Test for small, fixed-pitch text legibility. The line below is 80 chars. The best font for legibility and density I have found is 'QuickType II Mono' at 8pt on my 102dpi screen (20" @1200x1600). ________________________________________________________________________________ A Wheel By Any Other Name by M. E. Cavanaugh Last month, I wrote about two types of patents, so-called defensive, or "broad" patents, and offensive, or "Jepson," patents--the former being better suited to large companies, the latter to small inventors. What are the specifics of these two diametrically opposed patents? First of all, it's important to note that patents are a business strategy. And in business, the first thing to consider is, "What are our strengths and weaknesses?" For large companies, the primary strength is money. If a large company can maneuver someone smaller into a spending match, the large company will win. This says nothing about merits, or who should win, only that the Golden Rule of business applies: "He with the gold wins." The way to fight this fight is with a defensive or "broadened" patent. "Broadened" does not imply a patent that "covers" more. Quite the opposite--the broader the patent, the less it is likely to cover. In effect, the broad patent is very expensive, and reduces the number of possible opponents. Here's how it works: A defensive or broad patent is written in a general way. For example, a "wheel" becomes a "rotatively supporting member" or some such. In theory, this covers more than "wheel"--that is, in theory, it "claims more." This can have the effect of requiring extensive interpretation by expert witnesses, often at thousands of dollars per hour. Also, as attorneys, we have a duty to represent the client to the best of our abilities, and for a wealthy client, broad patents, potentially costing millions to litigate, are in the best interests of the client, because the client is less likely to be challenged in court because of the expense. For the Jepson patent, the strategy is exactly opposite. Here we want to minimize the cost of patenting, make litigation unattractive to potential rivals, and, if litigation becomes necessary, we want to win with the least possible expense. That last consideration alone says we need to avoid the need for experts and for "specialty" attorneys. (Yes, there are attorneys that specialize in the interpretation of broad patents.) The Jepson patent is written for clarity. The best Jepson patent is short and to the point, with brief, simple claims and clear, unambiguous language. Although the claims become even harder to write, and really do require an attorney with knowledge of the case law, the overall patent is much less expensive. Further, a properly written Jepson claim can be easily understood by a qualified judge, even one who does not specialize in intellectual property. Since claims are interpreted only by judges, and since judges generally do not like the use of experts if they can be avoided, we can do away with the jury, expensive experts, and specialized attorneys. It is amazing how fast and far the expense involved drops! Even a small entity--for example the small, individual inventor--will generally find the expense of litigation reasonable. This explains why litigation is unlikely; if the small entity can afford it, and the patent is "clear on its face," litigation may become pointless. From my personal view, and apparently the view of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, small inventors are the real machine driving true innovation in this country. Most large entities, while they may do a marvelous job of optimizing what is already known, have little incentive to endanger their business with truly new, untried technology, and they tend to discourage such risks. Small entities don't carry such baggage. Consequently, most true breakthroughs, even today, are by small entities. As an officer of the courts, and someone who truly believes in the American dream, I can only hope that small entities get this message: We need our small inventors.