3 ms·
So - prior art is no longer good enough? I was at Xerox when they were fighting a patent on their ideas. At that point in time all you had to do was prove prio
by maire 8y ago
So - prior art is no longer good enough?
I was at Xerox when they were fighting a patent on their ideas. At that point in time all you had to do was prove prior art on the idea. Xerox used their notes during software development plus the code to prove prior art.
Similarly I was at Apple when they fought a basic patent on color matching. Apple succeeded in fighting the patent then proactively started patenting everything.
- ajb 8y agoI certainly hope prior art is still good enough. The GP was asking whether the licence under which you publish your prior art should make a difference - I don't think it does.
- radley 8y ago> The America Invents Act signed on September 16, 2011, switched U.S. right to the patent from the previous "first-to-invent" system to a "first-inventor-to-file" system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_inv... Thought it could be challenged as unconstitutional: > Many legal scholars have commented that such a change would require a constitutional amendment. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to “promote the Progress of ... useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to ... Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective ... Discoveries.” These scholars argue that this clause specifically prohibits a first-inventor-to-file system because the term "inventor" refers to a person who has created something that has not existed before. (Wikipedia)