Tractor backhoe - homemade

[Renze]

From my courses the most important thing about a patent is having the lawyers to aggressively litigate against anyone coming close to violating it.

To me, a granted patent is only a deterrence for those who are scared of lawyers or their fees. Only in court you find out what a patent is worth...

When interested, read this textbook example of patent justice:

EUPillar SA Joskin Machines Agricoles v. BV Veenhuis Machines, M. H. Vanbuel and SA Broekx - Civ. Liège, 6 December 2007

w3.abdn.ac.uk

 

[rScotty]

Did you invent them, or did you file them ?

My development at a previous employer was patented. The patent attorney asked to supply a description, to which he only added periods and commas: I literally wrote the patent. He charged 7000 Euro. AFAIK filing it at the national patent office sets you back only 1000 to 1200 Euro, which is a more realistic fee if it has to come from private savings, instead of from a couple of million in business turnover.

I am now working on a design which will be tested at my mates farm this autumn and spring in secrecy. How does filing a patent work ? That patent attorneys best quality was protecting his own job, the last time i dealt with one, so i dont think they are going to teach this ape how to climb...

I worked as an science-orinted engineer doing R&D & technical consulting.
Innovations as well as improving manufacturing methods for existing products were equally important parts of that job. Along the way I generally did some of the technical writing, testing, and prototyping - and then worked with patent attorneys and also with patent artists when specialized drawings were required. It was a lot of fun and exciting for a young guy - although I don't miss now as much as I though I would.

Today, the philosophical and educational implications of the patent process interest me more than the work I used to do. Or maybe I'm just getting old....

I saw some patents that became international in scope while others were more targeted. I believe - but do not know for sure - that patent law can vary from one country to another.
Last I checked, the USA patent office offered a one year "provisional patent" with reduced requrements and expenses. I've never filed one of those, but have been tempted. As I understand it, the goal of a provisional patent is intended to offer a year of protection without the formality and expense of a full patent. Sounds rather too good to be true.....but we can dream. You might want to check and see if something like that is also available in Europe.
Lucj
rScotty

 

[Renze]

Along the way I generally did some of the technical writing, testing, and prototyping - and then worked with patent attorneys and also with patent artists when specialized drawings were required.

Yes, but i am wondering what the requirements are for those specialised drawings. Line weight, perhaps ? Patent drawings are always in bold, much bolder than production drawings.

I want to build a prototype soon, then test on stubble, next spring test on greencrop and when it works as intended, file my patent i write this winter. I assume the requirements for drawings and text makeup is pretty standardized worldwide...

 

[LouNY]

Yes, but i am wondering what the requirements are for those specialised drawings. Line weight, perhaps ? Patent drawings are always in bold, much bolder than production drawings.

I want to build a prototype soon, then test on stubble, next spring test on greencrop and when it works as intended, file my patent i write this winter. I assume the requirements for drawings and text makeup is pretty standardized worldwide...

Except for china.

 

[BFreaky]

I'm not considering a patent for this. In my country there is no point because no one will protect it. Anyway, if someone can copy this by just watching these pictures and videos, just go ahead . I'm well aware of the complexity of this machine because I drew all parts in full detail and it takes a few months and a ton of thinking to do it

 

[rScotty]

I'm not considering a patent for this. In my country there is no point because no one will protect it. Anyway, if someone can copy this by just watching these pictures and videos, just go ahead . I'm well aware of the complexity of this machine because I drew all parts in full detail and it takes a few months and a ton of thinking to do it

I keep pointing this out, but haven't yet figured out how to explain it understandably.
For some reason, there is a common misunderstanding about the purpose of a patent.

Call me stubborn, but I'll give it one more try - here goes...
A patent rewards a person by gving that person recognition for being innovative.

The patent holder agrees to educate the world in exactly how to use an invention, and in exchange the world agrees to give him the option of exlusive use for a few (7) years.
After that, the patent is available for anyone to use.

The basic purpose of a patent is not the exclusive use.
The patent holder can decide if he wants exclusive use or not.
The basic purpose of a patent is to educate the world in how to do something better.
That is the reason why patents have to be completely described and illustrated.

Just because some have decided to concentrate on the self-serving option doesn't make that the only reason patents exist, or even the main reason.

Go for it,
rScotty

 

[Renze]

The basic purpose of a patent is not the exclusive use.
The patent holder can decide if he wants exclusive use or not.
The basic purpose of a patent is to educate the world in how to do something better.
That is the reason why patents have to be completely described and illustrated.

I dont agree with that. The purpose of a patent is to create exclusive rights for the innovator to sell his invention. If a small innovative company spends its resources (time, money) into developing a product that can improve the world, a patent is there to give the innovator a chance to capitalize on his hard work. If a large and cumbersome organisation (which are generally speaking less innovative) can copy the work right off the bat and capitalize on someone elses creative work and beat them commercially by their larger resources, there is no incentive to develop anything new, by the smaller companies who are generally speaking the innovators.

Good example: Kemper patented the row independent corn head in 1983, the same year as i was born. I do not know of a contractor who didnt have a Kemper header in my youth, they were the dominant force.
John Deere bought them in 1997, and Claas and New Holland dealers were worried: If Deere would only sell them in green and yellow, and no longer make them available to competitors in orange and white, the dealers in my area knew that contractors would buy that Kemper header, no matter which chopper it was attached to. (Same like Cummins and Ram)

DE3340820A1 - Maschine zum maehen und haeckseln von mais oder aehnlichem stengelartigen erntegut - Google Patents

patents.google.com

Without a patent, Kemper would probably have gone bankrupt if the chopper manufacturers stole their idea, sold it standard on every harvester they made, and thereby produced it cheaper by economy of scale, while Kemper never had the chance to sell enough units to earn back the R&D investment they put in.

Home : Maschinenfabrik KEMPER GmbH & Co. KG

www.kemper-stadtlohn.de

No mention of JD on the Kemper website, yet on the European Deere site, they proudly mention that their corn header is made by Kemper

In 1990 there was no self respecting contractor who didnt use a Kemper header, on any brand of forager, so eagerly was the Kemper header adopted in the market. When the patent expired and the chopper manufacturers began building their own, the concept was introduced in North America, where it now also became the standard.
Since the Kemper patent expired, everyone began making them, and the row independent corn head has also become the standard in North America. The Deere takeover probably saved that company because they cancelled all other agricultural production in order to keep up with header demand... which means that they could have better did like Piet Zweegers did when he invented the drum mower in 1965: License it to the whole world, and make them put a sticker on each mower that says "system Zweegers"

 

[rScotty]

I dont agree with that. The purpose of a patent is to create exclusive rights for the innovator to sell his invention. If a small innovative company spends its resources (time, money) into developing a product that can improve the world, a patent is there to give the innovator a chance to capitalize on his hard work. If a large and cumbersome organisation (which are generally speaking less innovative) can copy the work right off the bat and capitalize on someone elses creative work and beat them commercially by their larger resources, there is no incentive to develop anything new, by the smaller companies who are generally speaking the innovators.

How can you agree or disagree? Or is that just a figure of speech? After all, a patent is just a tool. The patent holder has the sole option to decide how they want to use that tool.

I know it has become popular to look at the world hrough a financial bias and sometimes wonder why. What part does pure "simplicity" play in that decision? Financially is certainly a handy and simple way to look at things, but that alone seems inadequate to have made the financial miindset so dominant.
There must be other simple & equally valid ways to see the world.

That is an interesting story you wrote about Kemper. Thanks for posting it. Patent wise, I like how it shows the use of a patent as a tool - of how a business chose to use a patent to accomplish their own motives.

Interestingly, some companies chose not to use patents at all because they do not want to teach others to make their product. They choose instead to keep their process as an unpublished "trade secret". That also works , and is a common manufacturing strategy.

rScotty

 

[Renze]

How can you agree or disagree? Or is that just a figure of speech? After all, a patent is just a tool. The patent holder has the sole option to decide how they want to use that tool.

People who pay a couple of grand for a patent with the intention to teach others, are insane. Business isnt an altruistic environment, businesses only do charity if they get recognition for it.

Now a poorly formulated patent can have that side effect: you teach them how to solve a problem, yet you didnt formulate your solution clearly enough so that they can use your solution without infringement of your patent by making a small change that isnt covered by how you formulate it.

I know a German manufacturer who bragged about his 93rd patent lately, and the product he patented is so specific that the cost of the patent application will never be payd by the profit on the number of units sold. For him, its about recognition. Like medals on the chest of a soldier, some wear it as much as they can, some keep them in a drawer.

Interestingly, some companies chose not to use patents at all because they do not want to teach others to make their product. They choose instead to keep their process as an unpublished "trade secret". That also works , and is a common manufacturing strategy.

I worked for a company that patented only their products that went out the door, and not their production methods. Their factory was enclosed, so the only way their tech could escape is through patents. And then there was no way to check whether their three or four competitors in Europe infringed those patents, because they didnt let anyone in either.

 

[Everhard]

I've been following this since day one. I'm almost afraid to ask if there's anything else you'll do or make for this tractor, or is this it?
Perhaps a grapple for the loader?

E.