(David Platt) wrote in news:2l88jb-
:

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.


This is interesting, for two reasons: It suggests that self-publication on a
personal web site is adequately public for official record (past sites of
mine turned up in that archive). Given the number of web archives of Usenet,
even comments I have made here might help me sometime, though not a lot, I
haven't said enough detail about the innards of my phasemod synthesier to
mean much here.

Second reason is that if the Wayback Machine is a serious resource for the
USPTO, it may imply that it's really in for the long haul. I have always had
some doubts about that based on that old 'downloading the internet' joke.
But I guess they found a way to cope, to manage what they kept, vs what they
did not.

I won't rely on this alone to establish my own prior art though...

(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.

(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.

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?

(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!

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
And post AIA?

Morse Code? Well, I suppose that for once you're on topic.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.