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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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 6:39 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

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

(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.

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.