Originally posted by Full Tang Clan:
In addition, patents are particular where you can only patent a "method"; you can't patent an "idea". That is you can patent a MEANS to a solution. You can't patent the solution.
That's why companies can make variations on someone else's overall idea without paying a cent of royalties.
Patent law for intellectual property is a little more complex that what you just wrote, FTC. Depending on how Inclusive the patent is, patents can indeed cover all possible 'embodiements' of an Idea.
Many pharmaceutical and biotech companies derive most of their value from their patents on ideas more than the specific applications of those ideas. You can even patent a Process. Certainly a Method is often a critical part of the explanation the intellectual property that a patent claims. But, you don't even have to produce a working model of an idea (or make a chemical) for it to be patentable.
There is an art to writing a good patent. Design patents are nearly worthless, covering only a specific design (for eample a square purple peg, instead of a round green one). Idea patents cover any number of possible designs. This is true for mechanisms, as well as chemical patents (my area of expertise). Sometimes it is possible for clever folks to 'design around' an existing area of intellectual property, sometimes not.
The axis lock patent covers any number of potential variations of the lock. That does not mean that there are not other good locks out there. But making a knife with a lock falling under the Ideas presented in the McHenry Williams patent cited above would technically infringe on their rights, and they could sue for damages. Whether another lock really infringes, or not, would be up to a court to decide.
Patents always include what is called 'prior art', or the intellectual property that others have claimed which is similar in purpose to your own. In order to be patentable, the idea has to be New, or Novel, Not be Obvious, and to have Not been previously patented or disclosed publically. That these locks are variations of a bolt-action lock does not disqualify their patentability. In fact, Mr. Collins two previous patents on the Bolt-action mechanism are both cited in the Axis lock patent as prior art. The axis lock is different enough in the eyes of the US Patent office to have been granted its own patent.
Sorry for the long post. This is my home turf here and misunderstandings about patents and trademarks are common. Just trying to help
Paracelsus
[This message has been edited by Paracelsus (edited 12-03-2000).]
