Write Off
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qe5l$n1r$2@dont-
email.me:

Well, unless your code contains a "new and innovative idea", it's not
patentable, anyway. You can copyright the code (it's automatically
copyrighted, anyway - but you have to register that copyright in the
U.S. to have any *real* protection), but not necessarily patent it.


I've considered copyright, and that's the only realistic legal and public
protection, I think.

As to innovative ideas, I have several things never seen in any commercial
'FM' (more accurately, phase modulation) synthesiser. One of which produces
much more natural sound, the 'grit' in a tonewheel organ simulation, the
flare in brass sounds, and many other applications, also a totally new way to
configure the instrument, many more routings between operators than Yamaha
allowed, and a few more besides! The trouble is NOT that theyare 'new'. It is
surely that others like me have likely done similar, and all been beaten into
oblivion.

The problem is not a lack or real innovation, it is that no-one can establish
it! I bet there are tens, if not hundreds of people out there with similar
advances, all equally thwarted, waiting in vain for a way out.

PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
 

In message , Molly Mockford
writes
At 19:12:34 on Sun, 9 Nov 2014, gareth
wrote in :

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
And, of course, Wiltshire Police will get a copy of your post. Don't
think that just because I am abroad I cannot progress a complaint of
malicious communication against you.

That's fine because as it happens I had already approached Patrick Geenty,
the chief plod, for his assistance in forwarding my complaint to the Canary
Islands.

And you lot really think that you are promoting the case for a
moderated newsgroup?? Seems to me that you are in fact promoting the
case for radio ham euthanasia.

Sometimes it's hard to believe this is meant to be fun. I don't know
why some of you just can't lighten up.

B
--
Brian Howie

Write Off
 

On 11/10/2014 8:31 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qe5l$n1r$2@dont-
email.me:

Well, unless your code contains a "new and innovative idea", it's not
patentable, anyway. You can copyright the code (it's automatically
copyrighted, anyway - but you have to register that copyright in the
U.S. to have any *real* protection), but not necessarily patent it.


I've considered copyright, and that's the only realistic legal and public
protection, I think.

As to innovative ideas, I have several things never seen in any commercial
'FM' (more accurately, phase modulation) synthesiser. One of which produces
much more natural sound, the 'grit' in a tonewheel organ simulation, the
flare in brass sounds, and many other applications, also a totally new way to
configure the instrument, many more routings between operators than Yamaha
allowed, and a few more besides! The trouble is NOT that theyare 'new'. It is
surely that others like me have likely done similar, and all been beaten into
oblivion.


If they have, it would not pass the "new and innovative" test.

The problem is not a lack or real innovation, it is that no-one can establish
it! I bet there are tens, if not hundreds of people out there with similar
advances, all equally thwarted, waiting in vain for a way out.


I would suspect so. And the cost of patenting something is a huge
detriment, unless you are either rich (and don't need the money) or can
convince someone that your idea is marketable (and get a penny per
thousand dollars for your idea).

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

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

Write Off
 

On 11/10/2014 8:26 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qe13$n1r$1@dont-
email.me:

Basically, that's it. Even if you create something, if I file for a
patent first, I get the patent.

Yes, the U.S. patent system is totally screwed up, and has been for
years (some would even say decades).


What that means a hothouse. A rainforest. Each new form only able to survicve
in an exclusive location. A multiltude of privately held creations surviving
mainly because no-one else knows they are there. The law of the jungle. Earth
to Earth, dust to dust, even before death. No wonder the 'western world' is
tanked. It's stifling its own growth and probably deserves to die. China will
win, so long as it can continue to innovate. After all, it has done so for
thousands of years longer than the US, the UK, and pretty much anywhere. It's
communist historyu is a small abberation on that scale.

Maybe the only hope of doing anythign other than returning to a mediaeval
model here, is to live somewhere that has the power and disregard of
'Western' patents as China does, combined with the ability to defend itself.
I'll settle for e the mediaeval model, as UK life and morals and social
standards and political structure is headed back there anyway. Go with the
flow, says I.


No, just insure if you come up with a good idea that you have the means
to patent it first. A patent attorney friend told me a typical patent
search (required before filing) starts at around $20K U.S. - and can
easily reach six figures for a more complex search.

Of course, you can do it on your own. But even if you get the patent,
you could lose it (and all the money you spent) if your search were not
thorough.

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

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

Write Off
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote in
:

If they have, it would not pass the "new and innovative" test.


Wouldn't matter, if what you said about first patented, first served, is
true. :) The real point is that because innovation is so brutally stifled, by
patent, by established business, and many other 'concerns', we'll never
likely know, will we? When a gardener sows poppies, thewy count the poppies,
if they count anything, they do not count failed seeds. The majority ALWAYS
fail. All the current issue shows is that business and patent is as cruel as
a cat playing with a mouse.

The problem is not a lack or real innovation, it is that no-one can
establish it! I bet there are tens, if not hundreds of people out there
with similar advances, all equally thwarted, waiting in vain for a way
out.


I would suspect so. And the cost of patenting something is a huge
detriment, unless you are either rich (and don't need the money) or can
convince someone that your idea is marketable (and get a penny per
thousand dollars for your idea).


The deal would likely be better than that.but still far from encouraging. It
doesn't mater, I'm MUCH neared the end of my life than the beginning. The
idea will die with me. I can carry a cimputer around, perform a bit, enough
to show what I have done, but to extend the poppy analogy, why bother. It's
sowing the seeds ina desert, mostly. The few people whpo already know that
what I have is in any way convicning *there are a few, it has been known...)
are as hopelessly unable to establish it as I am. My best shot is probably to
get is shared via some artists collective, because those actualyl have a
habit of breaking culturao ground, even estebklishing business. But the cost
of that succcess will be total surrender. But even that is better than seeing
it get eaten alive by someone whose desire for golden eggs leads them only to
kill geese.

And when I'm dead, I won't care, so I'll probably figure out a way to explode
it into the public domain so widely that no-one whatever their power will be
able to force the genii back in the bottle. If the techncal methods fail even
then, they probably deserve to. No-one will know the outcome of that before I
die, because I won't release it until I have taken it as far as my life will
let me, before I release it. I think that is my final decision, I won;t live
long enough to make many more big dicisions.

Write Off
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3qi1d$bpp$1@dont-
email.me:

No, just insure if you come up with a good idea that you have the means
to patent it first. A patent attorney friend told me a typical patent
search (required before filing) starts at around $20K U.S. - and can
easily reach six figures for a more complex search.

Of course, you can do it on your own. But even if you get the patent,
you could lose it (and all the money you spent) if your search were not
thorough.



If you were Sysiphus, pushing boulders up a mountyain only to roll it down
and start again, would you also do if if the moment you showed your head out
of your shack, snipers would red mist you head? Hell no. Any soldire would
say there are some points where no matter what any other idiot says, you keep
your head down. I'm ok with that.

Write Off
 

On 2014-11-10 14:44:34 +0000, Lostgallifreyan said:

Jerry Stuckle wrote in
:

If they have, it would not pass the "new and innovative" test.


Wouldn't matter, if what you said about first patented, first served, is
true. :) The real point is that because innovation is so brutally stifled, by
patent, by established business, and many other 'concerns', we'll never
likely know, will we? When a gardener sows poppies, thewy count the poppies,
if they count anything, they do not count failed seeds. The majority ALWAYS
fail. All the current issue shows is that business and patent is as cruel as
a cat playing with a mouse.

The problem is not a lack or real innovation, it is that no-one can
establish it! I bet there are tens, if not hundreds of people out there
with similar advances, all equally thwarted, waiting in vain for a way
out.


I would suspect so. And the cost of patenting something is a huge
detriment, unless you are either rich (and don't need the money) or can
convince someone that your idea is marketable (and get a penny per
thousand dollars for your idea).


The deal would likely be better than that.but still far from encouraging. It
doesn't mater, I'm MUCH neared the end of my life than the beginning. The
idea will die with me. I can carry a cimputer around, perform a bit, enough
to show what I have done, but to extend the poppy analogy, why bother. It's
sowing the seeds ina desert, mostly. The few people whpo already know that
what I have is in any way convicning *there are a few, it has been known...)
are as hopelessly unable to establish it as I am. My best shot is probably to
get is shared via some artists collective, because those actualyl have a
habit of breaking culturao ground, even estebklishing business. But the cost
of that succcess will be total surrender. But even that is better than seeing
it get eaten alive by someone whose desire for golden eggs leads them only to
kill geese.

And when I'm dead, I won't care, so I'll probably figure out a way to explode
it into the public domain so widely that no-one whatever their power will be
able to force the genii back in the bottle. If the techncal methods fail even
then, they probably deserve to. No-one will know the outcome of that before I
die, because I won't release it until I have taken it as far as my life will
let me, before I release it. I think that is my final decision, I won;t live
long enough to make many more big dicisions.

Have you considered releasing it as open source software under the GPL?
At least some people would have an interest in making sure any
commercial exploitation gave back its innovations to the community,
even if not wholly successfully.

--

Percy Picacity

Write Off
 

Percy Picacity wrote in
:

Have you considered releasing it as open source software under the GPL?
At least some people would have an interest in making sure any
commercial exploitation gave back its innovations to the community,
even if not wholly successfully.


Yes. :) Likely under the MIT type license. Same sort that OpenBSD uses. When
I release it (I almost certainly will, before I die), I want it to be done in
a way than cannot be foced back into private hands, especially at my expense.
While I develop it, I want to keep control, so it is more complete than most
things that ever reach public domain this way, but this is about as good a
way as I have found, not least because there are people with actual money (a
luxury I do not have, finding it hard to raise an extra 200 quid for tools)
to help protect something;s tenure in public domain once someone has been
willing to hand over all their hard work to those same people. Also, it may
be one of the best ways to keep it alive after I can't do it anymore.

The only other two contenders I'm aware of, Hexter, and another one written
for Android machines, are both open source. The only reason I didn't go that
way already is that I want to make my own mark on things as best I can,
otherwise I would have very little to offer anyway.

Write Off
 

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3orvu$d93$1@dont-
email.me:

In the United States, it is called "First Inventor to File". You can
find more information at
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp.


The main thing I need to know now is: can nothing but a full patent protect
my own work from being effectively satolen from the instant I put it in the
public domain, leaving me with absolutely no right to distribute or profit
from it in any way at all?

A patent alone protects nothing.

I takes:

A) A legally defendable patent.

B) A smart and well payed lawyer.

The patent mearly provides probative evidence for your lawyer's arguements
in court.


--
Jim Pennino

Write Off
 

In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:

The main thing I need to know now is: can nothing but a full patent protect
my own work from being effectively satolen from the instant I put it in the
public domain, leaving me with absolutely no right to distribute or profit
from it in any way at all?

I think you're throwing a whole bunch of different terms and thoughts
into a stewpot here, and the flavors aren't mixing well.

Point #1: the term "public domain" has a broadly-accepted legal
meaning. It means "This idea belongs to the public as a whole. No
one has proprietary rights to it. Anyone can use it without asking
permission or paying anybody for the rights."

So, if you do in fact "put it in the public domain", you would be
doing so in a way which *explicitly* renounces any proprietary rights
to the invention, and deliberately gives up control over how it was
used.

It seems to be a good question as to whether an inventor can in fact
release something completely to the public domain... in some
jurisdictions there's a clear way to do this, I understand, while in
others there is not. Some poeple who do wish to do this, do it
explicitly by publishing a statement on the order of "I grant
everyone, everywhere, a perpetual free transferrable license to use
this invention for any purpose whatsoever."

This is clearly not what you want to do.

Now, even if you *did* release something to the public domain, that
doesn't prevent you from distributing it in other ways or making a
profit. You can still do that.

All it does, is prevent you from *stopping* other people from doing
so.

The latter is the *specific* purpose of the patent system. A patent
grants you a specific time-limited right to prevent other people from
using your invention, in return for your having adequately described
the invention in a clear way so that other people can learn from it.

If that IS so, then the patent system is violently in need of serious reform,

Ummm... that's what a patent *is*.

A patent is, in effect, a government's agreement, to put the
government's power behind your right-of-exclusivity, for a limited
period of time, in return for you being willing to describe your
invention (to help advance the state of the art).

but as far as I'm concerned it basically means one thing: I shall never
release my work. If the workd will not share it, it will die with me. End of
discussion.

That is entirely your right.

What you would have, then, is a "trade secret". It something that
know how to do, that you choose to keep secret. You can profit by the
sale of its results. You can maintain exclusivity, by not sharing the
secret (which doesn't mean that you can't tell specific people, but
you would have to have and enforce a proper non-disclosure
agreement).

With a trade secret, you have no protection against somebody
rediscovering the same idea independently, and then using it or
selling it or giving it away for free. Unless you can prove that they
actually took *your* idea (e.g. somebody who was under non-disclosure
with you broke their agreement and leaked the secret), you have no
rights in this case.

Basically, you have two choices - keep the secret to yourself (and
carry the whole burden of keeping it secret, and the whole risk that
somebody will invent the same thing independently), or agree to
disclose the secret under controlled conditions and (in return) gain
some degree of government-sanctioned protection against unauthorized
use.

Frankly, patents don't seem to be a good protection for the small
innovator. Not only are they expensive and troublesome to get, but
the cost of enforcing them still falls on your shoulders... big
companies may (and often do) ignore them, use the idea, and figure
that the cost of prosecuting a patent infringement is beyond the means
of a small inventor.

Write Off
 

In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:

I won't patent. I've been reading of the cost in the UK. (All figures are
UKP) 3000 to 6000. Add 10000 give or take not very much to add US protection.
That;s in the first year. You have to add about 4 grand more within a year
and a half, maybe more, and that's ignoring ALL costs of actually defending a
patent! Add those, the costs soar to around 150 grand.

I will not release my code to the public domain unless there is a GUARANTEED
way to prevent patent trolls and sharks from stealing it, a way that does not
extort more money than I may ever earn before I even start to earn it!

As I noted earlier, if you release to the public domain, you cannot
prevent other people from using the idea.

However... if you *publish* your invention, you can often prevent
other people from coming at you years later and accusing you of
infringing *their* patents. Many high-tech companies used to do this
sort of thing... IBM, for example, would often publish new inventions
in the IBM Journal. They'd do this for ideas that they thought were
useful, that they might want to use themselves, which they didn't
think were necessarily worth the time and money to patent.

By doing so, they established the "date of invention" and "date of
first public disclosure" of a new idea. This would prevent other
people from filing patent applications on this specific invention, and
would establish this invention as "prior art".

If there is no such way, then I may release code that strictly emulates an
existing instrument (the Yamaha DX7) in its main funtion, and on the strength
of that, I will hope to find a performer who can afford to take on the
extended code privately as a performing instrument.

Why is it that patents force me to seriously consider ideas of elite
sponsorship that belong to the 16th century?! Has the world of ideas and the
right to profit from original work really progresses so little in all those
years? After all, the only way to win the game is to have already won. I'm
not going to cause myself misery fighting tautologies like that.

I don't think patents are what I should be asking about. The real question
is: how do I defend my work from the patent system while trying to earn money
from it, or share it with the world?

An important question is this: do you want to earn money from it, or
do you want to *prevent* other people from earning money from it?

If you want to do the latter, "patent" and "trade secret" are the only
ways I know of.

If the former, you can publish the idea (establishing a "prior art"
barrier against somebody else trying to patent the same idea), and
then go ahead and sell implementations of that idea under whatever
terms you desire.

You can always *copyright* your *specific* implementations (the actual
code, circuit schematics, and so forth). That's a whole type of
protection which is independent of patents, since it protects specific
examples rather than the underlying idea.

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

On 11/10/2014 2:33 PM, David Platt wrote:
In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:

I won't patent. I've been reading of the cost in the UK. (All figures are
UKP) 3000 to 6000. Add 10000 give or take not very much to add US protection.
That;s in the first year. You have to add about 4 grand more within a year
and a half, maybe more, and that's ignoring ALL costs of actually defending a
patent! Add those, the costs soar to around 150 grand.

I will not release my code to the public domain unless there is a GUARANTEED
way to prevent patent trolls and sharks from stealing it, a way that does not
extort more money than I may ever earn before I even start to earn it!

As I noted earlier, if you release to the public domain, you cannot
prevent other people from using the idea.

However... if you *publish* your invention, you can often prevent
other people from coming at you years later and accusing you of
infringing *their* patents. Many high-tech companies used to do this
sort of thing... IBM, for example, would often publish new inventions
in the IBM Journal. They'd do this for ideas that they thought were
useful, that they might want to use themselves, which they didn't
think were necessarily worth the time and money to patent.

By doing so, they established the "date of invention" and "date of
first public disclosure" of a new idea. This would prevent other
people from filing patent applications on this specific invention, and
would establish this invention as "prior art".


Unfortunately, this is no longer true. The U.S. law changed last year
such that prior art isn't so important. Nowadays, it's "first to file".

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

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

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

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

"David Platt" wrote in message
...
So, if you do in fact "put it in the public domain", you would be
doing so in a way which *explicitly* renounces any proprietary rights
to the invention, and deliberately gives up control over how it was
used.

In fact, by rabbiting on endlessly about it in an off-topic polluting thread
he has destroyed any chance that he might have had for a patent.

Write Off
 

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..

Exactly so, and this is one thing I asked yesterday and got no answer
for...
what kind of publication is considered 'adequate'?

That is because thos NG is for radio amateurs discussing antennae, and
not for some electronics dabbler in an unrelated topic.

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:22:40 +0000, gareth wrote:

In fact, by rabbiting on endlessly about it in an off-topic polluting
thread he has destroyed any chance that he might have had for a patent.

If the thread is "off-topic polluting" surely your whining complaints are
only making it more so.

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

Write Off
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3r6g8$28s$1@dont-
email.me:

Unfortunately, this is no longer true. The U.S. law changed last year
such that prior art isn't so important. Nowadays, it's "first to file".

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


Ok, well, that's the absolute end. US as only world superpower, claiming
tyranny over all creation. Literally! THE END.
For now.... but any change will be after my lifetime, so I'm done.

Write Off
 

Radiohead70 wrote in news:m3r76j$av$1@dont-
email.me:

In fact, by rabbiting on endlessly about it in an off-topic polluting
thread he has destroyed any chance that he might have had for a patent.

If the thread is "off-topic polluting" surely your whining complaints are
only making it more so.



Never mind that, the nincompoop doesn't realise that I have not described any
detail of the creation. :) No-where near enough to give it away. Not that I
want a patent...

Write Off
 

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
Never mind that, the nincompoop

Grow up.

Write Off
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:17:03 +0000, gareth wrote:


Grow up.

You first.

Write Off
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m3r6g8$28s$1@dont-
email.me:

Unfortunately, this is no longer true. The U.S. law changed last year
such that prior art isn't so important. Nowadays, it's "first to file".

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


I just learned that First To File is actually not new except in the US! Maybe
this isn;t the big scare after all...
I found this:

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/0...s-has-a-first-
to-file-patent-system-so-you-can-leave-that-prior-art-at-the-door/
"Update: It turns out my understanding of prior art was a bit off,
so the headline on this story is a touch wrong. As Luke Chamberlin
noted via email, prior art is material that was or is in fact
publicly available. He went on to point out that “‘First to invent’
claims on the other hand are often based on material that is *not
publicly available*.” This is in fact a key distinction. In short,
with the new system, if you have prior art, but were not first to
file, you will retain, and I quote Luke again “protection.”
Sorry for the mixup."

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?

PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
 

On 10/11/14 13:50, Brian Howie wrote:
In message , Molly Mockford
writes
At 19:12:34 on Sun, 9 Nov 2014, gareth
wrote in :

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
And, of course, Wiltshire Police will get a copy of your post. Don't
think that just because I am abroad I cannot progress a complaint of
malicious communication against you.

That's fine because as it happens I had already approached Patrick
Geenty,
the chief plod, for his assistance in forwarding my complaint to the
Canary
Islands.

And you lot really think that you are promoting the case for a
moderated newsgroup?? Seems to me that you are in fact promoting the
case for radio ham euthanasia.
-------------

Sometimes it's hard to believe this is meant to be fun. I don't know
why some of you just can't lighten up.

B
========

+1

Frank , GM0CSZ / KN6WH in IO87AT

Write Off
 

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.

Write Off
 

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.

Write Off
 

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

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

Write Off
 

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."

Write Off
 

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

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

PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
 

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

PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
 

"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

PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
 

"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

PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
 

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

PING Mike Tomlinson Write Off
 

"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?