret by the United States. That's because if the U.S. government – or any of its contractors or subcontractors – uses or manufactures an invention covered by your patent, you cannot get a court to stop that use or manufacture, and you cannot sue for infringement. Your only judicial remedy is to seek “reasonable and entire compensation”.
In other words, if Uncle Sam started manufacturing Iron Man suits using Tony's patent(s) all he could do is become the world's first trillionaire. Of course by *not* patenting the ARC reactor Tony is playing a dangerous game - the *next* genius who discovers the ARC can patent it out from under Tony and restrict access to Tony's own invention.
Kinda makes Whiplash from Iron Man 2 seem *really* stupid now doesn't it.
So, what are the differences between copyright and patent? I mean an novel technology could be considered as an art too right? What about new guitar or piano? Do they count as a patent or copyright?
And I think it is ridicilous when copyright are far more longer and easier to registered than the patent.
A patent focuses on the design aspects of the product, and how the inventor came to that conclusion.
Copyright focuses on the manner in which ideas and opinions are expressed.
The defining feature is if the product is a "manner of manufacture" or has some useful utility. In the eye of the law art, historically lacked this element.
In the broad sense, almost *every* trade is an "art". Mechanics, Chemistry, writing, landscaping, acting - all *arts*
(Fun fact, if you record a third-grade play on your phone, you are violating copyright for the play, the set dressers, the composer of any music, the musicians playing it, the costumers, and the individual performances [by commission] of each and every actor including your own little Jimmy playing the tree in the back.)
Think of *copyright* as "performances and records thereof" and *patents* as "lists of instructions for building and operating tools".
You can thank Disney for super-long copyright times. When that mouse finally goes Public Domain, they are going to take a real hit in the merchandising.
Personally, I think a period of "lifetime + 20 years" is plenty. It covers the author and any potential widows and orphans if the author dies young. Longer than that skews to corporate interests.
I'm soooo happy Crash Course is covering something that is law-related. Even though its based on the legal system of the US. I find that its great insight for non-american viewers, (like myself), great for comparison.
So patents were great for that genius that lived in a community of idiots.
And today you have to be the bigger genius with the most patents, or be the victim. This is why I rethink certain professions, because even if my idea is revolutionary there will be someone else to profit off it or it will not profit at all. I'm tired of doing all the work, while other people take the credit and $$$
No, he (or rather, his company) actually took over production of the drug, and was able to expand research due to the extra profits (it had gone over half a century without any research towards reducing the sometimes life-threatening side effects of the drug). This is a pretty common strategy in the pharmaceutical industry, from what I've heard. The increased price also encouraged a different firm to start the process of creating/approving a generic version of the drug.
I'm thinking of doing my dissertation on Intellectual Property, only problem is that I don't know anything about this subject except the most basics. Is there any one that has done IP (in the UK) at uni that are the most debated and controversial topics? Thank you if anyone does reply lol
So I'm curious to know if this could be protected. If, as a scientist, I somehow discovered a way to make interdimensional portals. All though the portal abides by nature and the laws of physics, if the portal will only appear if constructed properly, is the portal patentable?
So suppose I invent this great. New technology that has a lot of benefits for users... If I were to patent it in one country, I would need to provide instructions regarding how to recreate it for public record? So, since patent laws vary from nation to nation, if I file for a patent in the US, some copycat in another country can simply look up the blueprints for my invention and then claim responsibility for creation?
Wouldn't that just encourage me, as an innovator, to just not file for a patent and keep the blueprints classified information belonging to me or my organization?
I'd say for example some guy in china copied an invention. But China doesn't really strictly enforce their IP Laws...
talk about bias on this topic and failed to mention how the patent laws are so inadequate because it was written in the 1800s standard of technology growth speed, also that the patent trolls had caused close to 1 trillion dollars in damage to the USA alone for the past 10 years meanwhile the total cost of damage by terrorist attacks since the end of the cold war and including the current ISIS war did not even amount to 1/4 of that by the patent trolls; and they said islam is the problem that will be the end of us.
I have a question.
BACKGROUND: The year is 2050 almost every usable water resource has been used and only ocean water is the source of water we have with us. Inventors from whole world are trying to find the most efficient way to convert ocean's water to usable water.
Now suppose I found a technique to convert ocean water to drinkable water with an efficiency of 90%. Now if I go to patent this technology while be able to patent it despite of the fact that the whole world need this technology real bad and won't able to survive without this technology.
P.S: I know its hypothetical but I wanted to know whether under current laws is this possible.
3:54 What if your creation is so ingenious that no peers exist (at the point of patenting) that can explain it and verify its usefulness? I know this is largely hypothetical, but we have a few pretty damned profound geniuses out there.
This concept of patenting innovative things that have great benefit and utility for the commonwealth is not conducive (contradicting actually) to sharing and spreading this great benefit and utility to a given commonwealth to its full-potential, instead it is restricting the adoption of these benefits and/or utilities to achieve a benefit other than the one conceived for society. Let us not confuse honor for financial compensation and legal entitlement. Patenting innovative items goes against what innovation is by saying synonymously "I stand for change; except the changing of my change" How can one truly deliver innovation to society if this innovation brought to society cannot be further innovated by society until a monopoly has grown? Innovation should very well be innovative itself. Creators of new product deserve acknowledgement for their work to the highest degree, yet legal entitlement should not be the means of acknowledgement for the sake of creating (innovating) further for the benefit of society.
creative agencies troll viemo Facebook reddit ect for revent ideas content trends or interesting topics for there own benifit with no remittence to the creator.
the more money you make the less original work you produce in these cases.
so i had an idea for a crash course series, and i called pbs and they fowarded me to voicemail. should i just go on thought cafe's website and see if there's someone i can call there? or should i just ignore myself too?
fuck out of here,,,,,,,,,,,,,you mean to say that if i was to try and patent my hovering machine for transportation, i wouldn't be allowed to get it patent cuz its considered a levitation board it will be a disapprove ?! smh i wonder what they wud wthink if i tell em i invented a mind video interface device.....
+AntiMessiah Most large companies, or those that work with overseas companies, file their patent in multiple countries at the same time, to prevent anyone else from patenting their idea in another country. To do this, they have a massive amount of due diligence to do, checking to see if it has been patented somewhere else. But, technically US patents only work in the US.
direct quote from Legal Zoom (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/does-your-us-patent-trademark-or-copyright-protect-you-overseas): "There is no "international patent" that will protect an invention all over the world. A separate patent must be filed in each country where the patent owner seeks protection. Fortunately, WIPO offers a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application, which simplifies the application process and allows one application to be filed for patent protection in multiple countries. Patent fees and requirements differ significantly by country, so it is advisable to consult a registered patent attorney who is familiar with the intellectual property laws of the specific countries where a patent is sought."
As an innovator I think patents are making my job harder. Because how some patents have been approved for things that is not in production, it is very difficult to make sure no part of the new innovation infringes on a existing patent. It is also werry expensive to file for a patent. My company keep my innovation secret instead because we cant afford patenting it.
+psrdirector I think it is brilliant. It costs a few dollars, and saves us a shift of machining, which in turn makes one of the machines in our machine-shop obsolete so we can replace it with one more modern. (We need to have it for this only operation, and it is the only machine that can do that because it is old and don't have all those safety features newer machines has.
But as I said in the earlier post. It is expensive to pattern, impossible to notice if someone is infringing on the pattern so we just keep it secret and hope someone else don't pattern it and find a way to notice we are doing it.
+psrdirector In this day and age that may be better, because now I cant use a bright idea I came up with just because someone else has pattend it when he came up with it years ago. And there is no good way of researching pattented solutions to make them useful. There are simply put too many innovations it is hard to keep track of them all, so pattents are now an obstacle beccause you need to avoid them.
+mjk506 It is actually the 4th video:
1 - Introduction to Intellectual Property
2 - Copyright Part 1: Basics
3 - Copyright Part 2: Exceptions and Fair Use
4 - Patents, Novelty, and Trolls
Thanks for the kind words! - Thought Cafe James
Child marriages are common:
On a recent day, eight community elders sat in a [refugee] camp, some chewing khat, the narcotic leaf favored by most Yemeni men. Seven have married off their girls this year.
Even Salim, the elder who worked at the charity, is preparing to marry off his two daughters, ages 13 and 14. "I want to feel secure of their futures, if only for economic reasons," he said.
Mohammad Ali al-Ansi married off his two girls, ages 13 and 14, in April. "My heart is bleeding inside, but I was forced to do this," he said. "I have no job. Its difficult for me to feed my 10 children." He received $1,600 in dowry for each of his girls, he said. But after paying for their weddings and meeting other debts, the money has nearly run out. "If things get worse, theres no doubt Ill marry off my 12-year-old daughter," Ansi said.
More on Ansis 14-year-old daughter Fatma, married to 21-year-old Zaid:
Fatma spent her day cooking and washing clothes for her in-laws. When asked the name of her husbands family, Fatma didnt know it. She remembers her father telling her and her sister, Amal, that the family needed money. She remembers that Amal was in tears because her new husband was taking her to another region. The two sisters have not seen each other since their weddings.
"I am too young to be married," Fatma said. "I want to study. I want to learn how to write. I have sacrificed for my family," she continued, her voice dropping to a whisper.
Minutes later, her husband arrived at the tent, and Fatma went silent. He said Fatma was "at a good age to marry." When asked if she could attend school, he shook his head no. "Shes a little too old for school," he said.
Female sexual freedom among the Tuareg : Flora Drury has written up the sex habits of the Saharas Muslim Tuareg people based on the work by Henrietta Butler. Some excerpts:
Their men became known as the blue men of the Sahara because the dye from their distinctive indigo scarves rub off onto their faces giving them a mysterious air. The Tuareg evoke images of a long forgotten and romantic age.