Are Smilies Patented

[echnidna]

The inventor claims he owns the patents Look HERE (http://mosnews.com/news/2005/08/16/smileyinvention.shtml)

[javali]

If Siemens arranges the trip to Moscow, I will be happy to appear before the court, and testify to having used similies as early as 1988.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Come to that, I can give you a few smallish HDDs to take with you. They're about 2GB total size, with various msg archives from the late 80's (I think) to only a few months ago. Fidonet, Aminet and a few others.

A patent on something that's been PD for over a decade? Ptui! :p

[maglite]

Amazing as it may seem.......he probably has a case if nobody else has patented the idea.

A few years ago i was tempted to go down the patent path and found that somebody had already patented product very similar to mine.
Well not the product per se but it listed all the ingredients ie: plant or herbal extracts.
What peeved me was that the peanut with the patent could be entitled to a royalty cos my product contained those ingredients, but he couldnt provide the patent office with a recipe or formula for the patent he had applied for.
From all acounts he doesnt have to, if the product contains any of the ingredients he named in his patent.

[javali]

Amazing as it may seem.......he probably has a case if nobody else has patented the idea.


I do not know about the Russian IP laws. In the US, Canada, Japan, Israel, and under the PCT patents have to be new. That is, a patent is not granted on information that has been published prior to the application. (There are some exceptions in some countries on inventions the inventor publishes prior to applying for the patent.) As smilies were in use before 1999, they were not patentable at that time, and the patent is, therefore, not valid.

It is interesting to note that in Australia there is no requirement to prove that an Innovative Patent is new. In 2001 the Australian patent office has granted John Keogh of Hawthorn, Victoria and Innovative Patent on the wheel. (See http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/ ). Innovative patents are not, however, enforceable. They have to be upgraded to patents in order to claim the protection they provide, and are checked for novelty when they are upgraded.

[Barry_White]

I thought Forest Gump invented the smiley.

[Sturdee]

Don't patents only give protection in the country they are registered? Are they not normally applied for in every country and isn't that why it is such an expensive business.

AFAIK if you obtain a patent in one country then someone else can apply and get a patent for the same thing in another country stopping you using your patent idea in that country. As such within Russia he has a valid patent and will probably win damages from unauthorsied users.


Peter.

[javali]

Don't patents only give protection in the country they are registered? Are they not normally applied for in every country and isn't that why it is such an expensive business.

True.


AFAIK if you obtain a patent in one country then someone else can apply and get a patent for the same thing in another country stopping you using your patent idea in that country.


Not really. Once you obtain a patent, the patent is published, and cannot be patented in other countries. If you have not applied for a patent in another country you do not have the protection the patent provides - that is, anyone can use your invention in that country, but since the invention is not patentable in that country, noone will be able to block you from using your invention there.

If, however, someone applies for a patent on the same invention in another country before your invention was published, they may gain the patent protection and might prevent you from usiung your invention in that country


As such within Russia he has a valid patent and will probably win damages from unauthorsied users.

He probably does not have a valid patent because smilies were in used long before he applied for the patent, and his patent is, therefore, not valid.

[Sturdee]

Thanks for the clarification.


Peter.

[ozwinner]

Bugger. :confused: :o :eek: :( :mad: :) :rolleyes: :cool: :p ;) :D


Al :confused: :o :eek: :( :mad: :) :rolleyes: :cool: :p ;) :D

[Gingermick]

In the US and under the PCT patents have to be new..

What about ugh boots?

[Sturdee]

What about ugh boots?


I don't think that was a patent issue but they either registered the name or copyrighted the name.

Either way we can still sell ugh boots over there but made here but cannot call them ugh boots. Bloody Seppo's :(


Peter.

[echnidna]

I think Ugh boots was a trademark matter

[DavidG]

The yanks tried to trade mark 'UGG'

It is a generic term in Australia and as such can not be trademarked but
when did that ever stop a yank court giving a yank business something that does not belong to the yanks. :mad: :mad: :mad: