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.

(David Platt) wrote in news:u2g7jb-
:

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."


Good point, I forgot it IS that specific. I was confusing acccess with
ownership.

(David Platt) wrote in news:u2g7jb-
:

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.


Well, I might. So long as they do not then go on to stop me earning from
it myself! That's the prospect that really adds injury to insult. (Yes, that
IS the right way round, in this case.)

"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.

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.

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...

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

Grow up.

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


Grow up.

You first.

(David Platt) wrote in news:u2g7jb-
:

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.


Maybe this isn't hopeless then, because they can do that, I'd be happy if
they did, so long as they gave formal credit where it's due. That way it
helps me in later work I may create.

Basically, nature shows several patterns, birds, for example, may eat each
other, grabbing other birds right out of the air, but even then they do not
do it just for fun, and most birds look out for each other, and will 'mob' a
predator for each other's general benefit, often taking real risks to do it
too. If all I see is the diving claws, them I'm out of it, period. I'm just
looking for some practical way to resist that ****.

(David Platt) wrote in news:u2g7jb-
:

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).


Currently our goverment is a predator! Maybe patent really is not the way,
regardless of intent, on the general principle that one should not pick
fights that are extremely unlikely to be victorious.

I am not here to make lawyers and rich men smug and fatter at my expense.