SidePlate - Patenting and idea?

[JAE]

Recently, we received an update on one of our structural software programs and found that it included an advertisement on the main page for SidePlate (TM) which is apparently a patented beam-column moment connection system that has been developed by a structural engineer.

We also just received a large notebook summary from government regarding a symposium on terrorist avoidance in building construction. It also included a paper by the same SidePlate engineers, promoting their product as the cat's meow for avoiding progressive collapse. (they really slammed the traditional SMRF moment connection that was found to be flawed in the Northridge Earthquake).

My question is this...how far can we go in patenting these "ideas" in structural engineering. Can I go out and quickly patent the "idea" of a particular steel shape, or application that could have also been developed by many of you....and then sue you or charge you a royalty for using "my" idea? The SidePlate has been tested which costs money, and they offer design services to implant their product into your design.

There is also patents out there for many other engineering solutions to problems that occur everywhere. What limits all of us by patenting every detail we come up with? (I'm sure it costs some money to do so).

 

[LPPE]

The answer to your question of can you go out and patent a particular shape and than charge a royalty - the answer is yes.
It would be very cost prohibitive to patent every detail you come up with, however. You need a patent attorney which is minimum $150. Then the patent application fees, which total about $450 minimum, depending on what type of patent you are seeking. So your looking at $600 min. for each detail, and you would probably spend thousands in court costs to recoup a $5 royalty.
After the Northridge earthquake, some new moment connections were patented. I'm not sure if FEMA 350 mentions these proprietary connections or not. I'm sure you can find something on this from AISC.

 

[Ingenuity]

JAE,

I have seen both sides of the argument on SEAINT list service several months ago (

http://www.seaint.org).

I tend to side with Charlie Carter of AISC, and like Charlie, i do not believe that it is patented technology - BUT the patent office is soo busy that is does only cursory checks.

Quote from Charlie...


"... I too have a very difficult time understanding how a fabricated assembly of plates, cuts, holes, welds, and/or fittings can be patented. Plus, I have to think a search of a few engineer's drawing files, project notes, doodle pads and cocktail napkin collection might turn up a lot of prior art that looks a bit like some things that have now come to be patented.

I'm not saying fittings and such can't be patented. I'm just commenting that it surprised me that these apparently could be. As a result, I looked into the process and learned that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is so swamped that they tend to treat all patent requests as "defensible until proven indefensible by challenge in court". That is, they assume that if they grant a patent and it is not patentable or invalidated by prior art, someone will challenge that patent and defeat it..."

Maybe i will go back and dig out some of the details i "invented" over the last 15 years" and apply for a patent


Some real great reading on a sort-of-related subject is the book by fellow engineer Henry Petroski "The Evolution of Useful Things" - especially the chapter on paper clips!

 

[Zulak]

Hey pylko,
sounds like you've tried this patent thing before. Any good ideas we should know about?

 

[Ron]

JAE...one of the simple first tests for a patent application is the uniqueness of the idea. If it doesn't get past that one, it usually doesn't fly. Yes, the patent office does cursory checks. The applicant is supposed to do most of the search work prior to submittal, but as you can imagine, this costs money and is not objective in its final interpretation.

Many individuals with ideas forestall infringement by applying for a patent. It doesn't mean that a patent will ever be given...just that the appearance of one in the future might discourage those who have similar ideas.

In the past, a general rule was that "ideas" without tangible mechanical representation were not patentable. This concept has been breached on occasion. Concepts are not patentable in general, either, though the prominence of intellectual property law has begun to change that.

 

[Trussdoc]

In addition to patent woes, any new proprietary assembly needs to be tested before it is accepted by a code agency such as ICBO or BOCA. In my experience, this can be very expensive, running into six figures ($) for a simple wood truss connector plate. Make sure your market exists before investing any money!

 

[ishvaaag]

These things shouldn't be patentable, just an imperfection of the market system. Moreover, no one in other country is to respect such thing, made in variants for years in lots of places.

 

[LPPE]

Yes, zulak. I patented the A 491 and A 326 high strength bolts, but they never caught on.

 

[JAE]

pylko...weren't those bolts the newfangled high strength rubber type? I wondered what ever became of them

Thanks all for your posts. I do agree with the quote that ingenuity included. A combination of plates and welds may be a great idea...but how can you ethically justify claiming legal privalege over it? I don't think that the patent offices check with all the other engineers to see if the idea is something that most engineers could have come up with on their own.

 

[Ingenuity]

i know little about the US Patent office, but it is probably run by bean counters and lawyers...not engineers and scientists, as it probably should be

also...i am aware of a US Patent that has been granted in the last year or so, to a North American company for a mechanical testing device used in structural evaluation...only problem is that a European company invented, patented and has been manufacturing the device for several years (more than 5 years, but less than 10) ...seems to loose the "spirit" of the intent of Patent by the original "artist" when it can be "copied" and patented in another jurisdiction.

 

[LPPE]

Actually, JAE, the material was a high strength Cheez-Wiz that I developed by a unique aging process in my 'fridge.

 

[JAE]

I got it....Cheez Whiz with the lid left open in the fridge will harden to something between steel and titanium.