4 ms·

It's unnecessary. If you want to prevent something from being patented, just disclose it in a publication. That publication will bar anyone else from patenting

It's unnecessary. If you want to prevent something from being patented, just disclose it in a publication. That publication will bar anyone else from patenting your invention. As long as you don't patent it yourself, it will become dedicated to the public.

yorwba 10y ago
IANAL, but publishing the invention to preclude patents is a bit like open sourcing your code under a permissive license. Although it allows anyone to use and modify the code, it also allows making closed-source modifications. The patent equivalent would be someone patenting work based on the original publication. The copyleft equivalent would be to patent your work, but license it to anyone, provided they use the same license for any derivative patents. I think such a scheme might lead to interesting results if some important innovation ends up locked into copyleft, similar to the Linux kernel.
EGreg 10y ago
Patentleft is more like Free Software than Open Source. It says if you use our patents, you must open up your own patents to be used in the same way.
Nomentatus 10y ago
Not true anymore, unless that publication reaches the vast majority of practioners so that it has clearly become part of the normal state of the art (recent court decision) - something very difficult for a private citizen to accomplish. Mere publication to establish priority doesn't matter because priority doesn't matter, being first to the patent office matters; so big companies can legally steal your ideas now. Even if you've published them, in most cases. They make large donations to Congresspeople - you don't.
- bdowling 10y ago
  OK, what I wrote wasn't quite true. The information needs to be published in a way that it is sufficiently accessible to those interested in the art. It needs to be available to the public and indexed somehow. The standard is very low though. If it's on the internet and can be found by a search query for the topic, that's probably sufficient. First-to-file resolves priority when it comes to undisclosed inventions. Two inventors A and B both invent some new invention and both go to patent it. Whoever is first wins. Two inventors come up with the same invention all the time. The first-to-file rule makes it easier to resolve conflicts than examining evidence of who invented first, and it encourages speedy filing by preventing an inventor from secretly exploiting an invention and then filing when another inventor appears. By the way, anyone can look at the published patent applications (which are published usually 18 months after filing) and can submit information that they believe would be relevant to the examiner in determining if the invention is patentable. It's called a Pre-issuance Submission. [0] [0] http://www.klemchuk.com/339-preissuance-patent-submissions-a-new-way-to-participate-in-patent-prosecution/ http://www.klemchuk.com/339-preissuance-patent-submissions-a....
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Sadly a recent judgement, rendered well after the date of your link, seems to have jumped the publication requirements way, way up - to my shock and dismay. I regret I don't seem to have the link handy. I've tried submitting a pre-issuance submission of sorts to the USPTO recently and just got back an instruction on how to begin legal proceedings, at my own expense, the submission itself was discarded as far as I could tell.

yorwba 10y ago

IANAL, but publishing the invention to preclude patents is a bit like open sourcing your code under a permissive license. Although it allows anyone to use and modify the code, it also allows making closed-source modifications. The patent equivalent would be someone patenting work based on the original publication. The copyleft equivalent would be to patent your work, but license it to anyone, provided they use the same license for any derivative patents. I think such a scheme might lead to interesting results if some important innovation ends up locked into copyleft, similar to the Linux kernel.

EGreg 10y ago

Patentleft is more like Free Software than Open Source. It says if you use our patents, you must open up your own patents to be used in the same way.

Nomentatus 10y ago

Not true anymore, unless that publication reaches the vast majority of practioners so that it has clearly become part of the normal state of the art (recent court decision) - something very difficult for a private citizen to accomplish. Mere publication to establish priority doesn't matter because priority doesn't matter, being first to the patent office matters; so big companies can legally steal your ideas now. Even if you've published them, in most cases. They make large donations to Congresspeople - you don't.

bdowling 10y ago
OK, what I wrote wasn't quite true. The information needs to be published in a way that it is sufficiently accessible to those interested in the art. It needs to be available to the public and indexed somehow. The standard is very low though. If it's on the internet and can be found by a search query for the topic, that's probably sufficient. First-to-file resolves priority when it comes to undisclosed inventions. Two inventors A and B both invent some new invention and both go to patent it. Whoever is first wins. Two inventors come up with the same invention all the time. The first-to-file rule makes it easier to resolve conflicts than examining evidence of who invented first, and it encourages speedy filing by preventing an inventor from secretly exploiting an invention and then filing when another inventor appears. By the way, anyone can look at the published patent applications (which are published usually 18 months after filing) and can submit information that they believe would be relevant to the examiner in determining if the invention is patentable. It's called a Pre-issuance Submission. [0] [0] http://www.klemchuk.com/339-preissuance-patent-submissions-a-new-way-to-participate-in-patent-prosecution/ http://www.klemchuk.com/339-preissuance-patent-submissions-a....
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Sadly a recent judgement, rendered well after the date of your link, seems to have jumped the publication requirements way, way up - to my shock and dismay. I regret I don't seem to have the link handy. I've tried submitting a pre-issuance submission of sorts to the USPTO recently and just got back an instruction on how to begin legal proceedings, at my own expense, the submission itself was discarded as far as I could tell.