|
Write Off
(David Platt) wrote in news:4218jb-
: As I understand it, most of the world has been on a "first to file" patent system for some time. The U.S. was the last major holdout for the "first to invent" standard. Due to the lack of uniformity, I believe it was possible for U.S. and (e.g.) European courts to come to legitimately different conclusions about who was the rightful patent holder in a dispute. I rather suspect that the changeover in the U.S. law was done in order to try to eliminate these sorts of contradictory court decisions. Agreed. I suspect that the US will not result in a frenzy any more than exists anywhere else.Actually I think the main purpose may be true reform, after all the first requirement for reform is consensus. |
Write Off
(David Platt) wrote in news:4218jb-
: I believe that the USPTO did do one thing, in the recent changeover, which may make live better for the "little guy". It is now easier for people to challenge a patent *before* it is issued, on the grounds of prior art. Patent applications are made visible to the public one year after they're filed, and members of the public can write in and submit evidence and arguments showing that the invention is actually one which was clearly anticipated by the prior art. That;s a bit of true reform. It helps both parties, because the small inventor is doing some vital work the bigger one, trying to aquire a patent, should have done (with or without a lawyer to help). The small inventor gets to make a better representation too. Now, if only eBay would restore that right to people reporting bad listings. :) But that's another story entirely, I won't follow up that one here. |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3rq1e$d6t$1@dont-
email.me: Which has nothing to do with the way the U.S. patent law is written. Laws have been botched before, so maybe it's true, but can you indicate which wording you think is the main loophole? |
Write Off
(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! |
Write Off
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. .. And post AIA? Morse Code? Well, I suppose that for once you're on topic. |
Write Off
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3rq68$d6t$2@dont-
email.me: You're grasping at straws. Just the fact something was accessible to the public does not necessarily mean it's not patentable in the United States. Not any longer, anyway - as a couple of good patent attorneys have recently told me. Any chance you can ask them again? Please.. if they can point out the exact bit of law they think is weak, that will help a lot. They may well be hot stuff, but even the best may be in error, and if they don't state a specific detail of weakness, we can't examine it. |
Write Off
On 11/11/2014 6:19 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3rq1e$d6t$1@dont- email.me: Which has nothing to do with the way the U.S. patent law is written. Laws have been botched before, so maybe it's true, but can you indicate which wording you think is the main loophole? You need to talk to a patent attorney. That's where I get my information - and I'm not going to argue with you. I've learned. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Write Off
On 11/11/2014 6:39 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3rq68$d6t$2@dont- email.me: 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. Any chance you can ask them again? Please.. if they can point out the exact bit of law they think is weak, that will help a lot. They may well be hot stuff, but even the best may be in error, and if they don't state a specific detail of weakness, we can't examine it. I suggest you ask your own patent attorney. I'm not going to try to discuss this with you; I've learned. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Write Off
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:38:47 +0000, gareth wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message . .. And post AIA? Morse Code? Well, I suppose that for once you're on topic. You're getting the message confused with the medium. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com