Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Patent Donations?
patspam writes "As a software engineer I come up with patentable ideas every now and then, ideas which I'm not interested in pursuing myself but which I'd like to keep out of the hands of private entities/patent trolls in my own personal effort to defeat software patents. Should I patent the ideas and donate them to some sort of open source foundation? Or just blog about the ideas so that the 'prior art' exists in the public domain? What's your strategy for fighting against restrictive software patents?"
Patent Commons can be pooled and used defensively (aggressively in defence) to defend Open Source. A patent commons that defends one particular cause can help find infringement in order to scare off someone accusing others of infringement. It can cause a ceasefire.
Prior Art helps block patents in general, but as we saw with the Amazon shopping cart patent it can take years and effort (from New Zealanders) to remove them.
So Patent Commons is more powerful, but it involves the patent submission process, and it can be costly. I suggest the patent commons if you're got the resources.
(I am not a lawyer)
I haven't seen anything on this in a while, but It passed one of our houses already.
From what little i've tracked on it, theyre "reforming" the patent system by handing it even more firmly to trolls:
e.g.:
switching to first to file
putting severe restrictions on who has standing to challenge a patent
putting severe restrictions on the period during which it may be challenged before it can never be invalidated period.
(goodbye EFF patent busting campaign anyone?)
I'm sure more "reforms" have and will be added to this bill.
Given this, many other horrid sellouts, and the recent news our new bush appointed head of the fed refuses to impose regulations economics experts nationwide say are absolutely necessary because he holds right wing dogma above economic reality (surprise surprise), I would like to be first to cry "WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!"
the lifeboat is across the great lakes to the north folks, those of you in steerage might want to start making your way there now.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
A website called www.ip.com was specifically designed as a place to publish if you want your work to be recognized as prior art. It is recognized as an acceptable form of publication by the USPTO, as far as I know. Visit the site yourself and read the full details.
I've been told that a common trick for large companies in some countries when they hit a thing they figure out might be patentable but they are not interested in patenting it is write a rudimentary description of it and file it as a patent. At least here they've told me that is enough to get the application published in some public PTO journal, but it won't be examined until the examination fee is paid, which they just "forget" to do. So then they have very officially published prior art to similar claims for free.
Although IBM technical disclosures are a valuable prior art source for patent examiners, IBM stopped publishing a few years ago (in order to get more flaky patents granted) and it now costs money for mere mortals to access it. IP.com charge a minimum of $200 for your publications, charge more for longer documents, and do not provide a guarantee that their database will be either searched by patent examiners or that your publication will always be around. The patent system, however, is guaranteed to always be around (at least for as long as patents are granted), so once a document is published there it is much much more likely to come up in a future patent search. A UK application at least is still cheaper, as all it costs you is £100 and the postage. As for the patent commons, that just looks like company PR to me. If a company genuinely wants to give everyone access to their patent, the best way is for them to abandon it.
There has to be more to it than that, as well, or I could patent the horse collar and horseshoes, or even the use of subordinate clauses in Indo-European languages (as no one claims these "inventions" anymore). Assuming that I cannot, there must be a way to define "prior art" that recognizes ideas or practices in the public domain for ages, let alone to place one's patentable inventions into that public domain (which seems to be the article writer's goal).