Percy Picacity wrote in
:

But I *don't* think they have changed the rule that any other
published prior art prevents a patent application being granted.


Looks that way to me too, after trying to check it out briefly. Published
work is prior art, but private dated work is presumably not 'prior art' then,
so what is valid to establish a date for copyright (copies sent recorded
delivery to self or a solicitor's (lawyer's) office) is not good enough for a
patent. So I guess the question (one I keep asking in various ways) is how
public is public?

I'm in the UK, by the way, but I think the key to understanding this must
include a look at how the US does things too.

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."

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.

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.

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.

On 11/10/2014 7:29 PM, David Platt wrote:
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."

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.

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.

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.


You're grasping at straws. Just the fact something was accessible to
the public does not necessarily mean it's not patentable in the United
States. Not any longer, anyway - as a couple of good patent attorneys
have recently told me.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

In article ,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The way the law is written, it doesn't matter if "I didn't tell anyone".
Even if you did, if I filed for a patent first (even by two hours), I
get the patent.

Prior art, published or unpublished, is immaterial.

Cite, please? Which specific wording are you referring to?

What you say flies directly in the face of what the USPTO says:

################

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp#heading-4

How do I know if my invention is patentable?
--------------------------------------------

First, review the list of what can and cannot be patented and
determine if your invention falls into one of those categories.

Second, learn the basics of the patenting process from the materials
provided by the USPTO at 800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP or under
"General Information." .

Next, a search of all previous public disclosures (prior art)
including, but not limited to previously patented inventions in the
U.S. (prior art) should be conducted to determine if your invention
has been publicly disclosed and thus is not patentable. A search of
foreign patents and printed publications should also be
conducted. While a search of the prior art before the filing of an
application is not required, it is advisable to do so. A registered
attorney or agent is often a useful resource for performance of a
patentability search. After an application is filed, the USPTO will
conduct a search as part of the official examination
process. Conducting a thorough patent search is difficult,
particularly for the novice. Patent searching is a learned skill.

################

Also see

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp

which is the Patent Office's summary of the "first inventor to file"
changes:

Question FITF1054: Did pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 102(e) disappear
after the first-inventor-to-file provision became effective on March
16, 2013? Will all anticipation rejections be made under 35
U.S.C. 102(a) after March 16, 2013?

If an application is a pre-AIA (FTI) application, examiners will
continue to make prior art rejections (if appropriate) on the basis of
publications and activities that qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 102(a), 102(b), 102(e), 102(f) and 102(g). By contrast, if the
application is an AIA (FITF) application, examiners will make prior
art rejections (if appropriate) on the basis of publications and
activities that qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or
102(a)(2).

Question FITF1057: How should applicant's admitted prior art be
treated under the AIA?

The AIA does not change the current policy discussed in MPEP 2129 with
respect to the use of s admissions as prior art. A statement by an
applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying
the work of another prior is an admission that can be relied upon for
both anticipation and obviousness determinations. See Examination
Guidelines for Implementing the First Inventor to File Provisions of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 11059, 11064, 11075
(Feb. 14, 2013) (response to comment 20 ).

Question FITF1058: For Web references, does the USPTO use archive.org
(aka, "The Wayback Machine") to get the actual publication date rather
than printout date of the Web reference?

Yes, examiners The Wayback as a source of information to determine
when a Web reference was first made available to the public.

(There are numerous additional questions and answers in this page
about how "prior art" rejections occur under the new rules).

###############

Then, go to the actual text of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act at
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1249/text, and read:

(b)Conditions for Patentability

(1)In general

Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:

102.Conditions for patentability; novelty
(a)Novelty; Prior Art
A person shall be entitled to a unless patent

(1)the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed
publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the
public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2)the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under
section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed
published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

##############

As far as I can see, none of this supports your assertion that
"Prior art, published or unpublished, is immaterial."

On 11/10/2014 9:25 PM, David Platt wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The way the law is written, it doesn't matter if "I didn't tell anyone".
Even if you did, if I filed for a patent first (even by two hours), I
get the patent.

Prior art, published or unpublished, is immaterial.

Cite, please? Which specific wording are you referring to?


USPTO web site - see the link I pointed to earlier.

What you say flies directly in the face of what the USPTO says:

################

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp#heading-4

How do I know if my invention is patentable?
--------------------------------------------

First, review the list of what can and cannot be patented and
determine if your invention falls into one of those categories.

Second, learn the basics of the patenting process from the materials
provided by the USPTO at 800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP or under
"General Information." .

Next, a search of all previous public disclosures (prior art)
including, but not limited to previously patented inventions in the
U.S. (prior art) should be conducted to determine if your invention
has been publicly disclosed and thus is not patentable. A search of
foreign patents and printed publications should also be
conducted. While a search of the prior art before the filing of an
application is not required, it is advisable to do so. A registered
attorney or agent is often a useful resource for performance of a
patentability search. After an application is filed, the USPTO will
conduct a search as part of the official examination
process. Conducting a thorough patent search is difficult,
particularly for the novice. Patent searching is a learned skill.

################


Immaterial for this discussion.

Also see

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp

which is the Patent Office's summary of the "first inventor to file"
changes:

Question FITF1054: Did pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 102(e) disappear
after the first-inventor-to-file provision became effective on March
16, 2013? Will all anticipation rejections be made under 35
U.S.C. 102(a) after March 16, 2013?

If an application is a pre-AIA (FTI) application, examiners will
continue to make prior art rejections (if appropriate) on the basis of
publications and activities that qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 102(a), 102(b), 102(e), 102(f) and 102(g). By contrast, if the
application is an AIA (FITF) application, examiners will make prior
art rejections (if appropriate) on the basis of publications and
activities that qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or
102(a)(2).

Question FITF1057: How should applicant's admitted prior art be
treated under the AIA?

The AIA does not change the current policy discussed in MPEP 2129 with
respect to the use of s admissions as prior art. A statement by an
applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying
the work of another prior is an admission that can be relied upon for
both anticipation and obviousness determinations. See Examination
Guidelines for Implementing the First Inventor to File Provisions of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 11059, 11064, 11075
(Feb. 14, 2013) (response to comment 20 ).

Question FITF1058: For Web references, does the USPTO use archive.org
(aka, "The Wayback Machine") to get the actual publication date rather
than printout date of the Web reference?

Yes, examiners The Wayback as a source of information to determine
when a Web reference was first made available to the public.

(There are numerous additional questions and answers in this page
about how "prior art" rejections occur under the new rules).

###############

Then, go to the actual text of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act at
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1249/text, and read:

(b)Conditions for Patentability

(1)In general

Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:

102.Conditions for patentability; novelty
(a)Novelty; Prior Art
A person shall be entitled to a unless patent

(1)the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed
publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the
public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2)the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under
section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed
published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

##############

As far as I can see, none of this supports your assertion that
"Prior art, published or unpublished, is immaterial."


You need to understand U.S. Patent law.

I'm not going to try to argue with you. I got my information from a
well-respected patent attorney here in the Washington, D.C. area. I
suggest you do the same. Otherwise you'll just argue with anything I say.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 10/11/14 13:50, Brian Howie wrote:

I don't know why some of you just can't lighten up.

You're dealing with deep psychological motivations here, which aren't
amenable to reasoned argument. People just won't 'lighten up' because
someone asks them to, and some conditions are untreatable, like
sociopathy, which is why prisons are full of repeat offenders. Usenet
hasn't been formulated to deal with issues like this, as events in ukra
an unnc have shown.

As far as the RFD is concerned, look at those who have time on their
hands, for example - you'd think they'd have better things to do than
spend so much time and energy in such a negative way, even while on
holiday or living abroad. But when it came to a deeply technical
discussion about HF receiver performance, their contributions lacked
technical substance even where they joined in. It was a total
condemnation of the "if only we had a moderated group in which to
discuss technical items" approach to the RFD, and show the
confabulations that have been put forward as 'support' - which is, of
course, another area where numbers are lacking.

--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

"Spike" wrote in message
...
As far as the RFD is concerned, look at those who have time on their
hands, for example - you'd think they'd have better things to do than
spend so much time and energy in such a negative way, even while on
holiday or living abroad. But when it came to a deeply technical
discussion about HF receiver performance, their contributions lacked
technical substance even where they joined in. It was a total condemnation
of the "if only we had a moderated group in which to discuss technical
items" approach to the RFD, and show the confabulations that have been put
forward as 'support' - which is, of course, another area where numbers are
lacking.

WHS

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 10/11/14 13:50, Brian Howie wrote:
I don't know why some of you just can't lighten up.

You're dealing with deep psychological motivations here, which aren't
amenable to reasoned argument. People just won't 'lighten up' because
someone asks them to, and some conditions are untreatable, like
sociopathy, which is why prisons are full of repeat offenders. Usenet
hasn't been formulated to deal with issues like this, as events in ukra an
unnc have shown.

Some repeat offenders will be those that are so dumb they repeatedly get
caught. Others may simply be institutionalised. A prison sentence is not the
best thing to put on your CV, and the more time spent inside, the more
difficult it will be to get work outside. An easy option could be to
re-offend and go back inside. Are such people sociopaths?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

On 11/11/14 09:46, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 10/11/14 13:50, Brian Howie wrote:

I don't know why some of you just can't lighten up.

You're dealing with deep psychological motivations here, which aren't
amenable to reasoned argument. People just won't 'lighten up' because
someone asks them to, and some conditions are untreatable, like
sociopathy, which is why prisons are full of repeat offenders. Usenet
hasn't been formulated to deal with issues like this, as events in
ukra an unnc have shown.

Some repeat offenders will be those that are so dumb they repeatedly get
caught. Others may simply be institutionalised. A prison sentence is not
the best thing to put on your CV, and the more time spent inside, the
more difficult it will be to get work outside. An easy option could be
to re-offend and go back inside. Are such people sociopaths?

Sociopaths bend the world to fit their view-de-jour of it, using any
technique that might fit the purpose that they see as reasonable. The
schoolboy that knifed the teacher to death thought he was being
reasonable, for example. While any particular sociopath might want to
re-offend to get back inside, that option isn't necessarily limited to them.

I think we're getting OT for most of the groups, so I've set FUs to ukra.

--
Spike

"Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad
law". Judge Rolfe

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

A two or three strikes and out rule
would work wonders. Even a minor second offence after a serious one should
be enough in some cases.

So, where does that put you with your admissions of pirating with a 19 set,
followed
by testing HF rigs that you "repaired" befire you were licensed for the HF
bands?