# Odds of patents models seeing actual day light and time frame ?



## rickosw (Jun 13, 2011)

Hi guys,

Just wondering, what are the odds of those lens patents being filled being put to production?

And roughly how long is time frame from the lens patents made to actual productionn? 

ie do they (canon) make a patent when they have a rough idea of the particular model they want to produce or do they make patent when they actually have a close to production (almost ready) model ?

Cheers!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2011)

rickosw said:



> Just wondering, what are the odds of those lens patents being filled being put to production?



In 2010, Canon had over 2,500 patents issued by the US PTO, and their numbers for past years are similar. Looking across all their lines, they release maybe 150-200 products in a given year. So, for a rough estimate, less than 10% of patents become products (although that doesn't count patents that are parts of other products, e.g. a new optical coating).



rickosw said:


> And roughly how long is time frame from the lens patents made to actual productionn?



It varies widely, from months to years. Keep in mind that when we see a patent published, it was filed 18 months before that date. 



rickosw said:


> do they (canon) make a patent when they have a rough idea of the particular model they want to produce or do they make patent when they actually have a close to production (almost ready) model ?



Some of each. They also file patents they never intend to produce, just to keep someone else from making that product.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 13, 2011)

just looking through this...

50 f1.4, definitely needs replacing
28 f2.8, i want faster but i'd still consider it if the price was right
28 1.8DO, 24 1.4DO, i'd buy them if the price was right, even if too expensive i want them released.
70-300L and efs55-250 - released already
efs 11f2. i'll be first in line if it's cheap enough (ie, cheaper than a 5d+14 f2.8)
evil patent, damn i want one of them too. make a tilt/shift adapter from evil-mount to ef-mount and i'm sold...
600 f5.6DO, interesting...
24-70 f2.8 ii, it's coming, more of 'when' than 'if'...
17-55 f2 is, it's coming, f2 or 2.8, maybe not for a few years (i'd rather 15-60 f2.8 though)
14-24 fisheye? weird...
60 f2.8 macro, not yet.
70-200 2.8L ii, and we're back at the beginning of the list, dec6 2009, only the third listed here to be released yet.

3 of all them seeing the light of day isn't a good hitrate, is it?


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 14, 2011)

rickosw said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Just wondering, what are the odds of those lens patents being filled being put to production?
> 
> ...



There is no clear pattern. someties a lens is released and the Patent follows, or the other way around.

What is clear though is that only a very tiny fraction of the lens patents actually result in a released product.

A company I used to work for designed and built a three engine airplane, but did not patent it. Someone else from a different company did, and my company paid a royalty on each aircraft produced, even though they were first to design it. They had the best of the best lawyers, but patents are stronger.

I reviewed patents in my area of specality, only those that were valuable and workable proceeded to the patent application process. I did not miss any valuable ideas, but sometimes very valuable inventions were missed.

Remember the Y2K computer problem with dates? A employee invented a workaround, but the company did not forsee a use, so they let the employee take ownership and patent it. Turns out that many large companies around the world used it, and he became a very rich person.


----------



## J. McCabe (Jun 14, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> A company I used to work for designed and built a three engine airplane, but did not patent it. Someone else from a different company did, and my company paid a royalty on each aircraft produced, even though they were first to design it. They had the best of the best lawyers, but patents are stronger.



In this case, couldn't a prior art claim invalidate the patents ?


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 15, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > A company I used to work for designed and built a three engine airplane, but did not patent it. Someone else from a different company did, and my company paid a royalty on each aircraft produced, even though they were first to design it. They had the best of the best lawyers, but patents are stronger.
> ...



As I noted, a whole battery of the best attorneys could not overcome it. The other patent was not filed after the airplane was built, but when there is doubt about who was first, a court will always go with a released patent, the time to object is when the patent is in its review period, and that was missed. 


I once had to ask our patent office for a expensive objection to a patent application, that involved a process to shield aircraft wiring from that nasty radio noise produced by all the electronic carry-on electronics, and a occasional military radar. We did not feel the process could be patented, since it was a process specified by the military for some secret projects, as well as in use by commercial projects. 

We had to file a objection, because, in the event the patent was actually approved, it would be very powerful. Once we objected and provided the evidence of prior art, then the patent application was thrown out.


----------

