IDK where else to put this....
In messages to me personally or in posts on APUG and PE, several people have commented on patents and how useful or useless they are. Some asked what is a Research Disclosure. Others wanted to know how to get one or the other as an inventor. So, I thought I would write something up for APUGgers who might be intereseted in how it is done at EK.
Every month we write a Periodic Report (my 32 years x 12 = LOTS of these things)
Every quarter, we write a Quarterly Report (32 x 4)
Every time a milestone is passed we write a Technical Report (Number of major milestones = number of reports)
All of the above may be written alone or with project members as co-authors with editorship rotating.
When something noteworthy came up, we wrote an Idea Memorandum (I had about 100). These can be alone or with co-workers. You get an award and seed money for Ideas that pass a review board. One of mine got seed money for R&D once.
When an IM looks promising, it becomes an Invention Report (alone or with other co-inventors). I had about 40 of these.
When an IR looks good the inventors are asked to research the literature for prior art and then begin working with an attorney in the legal department to see if it is Patentable. If so, the inventor(s) begin working with an attorney to write up the application and make the examples that will have to be presented to the patent office as proof. (they don't just take your word). I got some patents from the IRs above.
If the IR looks good, but is not deemed patentable, or if Kodak was not interested in pursuing it as a product, they publish a Research Disclosure which bars everyone else from patenting it, but not from using it. I had some of these too.
At Kodak, there are two major patent milestones. One is at 20 when you get your name and picture mounted on the 'wall of fame' in the Research Labs. One is at 50 patents. You get a cash reward over the normal $1 and 'valuable consideration' given by the company.
So, at this point we have a patent....
What is it? It is a document meant to explain "To one skilled in the art" how to repeat the invention. Therefore, to one unskilled in the art, the patent may appear wrong, misleading or otherwise useless. In fact, I have seen one person here on APUG describe most patents as being useless. It probably stems from the fundamental definition of a patent. A photographic systems patent need only make sense to a photographic engineer, no more, no less.
An emulsion patent need make sense to an emulsion engineer and to some extent the photographic engineer. Being a chemist and/or a physicist will help somewhat.
A patent must NOT be misleading in any way to one skilled in the art, but need not be the final form of the product sold using that patent. The product must hold only to the letter of the claims which may be for an aldehyde of from 2 to 200 carbon atoms, with a preferred range of 4 to 100. It may state a concentration range of 0.2 g/l to 200 g/l and a preferred range of 1 g/l to 100 g/l, and a pH from 4 - 8.
It does not have to say what the actual chemical is, what its concentration is, what the pH is, nor does it require a statement of all of the other ingredients. And so where some ingredients are concerned it may simply say "a chlorobromide emulsion such as is known to one skilled in the art was used" and "addenda for stabilzing and hardeing" such as known to one skilled in the art were used.
In this manner, Kodak, Ilford and Fuji can produce B&W products that work but have totally different chemistry and formulas, but we understand the work each of us do because we are "skilled in the art".
So, patents are useful and are very meaningful. Don't give up if you are reading them. You gain skill in the art by being a photographer and by reading the patent literature. Don't be intimidated by them.
By doing this, you could re-create Microdol X for yourself or re-create one of the old time B&W papers for yourself. Both are out there in patents. So are the formulas for RA-4, C41 and E-6.
PE
In messages to me personally or in posts on APUG and PE, several people have commented on patents and how useful or useless they are. Some asked what is a Research Disclosure. Others wanted to know how to get one or the other as an inventor. So, I thought I would write something up for APUGgers who might be intereseted in how it is done at EK.
Every month we write a Periodic Report (my 32 years x 12 = LOTS of these things)
Every quarter, we write a Quarterly Report (32 x 4)
Every time a milestone is passed we write a Technical Report (Number of major milestones = number of reports)
All of the above may be written alone or with project members as co-authors with editorship rotating.
When something noteworthy came up, we wrote an Idea Memorandum (I had about 100). These can be alone or with co-workers. You get an award and seed money for Ideas that pass a review board. One of mine got seed money for R&D once.
When an IM looks promising, it becomes an Invention Report (alone or with other co-inventors). I had about 40 of these.
When an IR looks good the inventors are asked to research the literature for prior art and then begin working with an attorney in the legal department to see if it is Patentable. If so, the inventor(s) begin working with an attorney to write up the application and make the examples that will have to be presented to the patent office as proof. (they don't just take your word). I got some patents from the IRs above.
If the IR looks good, but is not deemed patentable, or if Kodak was not interested in pursuing it as a product, they publish a Research Disclosure which bars everyone else from patenting it, but not from using it. I had some of these too.
At Kodak, there are two major patent milestones. One is at 20 when you get your name and picture mounted on the 'wall of fame' in the Research Labs. One is at 50 patents. You get a cash reward over the normal $1 and 'valuable consideration' given by the company.
So, at this point we have a patent....
What is it? It is a document meant to explain "To one skilled in the art" how to repeat the invention. Therefore, to one unskilled in the art, the patent may appear wrong, misleading or otherwise useless. In fact, I have seen one person here on APUG describe most patents as being useless. It probably stems from the fundamental definition of a patent. A photographic systems patent need only make sense to a photographic engineer, no more, no less.
An emulsion patent need make sense to an emulsion engineer and to some extent the photographic engineer. Being a chemist and/or a physicist will help somewhat.
A patent must NOT be misleading in any way to one skilled in the art, but need not be the final form of the product sold using that patent. The product must hold only to the letter of the claims which may be for an aldehyde of from 2 to 200 carbon atoms, with a preferred range of 4 to 100. It may state a concentration range of 0.2 g/l to 200 g/l and a preferred range of 1 g/l to 100 g/l, and a pH from 4 - 8.
It does not have to say what the actual chemical is, what its concentration is, what the pH is, nor does it require a statement of all of the other ingredients. And so where some ingredients are concerned it may simply say "a chlorobromide emulsion such as is known to one skilled in the art was used" and "addenda for stabilzing and hardeing" such as known to one skilled in the art were used.
In this manner, Kodak, Ilford and Fuji can produce B&W products that work but have totally different chemistry and formulas, but we understand the work each of us do because we are "skilled in the art".
So, patents are useful and are very meaningful. Don't give up if you are reading them. You gain skill in the art by being a photographer and by reading the patent literature. Don't be intimidated by them.
By doing this, you could re-create Microdol X for yourself or re-create one of the old time B&W papers for yourself. Both are out there in patents. So are the formulas for RA-4, C41 and E-6.
PE