Inventions that never were patented

[rytmenpinne]

I just watched a pro-pantent video lecture and the guy kept going on how about how a lot of inventions would never have happened if not for patents. Personally I don't believe that they encourage development, not sure if they inhibit it, that's what I want to find out.. They most likely do concetrate wealth tho, which infact can have a possitive affect on highcost research.

Anyway, In contrast to the video I'd like to look into to inventions and technologies that never have been patented and what the implications of that fact have been. So.. what inventions(in any field) were never patented?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I doubt anything of note in recent history was not patented. Even if an inventor wanted their idea to be freely available to anyone they would still have to patent the idea to prevent someone else from doing so. Even Buckminster Fuller patented his work.

 

[Evo]

I just watched a pro-pantent video lecture and the guy kept going on how about how a lot of inventions would never have happened if not for patents. Personally I don't believe that they encourage development, not sure if they inhibit it, that's what I want to find out.. They most likely do concetrate wealth tho, which infact can have a possitive affect on highcost research.

Anyway, In contrast to the video I'd like to look into to inventions and technologies that never have been patented and what the implications of that fact have been. So.. what inventions(in any field) were never patented?

If they weren't patented, we're not likely to know. Without patent protection your invention won't be your invention very long if it has any worth.

 

[lisab]

I just watched a pro-pantent video lecture and the guy kept going on how about how a lot of inventions would never have happened if not for patents. Personally I don't believe that they encourage development, not sure if they inhibit it, that's what I want to find out.. They most likely do concetrate wealth tho, which infact can have a possitive affect on highcost research.

Anyway, In contrast to the video I'd like to look into to inventions and technologies that never have been patented and what the implications of that fact have been. So.. what inventions(in any field) were never patented?

Do you mean things that have been around long before there were patents? Like, the wheel?

 

[Astronuc]

Weapons, e.g., nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons cannot be patented.

There are inventions developed as trade secrets that are not disclosed, and therefore not patented, otherwise they wouldn't be trade secrets.

The objective of the patent is to protect the invention for some period of time such that the inventor may recover the cost of research and development through royalties. Of course, someone could take the invention and develop an improvement outside the scope of the claims and thus not infringe on an existing patent.

Products and processes can be patent provided that they are new, useful and non-obvious.

 

[Drakkith]

I just watched a pro-pantent video lecture and the guy kept going on how about how a lot of inventions would never have happened if not for patents. Personally I don't believe that they encourage development, not sure if they inhibit it, that's what I want to find out.. They most likely do concetrate wealth tho, which infact can have a possitive affect on highcost research.

What is the incentive for putting the time, money, and effort into developing a new invention? If you don't patent it you will never make any money off of it because anyone can simply take your design and start producing it and selling it. Those with the capability of producing it immediately will jump on it before you ever have a chance.

If I have an idea for an invention I need to have incentive to do so. Not just because I love money and want it, but because money feeds me, clothes me, and provides for my family. Many inventions require lots of money to invent in the first place. Raw materials and components have to be purchased, bills pile up as time passes while you tinker, etc. Without a patent most people would simply dismiss it and keep working because it's a waste of time.

 

[mathwonk]

I remember Ernie Kovacs had a sign on his office door in his home that said, when lighted: "Not now": I always wanted to patent that but never did. It could work as a professor's office sign too, or a spouse's sign on their door. What do you think?

 

[phyzguy]

I think one example is the geostationary satellite. This is a very important invention that I think was never patented.

 

[Drakkith]

I think one example is the geostationary satellite. This is a very important invention that I think was never patented.

I'm willing to bet the satellites themselves were patented. The position in space that is geosynchronous is not patentable.

 

[vici10]

I doubt anything of note in recent history was not patented. Even if an inventor wanted their idea to be freely available to anyone they would still have to patent the idea to prevent someone else from doing so. Even Buckminster Fuller patented his work.

The first thing that comes to mind is Marie Curie and discovery of radium. It was the decision of af Marie and Pierre Curie not to patent radium isolation process and make it available to everyone in order not hinder scientific progress and its medical applications. From http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/curie/

In view of the potential for the use of radium in medicine, factories began to be built in the USA for its large-scale production. The question came up of whether or not Marie and Pierre should apply for a patent for the production process. They were both against doing so. Pure research should be carried out for its own sake and must not become mixed up with industry's profit motive. Researchers should be disinterested and make their findings available to everyone. Marie and Pierre were generous in supplying their fellow researchers, Rutherford included, with the preparations they had so laboriously produced. They furnished industry with descriptions of the production process.

 

[Chi Meson]

Ben Franklin never patented the lightning rod. That's why he died penniless and forgotten!

[no, he didn't]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are times when, in order to protect proprietary information, it is best to not patent a product, or perhaps more commonly, a process. In order to receive a patent one must disclose the information that makes the product or process uniquely valuable. If is it possible to not disclose that information, the proprietary information can sometime be better protected than if a patent was issued. One good example of this is Caddock Electronics, in Oregon, with whom I have visited and discussed this issue directly. At that time, at least, they had never patented one or more of their processes, and no one had ever figured out how they do it [produce certain high-precision resistors]. They had managed to protect this information for something like 25 years - well beyond the duration of patent protection.
http://www.caddock.com/index.html

I think KFCs fried chicken recipe was another example of this.

It is still common to find specialized controllers of various sorts buried in an epoxy to prevent reverse engineering. In order to get to the circuit you have to destroy it. I've used this technique myself. Going back a little further in time, we would often shave the part numbers off of ICs to make them difficult to identify.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There are times when, in order to protect proprietary information, it is best to not patent a product, or perhaps more commonly, a process. In order to receive a patent one must disclose the information that makes the product or process uniquely valuable. If is it possible to not disclose that information, the proprietary information can sometime be better protected than if a patent was issued. One good example of this is Caddock Electronics, in Oregon, with whom I have visited and discussed this issue directly. At that time, at least, they had never patented one or more of their processes, and no one had ever figured out how they do it [produce certain high-precision resistors]. They had managed to protect this information for something like 25 years - well beyond the duration of patent protection.
http://www.caddock.com/index.html

I think KFCs fried chicken recipe was another example of this.

It is still common to find specialized controllers of various sorts buried in an epoxy to prevent reverse engineering. In order to get to the circuit you have to destroy it. I've used this technique myself. Going back a little further in time, we would often shave the part numbers off of ICs to make them difficult to identify.

Very interesting post. First time I've heard it proposed that protection lies in not patenting a thing, but it makes perfect sense.

 

[phinds]

Very interesting post. First time I've heard it proposed that protection lies in not patenting a thing, but it makes perfect sense.

Oh yeah. Things like the formula for coke (classic), just as an example, would be a disaster if patented because the company could then make zero money in China and other countries with little or no patent protection.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The first thing that comes to mind is Marie Curie and discovery of radium. It was the decision of af Marie and Pierre Curie not to patent radium isolation process and make it available to everyone in order not hinder scientific progress and its medical applications. From http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/curie/

Ah... just did some looking. Patent in other countries tends to be "first to file" and patent in the US was "first to invent" until just recently. I thought it had been "first to file" for some time. Any way, currently if you invent something and wish to make it free for use you will have to patent it to protect the idea from being patented by someone else.

 

[AlephZero]

Very interesting post. First time I've heard it proposed that protection lies in not patenting a thing, but it makes perfect sense.

It certainly makes sense in high-tech industries where there are a small number of companies and high barriers to entry. In fact patents can be used in reverse. You only patent the stuff that you DO want your competitors to know about - especially if you never got it to work properly and are actually doing something different

 

[nitsuj]

What is the incentive for putting the time, money, and effort into developing a new invention? If you don't patent it you will never make any money off of it because anyone can simply take your design and start producing it and selling it. Those with the capability of producing it immediately will jump on it before you ever have a chance.

If I have an idea for an invention I need to have incentive to do so. Not just because I love money and want it, but because money feeds me, clothes me, and provides for my family. Many inventions require lots of money to invent in the first place. Raw materials and components have to be purchased, bills pile up as time passes while you tinker, etc. Without a patent most people would simply dismiss it and keep working because it's a waste of time.

Does this not seem far far from the reality of patents at this time?

Patents feed & cloth you? Hardly.

Incentive? lol, umm yea, unless you're performing return on investment analysis on whether or not to pursue an inclination I don't buy into it. Would you honestly hold back an invention because you couldn't make money off it?

For an individual, with an actual revenue generating invention will be in for a world of hurt if they try to go to market against the powers of corporations. The more valuable the idea, the more pressures one would be under.

This isn't the 1800's, nowa days, companies easily stomp on individual inventors. Most smart inventors know this, and of the power (capital) corporations have, such as IBM, 3M, DuPont. Many many inventors go there to work, the smart ones, who invent for a living.

I'm not suggesting the individual cannot invent & patent something, I am suggesting it is an extreme rarity in these days for an individual inventor to make a living from inventions. Patents are now for the realm of capitalism.

All this is possible because of the points Astronuc mentioned:Of course, someone could take the invention and develop an improvement outside the scope of the claims and thus not infringe on an existing patent.

Not to hard to do, especially for those companies in the business of doing this.

The usefulness of patents for the individual has past. (in some countries, the employee has to sign over patent rights to the company, sometimes it's implied in the employment)The last comment "Without a patent most people would simply dismiss it and keep working because it's a waste of time." is what a corporation would say, not an individual inventor (Individual - passion is determination; corporation - profit is determination). For an individual, the patent is a reward, not a means to an end like it is for the corporation.

 

[turbo]

I worked for a veneer mill summers during college, then full-time afterward until they were bought out by a competitor. That mill made lots of stuff, including components for cabinets, but their "pride and joy" was birch marine plywood that comprised the hulls of WWII PT boats, and later, very luxurious powerboats manufactured and sold under the name Bristol Yachts. I worked on perhaps the last of those boats ever made. It was a catamaran with very restricted space in the hull. My father took me to the boat-shop because I was very small and skinny and knew how to solder pipes. Neither he nor the boat-shop supervisor could fit in the tiny space allowed for some of the plumbing, so I was drafted. I was probably 12 or so.

Back on-topic. The brothers that owned that mill never patented the processes, the glues, etc that were critical to the marine plywood production. They invented and built a chain-fed steam press that could be loaded with glued-up sheets of veneer while it was cooking the current batch of plywood, and the previous batch could be unloaded from the discharge side. Nobody could get access to that press-room! The youngest brother held off on selling the mill until he was maybe 10 years past a normal retirement age, because he couldn't bear to have that mill broken up. Finally, he sold to a competitor, that immediately started stripping out all the proprietary (secret) equipment and moving it to their largest mill. It was pretty sad. Those old guys were smart. Keep everything under wraps, and make your competitors try to figure out why you're eating their lunch in the marketplace.

 

[Drakkith]

Incentive? lol, umm yea, unless you're performing return on investment analysis on whether or not to pursue an inclination I don't buy into it. Would you honestly hold back an invention because you couldn't make money off it?

The point is that I probably wouldn't even spend the time and money to invent it in the first place.

For an individual, with an actual revenue generating invention will be in for a world of hurt if they try to go to market against the powers of corporations. The more valuable the idea, the more pressures one would be under.

This is half nonsense. It does happen that companies can pressure upstarts, but this is not the typical trend. The overwhelming majority of businesses are not large corporations either.

This isn't the 1800's, nowa days, companies easily stomp on individual inventors. Most smart inventors know this, and of the power (capital) corporations have, such as IBM, 3M, DuPont. Many many inventors go there to work, the smart ones, who invent for a living.

No, most of these people go to work for IBM and other companies for reasons such as:

A. Have a paycheck while inventing.
B. They like inventing, but not the process of starting and running a business.
C. Some inventions simply can't be realized without the resources of a large business.
D. The process of developing a product from scratch and getting it all the way through production into the selling process isn't easy. It's part luck, part smarts, and a hundred other things. Plus you need to actually have a useful product, which many inventions simply won't be.

I'm not suggesting the individual cannot invent & patent something, I am suggesting it is an extreme rarity in these days for an individual inventor to make a living from inventions. Patents are now for the realm of capitalism.

I don't believe this.

The usefulness of patents for the individual has past. (in some countries, the employee has to sign over patent rights to the company, sometimes it's implied in the employment)

If I hire you to develop products for me, it makes no sense to have anyone else but myself to own the rights. After all, I am paying you to invent.

The last comment "Without a patent most people would simply dismiss it and keep working because it's a waste of time." is what a corporation would say, not an individual inventor (Individual - passion is determination; corporation - profit is determination). For an individual, the patent is a reward, not a means to an end like it is for the corporation.

I'm sorry this is simply unrealistic to me.

 

[nitsuj]

Naivety, especially considering your relevant comments are: This is the way it is & this is why people work for R&D companies.

It does happen that companies can pressure upstarts, but this is not the typical trend. Really? you're kidding right? Some are in the business of making start ups for bigger companies to buy.

No, most of these people go to work for IBM and other companies for reasons such as:

The best comment you made was point D

"The process of developing a product from scratch and getting it all the way through production into the selling process isn't easy. It's part luck, part smarts, and a hundred other things. Plus you need to actually have a useful product, which many inventions simply won't be."Which is to my point, Patents are now for the realm of capitalism.

 

[Drakkith]

Naivety, especially considering your relevant comments are: This is the way it is & this is why people work for R&D companies.

My list is not all inclusive. However I don't believe for a second that most inventors, or even a large percentage go to work for someone else just to avoid getting stomped on. Most inventors are not JUST inventors and require a day job. You cannot realistically argue that this is not true.

Really? you're kidding right? Some are in the business of making start ups for bigger companies to buy.

Sure. What is your point?

The best comment you made was point D

I think they are all equally valid.

Which is to my point, Patents are now for the realm of capitalism.

Define "the realm of capitalism" in regards to patents.

 

[arildno]

At Da Vinci's time, inventors used to put subtle construction flaws into their actual drawings in order to prevent any other than themselves from being able to construct a workable model on demand.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Define "the realm of capitalism" in regards to patents.

I think nitsuj means big-corporate capitalism.

Nitsuj, all that I have seen you effectively argue is that the patent system needs to offer better protection for the little guy. I agree 100%. Many of the biases you mention, imo, do exist and are a huge problem, but that doesn't mean that the small inventor is extinct. Being the Lone Ranger has never been easy.

Perhaps 15-20% of my customers over the last 15 years were small startups. I have been paid to help people you say don't exist, become successful. [it would be more accurate to say that in the past, about 15-20% of my revenues came from startups and small companies developing a new product or process]. However, I would agree with your tone in that based on my personal experiences, probably 99% of so-called inventors out there have no idea what they are doing or what they are getting into. Taking a new product to market is a HUGE undertaking. Technological products can takes years of work to develop. That can mean years of work with no pay. But some people are able get past all the hurdles, get financing, and eventually make it.

It is not always possible to "improve" a product, bypass the patent protection, and have market viability. If the original product was designed well, imitators may be forced to produce an inferior product.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I must concede this point. I too wanted to make a living as an inventor. But after learning the facts of life, I opted to help other people take huge risks, while I get paid when the job is done. And I am still doing what I love to do.

I took my big shot and got wiped out [by a flood no less!]

I did spend ~ two years [maybe 18 months... I think?] of nights working on the algae problem, but I bailed on that before it took a significant financial toll. It is just too big a problem $$$ for the little guy.

 

[Drakkith]

Ivan you're experiences in both inventing and with other inventors is exactly what I was talking about.

 

[John Creighto]

I saw a TED video before which discussed why money is a bad motivator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

There are many problems with the current patient system. For some incite watch

"When Patents Attack"
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

The following video has some good discussions on other problems with Patents:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T4jEfbs4uY

As for motivation -- the motive to create is completely separate from the motive for money as is expressed by Bertrand Russel:

"The creative impulses, unlike those that are possessive, are directed to ends in which one man's gain is not another man's loss. The man who makes a scientific discovery or writes a poem is enriching others at the same time as himself. Any increase in knowledge or good-will is a gain to all who are affected by it, not only to the actual possessor. Those who feel the joy of life are a happiness to others as well as to themselves. Force cannot create such things, though it can destroy them; no principle of distributive justice applies to them, since the gain of each is the gain of all. For these reasons, the creative part of a man's activity ought to be as free as possible from all public control, in order that it may remain spontaneous and full of vigor. The only function of the state in regard to this part of the individual life should be to do everything possible toward providing outlets and opportunities. "
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4776/4776-h/4776-h.htm#chap04

For more on what is wrong with the Patent system read the, "Tragedy of the anticommons"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons

I am not sure if any of this will convince anyone but let me know if it does.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think there is a siginficant point being missed here. Inventors invent. Entrepreneurs market products and make them successful. Creative impulses may drive the desire to invent, but money is what makes it a worthwhile pursuit in practical terms. Without the economic driving force, all private inventors really would be nothing but dreamers wasting their time - a game for fools.

I have to believe that anyone supporting this no-patent business has never invented anything [that required significant effort]. True? Be honest!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I have to believe that anyone supporting this no-patent business has never invented anything [that required significant effort]. True? Be honest!

I think you're equating invention with making money too much in your statement, despite the separation. The patent system isn't perfect and there are many legitimate criticisms (if a lack of viable alternatives), that said given the economic system in which invention takes place there isn't much of a choice if the product is to be marketed.

Regarding your specific statement if I'm honest making money is never what I'm thinking about when I'm working on something, considering my field my only concern is to help develop future medicinal products to improve people's health and save lives. Economics only comes into insofar as the end product has to be economically viable from a medical perspective as there is no use inventing a product that would harm more lives than it saves due to costing e.g. new product X saves 10% more people with condition X1 but new product Y saves 50% more people with condition Y1 at the same price.

Last point on the general philosophy here; patents exist to aid a system whereby the value of a product is measured in it's marketability by ensuring revenue protection for investors. Note however that marketability is not the only player in the game in terms of product value, public rather than private enterprises aren't subject to the same goal of profit and thus revenue protection is less if not an absent issue.

 

[nitsuj]

Without the economic driving force, all private inventors really would be nothing but dreamers wasting their time - a game for fools.

I have to believe that anyone supporting this no-patent business has never invented anything [that required significant effort]. True? Be honest!

Yea that's for sure, watch a few episodes of Dragon's Den (Shark Tank) & it's clear the majority need more than financial assistance. Oh and that is in a world that has patent protection available for the human inventor.

"Entrepreneurs Anonymous" They could just piggy back it with Gamblers anonymous. From a "disorder" perspective they are probably very similar.

The cherry tree of inventions has nearly been picked clean.

No patents? I agree that's insane! lol, It's not bad that patents are for the realm of capitalism in fact it's great, but imo it's best left for the "Big Boys".

 

[rytmenpinne]

I think there is a siginficant point being missed here. Inventors invent. Entrepreneurs market products and make them successful. Creative impulses may drive the desire to invent, but money is what makes it a worthwhile pursuit in practical terms. Without the economic driving force, all private inventors really would be nothing but dreamers wasting their time - a game for fools..

I have to believe that anyone supporting this no-patent business has never invented anything [that required significant effort]. True? Be honest!

You say Benjamin Franklin didn't invent anything? :) I've understood the bunson burner was never patented either? and as vici10 pointed out Marie curie didn't patent the radium isolation process..

I myself is actually in the process of developing a product that's based and very similar, but a big improvement over an old way of doing things, it's in a niche market(musical instruments) so it's not exactly something that's going to change the world... I'm pretty shure it's patentable tho, but I won't do it..

Now, I do very well understand that patents have a very noble cause, but the issues that comes with them by far outnumbers the benefits, anyone care to challange this statement?