5 ms·

So.. it's a change from "The patent is yours.. unless somebody comes along with a convincing story about how they thought of it before you and just didn't tell

So.. it's a change from "The patent is yours.. unless somebody comes along with a convincing story about how they thought of it before you and just didn't tell anyone" to "The patent is yours" I don't understand the negative slant this article is trying to put on it. Other than the same kind of knee-jerk "Change is bad!" that you see every time Facebook changes its page layout, what's the problem with this?

banachtarski 14y ago
The problem is that there are cases where the original inventor really is the person without the resources or time to file the patent first. It goes both ways.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The AIA expands the "prior user rights" defense. It only affects that original inventor if he subsequently tries to patent the invention, not if he just keeps using it.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  That's true. However, if the little inventor doesn't file the patent, they either 1) sell the product anyway or 2) don't sell the product. If #1, they have prior art to keep a big company from patenting it, and the two compete in the market. If #2, I'd argue they don't deserve the patent; it doesn't benefit the public to grant them that monopoly unless the public gets a product out of it. Let the big company patent and sell it. Right?
  - banachtarski 14y ago
    In the case of #1, how does the inventor keep selling once corporation X successfully files? For #2, the inventor may have patented in the hopes of licensing the idea to a corporation with more manufacturing muscle.
TheCoelacanth 14y ago
I think a lot of the backlash comes from a misunderstanding of how this affects prior art. The name "first-to-file" makes it seem like you can take some invention that has been published but not patented, and patent it, preventing the actual inventor from using the invention. That is not the case. Only the inventor is allowed to file a patent. Under a first-to-file system, anything that has been made public can still be used as prior art to invalidate a patent.
- gamblor956 14y ago
  Anything...except the inventor's own prior disclosures about the invention made within a period of time immediately prior to the patent application (I think up to a year before the patent filing but I'm not sure.)
  - Gormo 14y ago
    So what happens if the inventor decides to publish the invention in a manner that implies that it's free for others to use without any license or royalty, but then, a year later, decides to file for a patent? Would the use of the invention by others invalidate the patent application? Would the patent be granted, but unenforceable due to the prior public release of the invention being construed as estoppel that creates a general license to the invention? Or would the inventor, armed with a new patent, be able to tell everyone already using the invention that they now have to pay a license fee to continue using it?

banachtarski 14y ago

The problem is that there are cases where the original inventor really is the person without the resources or time to file the patent first. It goes both ways.

rayiner 14y ago
The AIA expands the "prior user rights" defense. It only affects that original inventor if he subsequently tries to patent the invention, not if he just keeps using it.
nathan_long 14y ago
That's true. However, if the little inventor doesn't file the patent, they either 1) sell the product anyway or 2) don't sell the product. If #1, they have prior art to keep a big company from patenting it, and the two compete in the market. If #2, I'd argue they don't deserve the patent; it doesn't benefit the public to grant them that monopoly unless the public gets a product out of it. Let the big company patent and sell it. Right?
- banachtarski 14y ago
  In the case of #1, how does the inventor keep selling once corporation X successfully files? For #2, the inventor may have patented in the hopes of licensing the idea to a corporation with more manufacturing muscle.

TheCoelacanth 14y ago

I think a lot of the backlash comes from a misunderstanding of how this affects prior art. The name "first-to-file" makes it seem like you can take some invention that has been published but not patented, and patent it, preventing the actual inventor from using the invention. That is not the case. Only the inventor is allowed to file a patent. Under a first-to-file system, anything that has been made public can still be used as prior art to invalidate a patent.

gamblor956 14y ago
Anything...except the inventor's own prior disclosures about the invention made within a period of time immediately prior to the patent application (I think up to a year before the patent filing but I'm not sure.)
- Gormo 14y ago
  So what happens if the inventor decides to publish the invention in a manner that implies that it's free for others to use without any license or royalty, but then, a year later, decides to file for a patent? Would the use of the invention by others invalidate the patent application? Would the patent be granted, but unenforceable due to the prior public release of the invention being construed as estoppel that creates a general license to the invention? Or would the inventor, armed with a new patent, be able to tell everyone already using the invention that they now have to pay a license fee to continue using it?