3 ms·

> I feel this is a mild abuse of the provisional patent system, but what can I do? Really any traceable, public disclosure should do - filing a patent just to

> I feel this is a mild abuse of the provisional patent system, but what can I do? Really any traceable, public disclosure should do - filing a patent just to have the record seems like overkill (except in the case where you actually want to file the patent, but it sounds like not). Actually, if it is just for date priority purposes, getting your research records notarized would probably be sufficient (not a lawyer and all that). There is a service [1] for registered public discloure that is also a "mandatory to search" resource with the WIPO. It costs $120/page, which is steep, but surely cheaper than patent prosecution. There are other "mandatory search" archives [2] under the Patent Cooperation Treaty "Minimum Documentation" rules, many of which are academic journals. These are not the only means of "public disclosure" but my (very limited) understanding is that the patent office is guaranteed to look at the sources on that list. If you are feeling adventurous, you could even use some block chain-based registration service [3]. [1] http://www.researchdisclosure.com/publishing-disclosures http://www.researchdisclosure.com/publishing-disclosures [2] http://www.wipo.int/standards/en/part_04.html http://www.wipo.int/standards/en/part_04.html [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6809929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6809929

thirsteh 12y ago
I wonder if this is still true after the switch from first-to-invent to first-to-file.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- noonespecial 12y ago
  It absolutely is. Once recorded, it becomes prior art. The disclosure would be the "first to file" event in this case. First to file would actually prevent someone else from later coming along and claiming that despite your publishing of the technology, they were the first to have the idea so should get a patent anyway.
  - thirsteh 12y ago
    Interesting.
- rayiner 12y ago
  First to file is just a conflict resolution rule for patent applications that hit the PTO at the same time. Under first to file, you just look at the dates on the applications to see who gets priority. Under first to invent, you get into this fact-intensive analysis of who really invented first. First to file is not implicated unless dueling patent applications are involved. It doesn't affect how prior art is treated.

thirsteh 12y ago

I wonder if this is still true after the switch from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
noonespecial 12y ago
It absolutely is. Once recorded, it becomes prior art. The disclosure would be the "first to file" event in this case. First to file would actually prevent someone else from later coming along and claiming that despite your publishing of the technology, they were the first to have the idea so should get a patent anyway.
- thirsteh 12y ago
  Interesting.
rayiner 12y ago
First to file is just a conflict resolution rule for patent applications that hit the PTO at the same time. Under first to file, you just look at the dates on the applications to see who gets priority. Under first to invent, you get into this fact-intensive analysis of who really invented first. First to file is not implicated unless dueling patent applications are involved. It doesn't affect how prior art is treated.