(David Platt) wrote in news:3t18jb-
:

In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Assuming this is true, I should ask again: What form of publication can be
considered a minimum for adequate establishment of prior art to prevent my
work being patented by a troll and used against me?

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html

II "Electronic publications as prior art"
A "Status as a 'printed publication'"

"An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet
publication, is considered to be printed within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the
publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which
the document relates."


And post AIA? If no significant change, fair enough. It looks as if any
aim toward the likely competitors is a boost too, makes it harder for them to
argue they could not have known... As my program is a special interest for
electronic music making, that narrows the field too. People either ignore
that stuff, or actively seek it out, depending on their own motives.

You might want to consider a combined approach. For example, you
could do a fairly extensive technical writeup on your invention, with
enough detail to disclose all of its essential elements, and format
this as a PDF document and then put it up on a website on a server you
control. Include a date of publishing in the PDF. Add enough
relevant keywords to make it web-searchable.


Yes, I'm considerign that, actually the manual itself will be very
explanatory of underlying methods by intent. I respected manuals like those
above all others, so it seems I should write one. Question: can I do this
validly while still maintaining closed source code? For example, can a block
diagram of sufficient clarity and detail be ok, while still keeping a
schematic or detailed code secret?

(Just a moment to say thanks, this is really useful help for me, it is
helping me think it through must faster than anything I have been told
before. I extend that thanks to all who put a considered view here, whatever
contention exists is ok, there's enough change, enough unfamiliarity, to
allow for that, not least because it ends up pointing to what needs the
closest look.)

Then, do a short advert: "A new and novel design for sound and music
synthesis has been published at http://.... with a SHA-256 hash of
xxxxxxxxxx", and buy space for this ad in the classified section in
the back of one or two electronic-music magazines ("accessible to
persons concerned with the art to which the document relates"). When
the magazines are published, buy a copy of each and stow 'em away, as
well as a copy of the PDF in electronic form.

Keep some logs on your web server for a few months to record any
public accesses to the PDF.


That's a nice idea, the classified ad and the checksum for the electronic
document, then logging responses.

This combination ought to be enough to demonstrate to any relevant
court that the document had in fact been published and was accessible
to the public on such-and-such a date. You'd have a tangible "paper
copy" of a magazine with the announcement and a cryptographically
secure hash, and the document matching the hash.



This is good, but I am uncertain how much detail is adequate. It is widely
known that earning from open source code is all but impossible. I have
only seen ONE article stating convincing arguemtn otherwise, and that
involved selling merchandise related.. Not really how I want to spend my
time.

I'm hoping that I can reveal enough detail in a 'block diagram' form while
maintainign closed source code. Is such a compromise feasible to protect
against aggressive patent applied against my work? Having to reveal detailed
code in defence of a court case is one thing, but quite another to do it
openly before I can earn enough to pay to attend the court, let alone defend
myself!