Was This Idea Worthy of a Patent?

You are right. RC circuits are way common and most every small device that had a blinker (before digital) used them. Probably since about WWII or so.

I'll have to see the film, but basically ideas tend to be a dime a dozen and if you proposed a new idea on a car and it became a standard, it would be hard to get money for it. If a Ford engineer came up with one, he'd probably get a small award, maybe a cash bonus - but not millions.

If you were super careful, patented the idea first with good attorneys (bad attorneys can often get patents that don't hold up, you are right again) and then SOLD the idea, you might earn some moolah. Probably not millions. It would take something big, like a battery twice as good as what we have now - that could be worked up for millions. I don't think the idea itself was worth a patent. Nowadays it would be a tough sell, anyway.

It's quite a thin premise to base a David-vs.-Goliath story on. And the moment you get an offer, you TAKE it! At least after a little negotiation. Just like Mitch McDeere narrated in The Firm - It's all about getting that settlement, baby! Take the cash.

My understanding is that it was a process exclusively designed for vehicles. So in that sense it is 100% patentable regardless of its use in many other electronics. I had the same question when I first heard the story, too.

Also, he was awarded millions because of the lost revenue that he would have gotten from every car produced since his patent. At least, that's the way I heard the story. I still haven't read the book or seen the flick.

There were probably many people who saw the problems caused by fixed timing windshield wipers. Kearns is almost certainly not the first to say "gee wouldn't it be neat if the wipers could wait just a bit between wipes". If the use of resistors and capacitors to create that delay was so obvious, why didn't "the Big Three" engineers think of it? Ford engineers were experimenting with a bimetallic timer, which apparently didn't work. Eventually, they likely would have used a resistor/capacitor system, but Kearns thought of it first. He not only thought of it, but built it, tested it, and refined it until it worked. So, yeah, he deserved credit for it and to profit from it.

When watching this, I immediately thought that this would be a very simple problem for a junior college electronics student -- which I was in 2000. We had numerous homework assignments to create projects just like this. Even in the 1960s, this does not seem to be that earth shaking of an invention.

According to the story (true or not) Ford was trying to come up with an intermittent and FAILED until Doc Kearns came along. Patent? Yes!

"But does taking an obvious and already existing approach to a problem qualify for a patent?"

Under current Supreme Court doctrine (see KSR v. Teleflex, decided April 30, 2007), this would not be patentable, as it combines familiar elements (a resistor and a capacitor) according to known methods (the RC network) to yield a predictable result (creating a delay).

Regarding whether this idea was worthy of patent, I would say yes. It not only stood up to the initial scrutiny of the patent office, but over the years, companies did not make a slight change to this fellows idea to get around his patent. It must have been a well written patent.

In order to qualify for a patent, your invention has to satisfy three criteria:

1. It has to the first of its kind

2. It has to work (no perpetual motion machines etc)

3. It has to be deemed not obvious to people of average skill in the field.

The 3rd aspect is the most ambiguous and where many patent applications fail during the examination phase. Most inventions can seem obvious in hindsight, and a patent application that is basically just the combining of commonly known/used items is typically not granted a patent. For example trying to patent Part C, which is just the combination of two well known components (Part A and Part B), is typically not granted. Patent law has an element of subjectivity to it though, and not all patents are created equal with regard to how strong (infringement proof) they are. A patent is seldom granted on its first review, and it can take much amending back and forth between patent examiner and patent lawyer.

If you believe your invention has commercial value, it would be worthwhile hiring a good patent lawyer, which can make a HUGE difference in overcoming the various obstacles along the way. A good patent lawyer is also more likely to write a well worded "Claim" which is the boundary around your invention. Too broad a claim will not properly define the invention, ie make it too vague, but too narrow a "Claim" will make it easier for someone else to make a minor change and skirt around your patent.

Anyone interested in patenting an invention should read up on basic patent law (even if a lawyer will write the actual patent application). Learning a little about patent law is quite the eye opener, especially something called "The Pith and The Pendulum" which is basically how the courts flip flop between being hard on people who infringe upon a patent, followed by a few years of being easy on possible patent infringers.

(I saw this movie in March 2009 on a plane, which I though was a great "midday movie")

A RC delay circuit by itself couldn't have done what was required. From my memory of the movie, Ford didn't trust electronic timers and it was Kearns that got to patenting that specific idea first - also to demonstrate that "electronics" were reliable enough for this kind of work.

In the 1960s you couldn't just whip out a 555 could you? :)