Sunday, February 7, 2016

Week 5 Reading Reflection

Week 5 Reading Reflection

1.      What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations? 
·         The article for incorporating on the web was interesting. I didn’t know that it was a state related issuance.
2.      Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
·         I didn’t realize the extent of obtaining and securing a patent. The process is long and costly. It doesn’t seem like it’s worth it. How many inventors actually go through this? What does licensing versus marketing the invention have to do with patents? Does a license protect the invention as a well as a patent?
3.      If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
·         Why can’t you copyright an invention? It would be an easier process, and the invention would be protected for a long time. People can still express ideas off of it in order to produce new inventions. Or, improved inventions. The owner can also license the product just as it would patented.
·         If an inventor doesn’t get patent protection, how would licensing the product rather than marketing it help protect it? What if someone else has the same idea as you and license it out around the same time? How does the license process work compared to a patent process?
4.      Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?

·         There wasn’t anything that I thought the author was wrong about. I just wanted to add something that the author may have missed about Trademarks. One of the pitfalls listed should be to double check to see if the trademark has “double entendre”. A lot of companies now are creating different brand names for their global marketplaces. This is because the name we are familiar with in the U.S. may have another meaning that is inappropriate for another country or language. On the other hand, this may fall under trademark research. 

No comments:

Post a Comment