I'm not sure that's true. I've done a lot of research on copyrights and I think I understand the difference. But, okay, what type of protection does the 'automatic protection' provide that the registration/copyrighting does not?
It's the other way around. The automatic copyright protection is automatic. You have it the instant the work is created. For example, I hold copyright for this post I'm writing, though the terms of service of this site will claim some rights for the site. The question is what registration adds. As I understand it, registration helps with statutory damages, and I believe that it improves your ability to claim your work as yours, though I don't think that it's considered absolute proof. After all, Jane could steal the novel that Fred just wrote and register copyright as hers.
How does that relate at all to the post you were replying to? :S 1. Authors who've done their research know there is no need to put the copyright symbol on their manuscripts for submission. 2. Agents and publishers know this too. 3. Therefore, putting the symbol on your work shows them you haven't don't your research. 4. Agents and publishers like authors who've done their research. If you're self-publishing, do what you like.
A small company I worked for manufactured a patented mechanism. A large manufacturer in that area of business asked us to design such a mechanism specifically to fit on one of their machines...just to see if it would work; there was an implication that large orders might follow. Next thing we know, they're selling machines with our mechanism on; the drawings that were issued to their factory floor even had our logo on! Of course, we protested. "So, sue us. If you think you can bankroll that lengthy a piece of litigation."
Sadly in the commercial world this happens all the time. Luckily in the arts world reputation is important and risks are big, so a company can't afford the embarrassment of getting sued, or the delay in distribution. Hollywood settles millions of dollars worth of false claims every year. It's a mini industry with people making a living claiming false allegations of IP theft to get an out-of-court settlements so the studio can meet it's release date. The only company that seems to get away with it is Disney.
No, wait - the copyright symbol in finished books should be next to the author's name, not the publisher. It's pretty rare for a publisher to actually purchase the copyright and is generally considered a red flag if they want to. No idea about other fields, but this is the case in fiction, for sure.
I don't know if it makes things better or worse, but... If you get a book successfully published, your copyright WILL be violated. Repeatedly. Pirate sites will post your book within hours of its release, and for every DMCA notice you send, another site will pop up. (Authors call it whack-a-mole for a reason, and most of the sane ones have abandoned the game). Unpublished work being plagiarized? Honestly, why would anyone bother when there's so much published stuff they can steal so much more easily?
Bit of a tangent, but just saw a Twitter profile that says "All tweets my own and copyrighted." Bless.
Almost as bad as people who post infringing content on YouTube and add a disclaimer saying "I don't claim any copyright in this work."
Don't let a company have 'a look at' or a 'tryout' of your invention til you file for patent. The company took advantage of you, and depending on when it happened and other factors, there might be recourse. There might not be. America Invents Act of 2012 is intended to stop many patent abuses. For one big thing, patents are no longer based on first to invent, but now on first to file. But that means you have to file. First.
Usually. In his case, he'd have a derivation action under the current rules and still have the ability to obtain the patent even though he didn't file first. But it's a better idea to file first. At the least, you need an NDA in place. For some inventions, it is difficult to get them to the point where a patent is ready to file without disclosing.
Yeah that's why I wrote that he may still be able to take action. For some inventions, sure, it's hard to get them built without some disclosure. But for most, I think first to file will stop a lot of shenanigans.
Yep. And in addition to the administrative processing at the USPTO, possibly claims for misappropriation, maybe unfair competition, invalidity etc. Another area where disclosure is common is in plant patents, where demonstrating the stability of traits is the second step in the inventorship process and sometimes done by sending plants out to be grown by someone with the capacity. Prototyping often results in disclosure outside of a filing, because even though you may be on file the engineering firm doing the prototyping often has to make adjustments that aren't going to be in the filing. You may even end up with an employee of the engineering firm being an inventor on your patent, which is why you want substantially more than a simple NDA (to ensure an obligation to assign, cooperate in the USPTO, etc.).
It's awesome, isn't it? And the patent exam is so hard that many lawyers practicing in intellectual property fail it! And I think you have to only score...67%? is that right? WOW.
The year I took it the pass rate was down below 50%. It was ridiculous. They're up above 50% now, though I am not sure how much above it. I honestly can't remember what score you need to pass, or whether it has changed since I took it in 2001. I can tell you that it's no fun, though! I've taken two different state bar exams and they're so much easier.
I don't think it's much over 50%! I think a lot of the failures are because so many questions hinge on the America Invents Act, and that's all new, but the pass rate has never been great.
Yes, it may have dipped down again after the AIA. Before the AIA, it was starting to trend upwards a bit, but it wouldn't surprise me that it has gone back down. From a practice standpoint, I still have cases that are governed by pre-AIA law, as well as others governed by post-AIA law. I don't know if the patent bar tests on both, but people going into practice should still know both at this point.
To everyone who's responded that we might still have an action, despite not being first to file the patent: 1/ We had already been granted the patent. 2/ Affording to fight the case was the problem. As far as "letting them have a look"...all they had to do was to buy a machine fitted with our patented device and reverse engineer it; they were just too mean to even do that!
Yup. That'll be the problem with most intellectual property cases, I bet. It's certainly a problem for plagiarism. Nothing to do with be able to prove copyright; everything to do with being able to afford the suit.
Oh I would be begging money off winos on the street to try that case. What a bunch of $&$*)#&$#(&($*##)#)!!!!!!
