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?