3 ms·

> It is much cheaper to file the bogus patent yourself upfront then to be extorted later. No, it's much cheaper to publish your idea in sufficient detail where

> It is much cheaper to file the bogus patent yourself upfront then to be extorted later. No, it's much cheaper to publish your idea in sufficient detail where a) it can be easily found by examiner searches and b) a clear priority date can be established. With the advent of Google, even something as simple as a blog post can count, though establishing the date could be trickier. See: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/83/how-to-make-an-invention-un-patentable-easily http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/83/how-to-make-an... http://www.defensivepublications.org/defensive-pubs-faqs http://www.defensivepublications.org/defensive-pubs-faqs

techdragon 11y ago
These days it seems rare that examiners find anything other than existing patents... Perhaps its because they are overworked, underpaid, and actually incentivised to process as many patents as possible. By most standards, when it comes to legal verisimilitude of anything found on the internet as far I can see... If it didnt come from your own database of stuff... you cant trust it. So why would the patent examiner even bother opening google if he cant legally trust it. I'd love some proof that examiners actually search outside the USPTO database, not references to their guidelines etc that imply they should, actual proof they do.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  Examiners do cite non-patent literature (NPL), and yes they can trust Google. I have seen rejections that literally have a screen-cap of Google search results. But yes, NPL is rarer than patent prior art citations ("Determinants of Patent Quality" by Bhaven Sampat is one study that has some numbers). This is primarily because patents are already authored, classified and organized in a way that examiners can easily search, so they typically find the necessary "ammo" they need to make a rejection more quickly there.

techdragon 11y ago

These days it seems rare that examiners find anything other than existing patents... Perhaps its because they are overworked, underpaid, and actually incentivised to process as many patents as possible. By most standards, when it comes to legal verisimilitude of anything found on the internet as far I can see... If it didnt come from your own database of stuff... you cant trust it. So why would the patent examiner even bother opening google if he cant legally trust it. I'd love some proof that examiners actually search outside the USPTO database, not references to their guidelines etc that imply they should, actual proof they do.

throwawaykf05 11y ago
Examiners do cite non-patent literature (NPL), and yes they can trust Google. I have seen rejections that literally have a screen-cap of Google search results. But yes, NPL is rarer than patent prior art citations ("Determinants of Patent Quality" by Bhaven Sampat is one study that has some numbers). This is primarily because patents are already authored, classified and organized in a way that examiners can easily search, so they typically find the necessary "ammo" they need to make a rejection more quickly there.