How Do I Put an Invention Into the Public Domain?

Nefarious Wheel writes "I have a couple of inventions — mechanical devices, based on physical principles — that I believe could transform certain aspects of industry. The trouble is, I can't afford to file patents, and even if I could, I'm not sure that would be the best way for these devices to be made available as widely as I'd like. Is there some way to publish the details of these innovations in the public domain in such a way as to protect them from being snaffled away by some patent troll? I'd be happy with a contribution (or simple attribution) model for recompense, which could be zero to whatever, but that's not as important to me as getting the ideas out there for anyone who wants to use them. This isn't copyright, and I know of no patent equivalent to Creative Commons. In short, what's the best way to protect an invention against someone filing a patent on it, short of patenting the device yourself? Can this be done?"

Comments

First thought from a Republican...

[Anonymous Coward]

You some kind of commie?

JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[nweaver]

Once something is published, it becomes "prior art" and someone else can't patent prior art and obvious extensions to prior art.

And also once you publish it, you can't file for a patent on it outside the US, and you can only file for a US patent within a year.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Teancum]

Once something is published, it becomes "prior art" and someone else can't patent prior art and obvious extensions to prior art.

And also once you publish it, you can't file for a patent on it outside the US, and you can only file for a US patent within a year.

While in theory this is technically true, the reality of it is that filing a patent... even if you never intend to collect royalties or even sue somebody for patent infringement if you discover it in the future... is still the most viable option.

One situation I had with a former employer was an expired patent application that hung in our engineering conference room for years.... where the company was sued by a patent troll who had filed a nearly identical patent application for the very same concept and was claiming prior art. In that case, the troll was hosed (legally speaking) because prior art was clearly established and certified by the USPTO... showing that the patent was clearly invalid and forcing the judge to dismiss the case. The patent attorney hadn't even listed this prior patent as a disclaimer of prior art when a simple search of the patent database would have turned it up.

The company I worked for would have been taken to the cleaners if it wasn't for that patent which had been filed by an earlier employee. Yeah, it was fun to see first hand how valuable defensive patents could be... and it was even funnier to see that plaque temporarily be taken down as it was presented in court as prior art. Yeah, that step wasn't strictly necessary, but it made an impression on the judge as well that proved to be quite positive.

In this case, you need to use the patent system against itself just as the GPL uses the copyright system against itself. The patent system respects itself, but it doesn't think stuff created out of this environment is worth much.... witness some of the idiotic patents that have been filed such as one about ROT-13, one-click shopping, and the LZW algorithm. While all of these had clear prior-art in published journals (like ACM publications), that hasn't been sufficient to prove prior art in a legal sense, unfortunately, and patents were not only granted but enforced.

And no, I don't love the patent system (I wish it were completely abolished), but it is an unfortunate evil in today's engineering environment. I have yet to meet a single individual that I know personally or have been able to shake their hand who has made a single penny off of a patent, yet I know dozens of individuals who have had them granted and have even developed patent-worthy concepts of my own.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[capnkr]

And also once you publish it, you can't file for a patent on it outside the US, and you can only file for a US patent within a year.

Regarding "publishing": just to point out that the word publish in this context means:

"1 a: to make generally known b: to make public announcement of" (link)

not necessarily to produce something in the printed form.

So, once your idea gets into the public domain at all (regardless of any non-compete/non-disclosure agreements, even), that starts the patent-process clock ticking. Show it to a friend, and you have begun...

As nweaver notes, you'll have one year to begin filing for the patent process thru the USPTO, or you'll lose your patent rights.

Full public disclosure, and most importantly, a way to prove when that took place will establish prior art for anyone who would like to contest a patent application filed after that date.

No, IANAPL, but I have paid money to them for the understanding I have passed along here. ;)

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[homey of my owney]

That's not entirely correct. Before publishing, you must file for a "provisional patent" which can be nothing more than a couple of paragraph description (on topic of course). You then have one year from the filing of the provisional patent, to file the actual patent application.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[mysidia]

Exactly, so publish the invention in detail in as many places as possible, the internet, etc, so that it is easy to prove that it is a published prior work.

If your invention is used successfully by someone, get in touch with industry publications, and see if they can pick up an article. The more places your invention is described in, the more clear it would be that a patent application for it is fraudulent.

Plus, you need publications, whether online or offline, in order for people in the industry to learn about the invention...

And also, possibly file for a statutory registration.

Don't just publish the details of the invention itself, publish lots of ways the invention can be used, as many use cases as possible, including obvious uses, but especially important ones that might not be immediately apparent.

You don't just need to worry about people patenting the invention itself: you may need to be concerned about people patenting certain uses of the invention with something else or in certain situations, that they claim might be novel.

An example would be patenting the concept of "a card catalog system, but on a computer" (at a time when card catalogs have been around for centuries, and computers have been around for decades)

Of course if you describe as many of those use cases as possible ahead of time, and use language fully expressing the versatility of the invention, and making it clear that there are a lot of obvious uses, you might be able to reduce that possibility slightly...

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[DamnStupidElf]

Additionally, the OP is going to *look* like a patent troll if he doesn't actually have a patent application in hand along with a free, non revocable license for it. Remember RAMBUS? They pushed their invention for everyone to use as an "open" standard, claiming it would be a great idea, and only afterward started hitting everyone up for money with their submarine patent.

Not patenting the original invention will also make it much easier for the first company who researches a cost effective implementation to obtain an over-broad patent on their method and process, which will practically cover the whole invention since there are no prior patents.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[flooey]

And no, I don't love the patent system (I wish it were completely abolished), but it is an unfortunate evil in today's engineering environment. I have yet to meet a single individual that I know personally or have been able to shake their hand who has made a single penny off of a patent, yet I know dozens of individuals who have had them granted and have even developed patent-worthy concepts of my own.

There are some industries in which the patent system works like it's supposed to. My dad was a chemist until he retired, and he generated a number of patents which have been really valuable to him and the company he worked for. It costs a lot of time and money to come up with chemicals that do interesting things, and patents makes it so that doing so is profitable.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[noidentity]

In this case, you need to use the patent system against itself just as the GPL uses the copyright system against itself.

That's funny, I thought the GPL used the copyright system to exert control over distribution and derivitive works. In a copyright-free system, there would be no way to require derivitive works to have their source code made available. Maybe you're thinking of BSD-style licenses, which effectively make the work as it would be if there were no copyright?

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[dirvine]

You could simply publish it in a wikipedia page, some blogs etc. but the chances are the patent office may not find it in a search (important).

The old myth about post it to yourself should not be used a defense here either. In addition I think it costs nothing to make a patent application in the US (its about $50 in the UK) which you can then abandon, but its in their database then, giving protection (but only in the US or filed country). I think though it becomes worldwide prior art effectively on publication (where you abandon it - but this takes up to a year).

Perhaps another way is to create an open source type project and try and get popular and have folk talking about it. The matter or recompense though is quiet difficult, but protection and arguably a much better product will surely follow. From this 'fame' recompense may follow.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Hognoxious]

have even developed patent-worthy concepts of my own.

That's false by definition.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[arnaud_contet]

The simplest is still to file for a patent, get it published, and then just not support it. It will be in the database, obviously visible to the examinators.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[VernoWhitney]

So, once your idea gets into the public domain at all (regardless of any non-compete/non-disclosure agreements, even), that starts the patent-process clock ticking. Show it to a friend, and you have begun...

Not quite. You need to get it where it would be reasonably accessible by a member of the public were they to be interested, so non-disclosure agreements (or even an implicit understanding of limited distribution, but that's a little murkier) prevent it from being prior art.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Teancum]

have even developed patent-worthy concepts of my own.

That's false by definition.

explain.... how is that false? I just never made the effort (actually my employer didn't want to bother with the paperwork or expense) to get the ideas patented. The prior art was established by giving the product to a paying customer.... which while not as strong as filing a patent can at least be considered prior art as receipts can be found and prove it does what is claimed.

I thought it was stupid on the part of my employer, but it wasn't my call to make. Since it was a work for hire, I wouldn't have much in terms of rights to the ideas anyway so it wasn't worthy my own money to file the patent application. That is where it sucks to be a salaried engineer sometimes, and not all companies have that attitude about intellectual property where they take it for granted that they may have something valueable.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM published their technical journal as a channel of defensive publication, and saw to it that journal was widely distributed. The journal was basically defensive publication of potentially patentable ideas that IBM chose not to file on. A company who filed a patented for something in that journal not only had to deal with prior art, but also the issue of "bad faith". The usual legal advice in such cases: don't waste your money, Big Blue got there first!

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[avajadi]

You mean they can't patent something that already exists? How about Microsoft's patent on double-click, granted in 2004 ( Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click ) ? Patent clerk probably double-clicked the patent application document, it still got passed through.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[paganizer]

The way i did it; I worked up plans for "Network Active Countermeasures" and filed a provisional patent, which is only $75.
I knew that I couldn't afford to do a patent, and I didn't want to make it publicly available because it could easily be used as a censorship tool.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Hognoxious]

explain.... how is that false?

I've written many songs, but I never bothered to trademark them. One of them is called "Ballad of the Clueless Cunt" and it's dedicated to you.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[LonghornXtreme]

+1 informative:

35 USC 102

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the staff at the patent office are idiots. Look up Glenn Curtiss' fight with the Wright brothers and Henry Ford's fight with a patent troll. Ford loaned his legal staff to the Curtiss outfit when he learned that the Wrights were standing in the way of aviation development.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Teancum]

I've written many songs, but I never bothered to trademark them. One of them is called "Ballad of the Clueless Cunt" and it's dedicated to you.

You clearly understand the difference between trademarks, copyright, and patents, don't you. How about Sales marks and trade secrets to round things off?

Seriously, when you are done, I'd like to hear the song.... (aw, never mind)

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Teancum]

While I appreciate the anecdotal reference here to supposedly a successful economic situation, I'm still not convinced that this company would have made less money without the patent process in place.

Nothing personal, but in your case it was a work for hire with a company who likely (you may confirm this) had deep pockets and was already in the business of selling chemicals to various customers. The proported purpose of a patent is to protect the lone inventor in a private lab/workshop... something I think it fails miserably at.

In this case, I'll bet the patents were used in a defensive mode, where the chemical processes were implemented with the understanding that a patent troll couldn't stop them. Chemical engineers do however have something of a fraternity and fewer small start-ups competing for business to keep out some of the worst aspects of patents that mechanical, computer, and software engineers have to contend with... I'll grant you that. DEA/ATF restrictions on chemical investigations only add to the mess of regs that chemists have to deal with.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is a PCT participating nation, meaning that you have a year to file internationally after the US filing. The national phase occurs even later as well as publication eighteen months after filing.

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[Hognoxious]

LOL, perhaps you should "patent the concept" of a sarcasm detector?

Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art"

[flooey]

While I appreciate the anecdotal reference here to supposedly a successful economic situation, I'm still not convinced that this company would have made less money without the patent process in place.

...

In this case, I'll bet the patents were used in a defensive mode, where the chemical processes were implemented with the understanding that a patent troll couldn't stop them.

Actually, they definitely did make more money than they would have without the patent process. The chemical industry is one in which it's difficult to come up with a chemical that does a specific thing, but easy to produce a lot of a chemical once you have it. The patents weren't used to protect the company from patent trolls, they were used to protect the company from other major chemical companies. Without a patent, if they came up with a new chemical and put it on the market, another company could come along, analyze what they were selling, and produce substantially the same product without putting in the time and money upfront for the R&D. That would seriously reduce the profitability of coming up with new chemicals.

Prior Art?

[4D6963]

Wouldn't your invention constitute prior art in the event of someone patenting after you, thereby nullifying any patent?

Publish the invention

[Steve1952]

You can put an invention into the public domain by simply publishing it and then failing to file a patent on it. The main thing here is to find a low cost forum that will preserve your publication for a long time.

Re:Publish the invention

[TooManyNames]

This would be the best way to go. Once you've published your work (assuming that your work doesn't infringe on other existing patents) it will be in the public domain and should constitute prior art. If someone were able to obtain a patent on your published work (the patent office can't check everything) it would be easy to overturn simply by pointing to whichever journal contains your paper. Moreover, the US gives you up to 1 year after the date that you publish if you (the inventor) later decide to file for a patent*.

*This does not hold in other countries

Re:Publish the invention

[Teancum]

This would be the best way to go. Once you've published your work (assuming that your work doesn't infringe on other existing patents) it will be in the public domain and should constitute prior art. If someone were able to obtain a patent on your published work (the patent office can't check everything) it would be easy to overturn simply by pointing to whichever journal contains your paper.

This is easier said than done. While this is a legitimate method of trying to protect yourself by publishing a concept on a blog or something else that is clearly available in the public domain, it still won't protect you from hard-core patent trolls.

I wouldn't claim this as the "best way to go", but it clearly is a much cheaper option than the better way, which is to simply file a defensive patent. Once your idea is in the patent system, you are under some sort of protection... and once you have been granted a patent it becomes much harder for somebody to patent a similar concept without significantly narrowing the scope of any future patent.

Re:Publish the invention

[alangmead]

This is why back in the day AT&T and IBM (still today) have publications like The Bell System Technical Journal, IBM Systems Journal, etc. It gives them platforms to publish the inventions that they don't wish to patent, but still show prior art.

Re:Publish the invention

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for reference:
"'Is not a sentence' is not a sentence" is a sentence...

Re:Publish the invention

[fishbowl]

"If someone were able to obtain a patent on your published work (the patent office can't check everything) it would be easy to overturn simply by pointing to whichever journal contains your paper."

An ounce of prevention is worth a hundred thousand dollars spent in a failed bid to overturn a patent in court.

Re:Publish the invention

[atraintocry]

The problem is that the USPTO doesn't care about such places and isn't going to seek them out while examining someone else's patent application. So Snipey McPatent Troll ends up with a patent, and then goes about making people's lives miserable. You doing something about it requires going to court with your forum printout or whatever and pitting it against their real live patent.

As others have said in this thread, they'll even ignore respected well-established research journals. So merely publishing anywhere that you see fit might not do the trick. If it's a serious journal, or you can prove very clearly that you were actually using the invention after you published, then maybe. But it's a lot of risk to take. Someone loses comparatively little if they try to patent your invention and fail, and the system is set up such that it's not in their best interests to look for prior art themselves.

I have not actually had to do this but it seems like a "statutory registration" with the patent office is the way to go.

Simple

[pac109]

Disclose it.

Re:simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The happy check?

Re:simple

[Voyager529]

I wonder if the Nigerian Prince who keeps e-mailing me would be able to use the information instead of me mailing him a $200,000 check. would you like me to forward the message to you?

simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Send me all the plans, complete details, drawings, and figures. I'll file everything for you and everyone will be happy.

Honest. Really.

The check's in the mail.....

Physical principles...

[homer_s]

mechanical devices, based on physical principles

Here is the invention.

Re:Physical principles...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the best invention ever! You'll make a million dollars!

Re:Physical principles...

[Anonymous Coward]

The top hat really adds an air of sophistication. Kudos.

Have to publish it in the right place

[tepples]

But patent examiners aren't likely to find such published prior art unless you publish it in something that patent examiners actually read. Google defensive publication brought me a Wikipedia article explaining the concept and a short guide.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[mikeselectricstuff]

Couldn't you just send a copy direct to the Patent office?

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[DrLang21]

They aren't going to archive something like that. You ideally want an article in a moderately visible publication.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's the discussion wrapped up nice and neat in just two comments. Well done Slashdot!

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Vadim Makarov]

I once encountered a U.S. patent application filled in 2005 whose idea was described in a research article published in 2001. I tried to report it to the patent examiner.

First, I looked around for a "report prior art" button on the application page. None.

Second, I looked for USPTO's email. I don't remember if I found one, it was years ago, but I do remember that an attempt at reporting prior art via email was not successful. Probably I got a reply saying they don't take tips via email, I don't recall clearly.

Third, I took the trouble of calling USPTO (international call, not cheap), waiting in the queue a quarter hour, and inquiring where do I send a copy of that research article. It turned out, I have to snail mail it and clearly identify the sender on the mail. At this point a question arose if the submission would be anonymous. I knew one of the patent fillers and did not want to worsen relations with him. If I sent a letter with a faked sender from my current city and country and he saw it, he could still identify me. To ensure anonymity, I'd have to mail it to another country and ask someone to re-mail it to the USPTO for me. At this point, I gave up.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[foniksonik]

How about just publishing to Wikipedia? Seems like a place that a patent examiner might look when investigating prior art. Especially if someone also publishes an article on how Wikipedia is being used to publish "public domain" prior art and then adds a reference to examples which could turn into a big list of inventions...

If your patent uses a basic concept add a cross link to that article as well so that it's more likely to show up in a search on said concept and of course cross link to prior art to your own invention as well.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Anonymous Coward]

You call prior art if your idea, which you have published or implemented in some way, is patented by someone other than you. In this case you use prior art in a civil suit, and if you prove prior art the patent will be invalidated. If you are worried about proving prior art you can get what is essentially a temporary, but unproven patent (usually they are in the range of 5 years). This isn't an actual patent, but it is usually what has been taken when you see "Patent Pending" on something. Because this temporary patent has been filed with the patent office, in the case of a civil suit you can quickly and more easily prove you created whatever it is you created before the other patent was applied for.

In general you don't actually need a patent anymore, and even if you do certain countries don't actually respect international or foreign patents in the first place (China and Korea are two countries which will laugh at you if you bring patent infringement claims to them).

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Z00L00K]

If Robert Anson Heinlein still was alive you could have asked him since he did put the concept of the water bed into public domain.

Anyway that was described back in 1934 and the publication of it in three of his books was enough to consider it prior art.

So even a limited spread of the data has to be considered prior art.

I suspect that if you read enough Science Fiction books you will be able to invalidate a huge amount of patents. Things may not be named the same, but they may be described sufficiently to work as prior art.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Z00L00K]

That seems to be an interesting concept.

Just make sure that you have a reference site to point to for the Wikipedia entry.

Add some usenet postings too just for the sake of it. But I suspect that very few today does read usenet, so it may be better to put a reference in your sig here at Slashdot and then comment articles like a maniac for a while.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure it'd risk being deleted as Original Research. Which is a shame, because I normally love wiki.

Original Research is often a good thing, but Wiki doesn't think so :(

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Asic Eng]

I think he should present at a reputable conference in his field. Not sure if Wikipedia is a good place for publishing original research - I was under the impression that's not the content they want. Also - if he publishes on such a conference the knowledge will be distributed to those able to make use of it, and it will increase his reputation - allowing him to become known, to add the publication to his resume etc.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It's very much the point in wikipedia that original research is not appropriate. It is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. Start your own researchwiki, if one doesn't already exist, or something

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Dachannien]

Another way to go about this is to forward the piece of prior art to the attorney and/or the applicant. They are required by law to disclose things they know about that are material to patentability (see 37 CFR 1.56). Failure to fulfill the duty to disclose can be grounds for invalidation of a patent. If you send it through some form of return-receipt mail (in the US, this would be Certified Mail) to prove that the item was sent, then if the patent issues anyway and gets litigated, you could contact the defendant and tell them about what you did.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[nns6561]

Actually, Wikipedia is possibly the worst place to publish it. You are better off just posting it on your own site and letting Google index it. The USPTO frowns on using Wikipedia as prior art.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Dachannien]

The USPTO frowns on using Wikipedia as prior art.

Not necessarily. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has cited Wikipedia several times. What's more, the fact that Wikipedia keeps a history allows examiners to go back to pick up the version of the page that actually counts as prior art.

The Wayback Machine on the Internet Archive is another good tool that examiners can use. It's especially good for when an applicant or company blabs about their stuff on their website and then tries to file a patent on it more than a year later.

However, when it comes to using Wikipedia as a place to ensconce your public domain invention, it's probably not the best tool for that. Wikipedia gets used a lot when an examiner doesn't understand something, but most patent applications are close enough to the bleeding edge that Wikipedia's not that great for anything but knocking out the basics or just learning unfamiliar terminology.

As for Google, more and more examiners use Google these days, but it pales in comparison to the search tools that examiners have for searching through patents, published applications, statutory invention registrations, and the abstracts of published journal articles and conference proceedings.

Ultimately, if you really really want an invention put into the public domain and don't mind the cost, a statutory invention registration is how to do it. It's cheaper than a patent application because there's no search fee involved, but there is still a fee for publication and classification. I don't know what the fee total is, but it's apparently at least $920, and you may need the assistance or advice of an attorney to help you get it in the proper form (it should look more or less like a patent application).

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[home-electro.com]

How about publishing it here, for starters?

"I have a couple of inventions" -- What kind of introduction is that? Explain them in detail and if they as good as you think they are, people will spread the ideas further.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[ganjadude]

Who is going to set up a wiki for original research?? Any takers?

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Vadim Makarov]

Sure. This meant at that time getting my ass from the chair, going to a local Russian post office and trying to figure how to send Certified Mail to U.S. (Guess: I'd wait half an hour in a line and get a blank stare.) I did email the filler. It was not my invention, after all. I just run into the patent app accidentally in the course of research. Why should I go out of my way to rectify it? The point is, UPSTO does not make it easy to casually report prior publications in order to, supposedly, help the patent examiner. I think, they don't enlist public help efficiently.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[davester666]

If you want your work widely disseminated, you need to run a P2P app like LimeWire with a public share folder, and within that folder, you have a folder named 'Secret Plans', where you put your information into.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[ManWithIceCream]

How about wikileaks? Or archive.org?

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Voyager529]

If you want your work widely disseminated, you need to run a P2P app like LimeWire with a public share folder, and within that folder, you have a folder named 'Secret Plans', where you put your information into.

no...you share the folder with the name "Britney Spears Megan Fox Paris Hilton {your hottie here} naked nude porn pr0n". *THAT'S* how you make sure it's widely disseminated.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[howman]

See below for everyone else's 2 cents worth.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[telchine]

Well, that's the discussion wrapped up nice and neat in just two comments. Well done Slashdot!

Last Post! ;-)

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Gorobei]

To be fair, someone should have mentioned Statutory Invention Registration and file-and-abandon.

There, we are done.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[klenwell]

What about Google's Knol? Wikipedia specifically prohibits original research. Knol welcomes it. You could also start an article on the broader subject of prior art and invite people to contribute to that.

You need a Google account, but that would insure attribution. And you can even see how many people have viewed it.

It also gives the idea a fixed url or permalink which could be the starting point for wider circulation.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[kninja]

I was going to to that, but you beat me to it.

File and abandon is expensive, but cheaper because you don't have to pay the prosecution fees, issue fees, and maintenance fees. Plus, there may be a chance that the application goes through.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[szorg]

Now let's relax. Let's keep in mind this is a digital file that he wants in the public domain, as such it can be copied as many times as necessary! Multiple filenames for all! *THAT'S* how you make sure it's widely disseminated. Many filenames.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude...have you ever heard of blackmail?

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're basically a pussy. I'm surprised that you post logged in. Oh wait...

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Vadim Makarov]

It is obvious from your description your main goal here was to screw over the person filing the patent

Actually, not. The researchers who published this idea openly in 2001 chose to publish openly instead of patenting, so that everyone could use it. If the other guys get a patent, it would place some hurdle on the use of the idea. Those who wanted to use it may not be aware of the 2001 publication. This is one motivation, to protect the invention which has been placed into the public domain. Another motivation was to help the USPTO keep its database clean of patents which are actually non-enforceable. Both should be the tasks of the USPTO, which is a government organization established by the society for serving the needs of this society in general. So, helping it is good, right?

Okay, that was U.S. society, and I am not living in the U.S. Call me irrational, then. Besides, I also had some curiosity in how the system works.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It is obvious from your description your main goal here was to screw over the person filing the patent as there is no way you would go to that effort otherwise

This may come as a shock to you, AC, but sometimes people do the right thing because it's the right thing. Sometimes they even put a fair amount of effort into it.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[theskipper]

Close, but no cigar...

Last post!

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[sorak]

Well, that's the discussion wrapped up nice and neat in just two comments. Well done Slashdot!

ok...umm...should we argue about global warming now?

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Teancum]

Publishing on Wikipedia is original research (especially if it is something novel or original). That is grounds for immediate deletion on Wikipedia, so while it might get "published", it isn't a good place to do that.

On the whole I support the concept of original research being banned on Wikipedia (and most of the other Wikimedia sister projects... Wikiversity is a narrow exception) as it keeps the kooks off of the site and treats it as a serious compendium of human knowledge. It is most often used to cull UFO research notes, but it does apply in other situations as well like this one.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Teancum]

One of the projects on Wikibooks that got deleted was a huge number of chemical laboratory research notes that were GFDL'd. It killed me that such a valuable resource was killed (and it certainly had some very interesting information), but the precedent of allowing it was weighed with allowing it to remain and grow.

Other problems with original research is that the original author tends to get into a huff when you start changing the format of the prose, fix grammar, or do other things to the text. Letting people collaboratively write content is one of the key features of a wiki... where publishing original research legitimately should be questioned on a number of levels. Also consider, how do you qualify those that might be considered for updating referenced original research? The citation issue is particularly thorny for those who like to do the more administrative/cleanup stuff on a wiki.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[bsdaemonaut]

The right thing would have been to contact the owners of said prior art and let them deal with it. If they don't choose to fight the patent, then this guy's true intentions are pretty obvious. Considering what he had to go through, contacting the researchers or their institution would have been much easier.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Elros]

A United States government agency working in-efficiently...shocking! I'm actually surprised that you were able to find even a theoretical method for reporting this. Kudos to you for getting as far as you did.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Anonymous Coward]

in the U.S. the applicant has a duty to disclose any prior art they know about. So, you can always just email a copy to the applicant/inventor and let them sweat it out. If it can later be proven that they knew about the prior art and didn't disclose it to the patent office, there's a good chance of invalidating the patent.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Allowing the patent to stand, whether or not the inventor of the prior art cares, is still wrong. Consider the following scenario: Alice, a researcher, publishes an article describing a useful invention, but neither patents the invention nor exploits it commercially. Bob, a patent troll, files a patent on the same invention, and whether through ignorance or intent doesn't mention the prior art. Chuck, a manufacturer, wants to make a product using the invention, but can't do so because of Bob's patent. Dave, a consumer who thinks that Chuck's product would be really useful and would like to buy it if it ever comes to market, contacts Alice to let her know about the situation. Alice says, "You know, I really don't care about that any more, and I'm working on something else these days." She may be telling the truth, or she may be lying out of fear of reprisal from Bob; either way, Chuck and Dave are SOL.

Nobody wins. Chuck's not going to pay Bob's exorbitant licensing fees, and Dave doesn't have the capacity to manufacture the product himself. So what's Dave supposed to do? Contacting the patent office seems like a reasonable response, and if Dave has reason to suspect that Alice will blow him off before the whole process starts, the patent office is really the first place he should go.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Hal_Porter]

Hey I downloaded that and it was a load of nonsense about tapping zero point energy using only two nails and one glass of warm salt water. I talked to my buddy and we tried it one night whilst drunk and it blew up my kitchen.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[sterlingda]

Wikipedia is not a good place to publish cutting-edge stuff. They only allow well-entrenched stuff. If it hasn't made it into the Wall Street journal, you're wasting your time there. They'll just delete it.

That's why I founded http://peswiki.com/ for breakthrough clean energy technologies back in 2004. Most of our stuff is cutting edge, and not safe from deletion at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is "old wine", we are new. New wine can't be put into old bottles.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[supernova_hq]

Actually, if you are simply worried about someone else getting a patent, there is a VERY cheap and easy way to do it.

Go to ANY post office, ask to send something as "registered mail" and mail it to YOURSELF. This way there is a government datestamp on the envelope and you can prove that it existed before the patent holder thought of it.
Just remember: DO NOT OPEN THE ENVELOPE WHEN IT ARRIVES. By leaving the envelope sealed, you can prove that the contents of the envelope existed at the time of it being mailed (the government date on the package).

My law teacher told about this, and there are actually a lot of bands that do this with their music, to prove they haven't stolen riffs or lyrics. They take a copy of their sheet music + demo tapes and mail it to themselves. Then they archive it in case they need it in court.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[regular_gonzalez]

This has long since been discredited, and it's simple to disprove with basic logic. What's to prevent you from mailing an unsealed envelope to yourself? The date will be on it, and then five years later you can stuff it with the details of GE's new holographic television (or whatever), seal it, and voila! You "invented" it five years previous.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[mlush]

How about just publishing to Wikipedia?

Publishing in a media that can be later modified/deleted by more or less anyone seems like a recipe for pain and litigation.

Yes Wikipedia keeps a version history and Yes the old pages are available on the Wayback machine.

However if the prior art is not instantly and trivially visible to the Patent examiner a patent (w|c)ould get granted anyway.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Eskarel]

Well wikipedia probably isn't reliable enough for a prior art search, and for that matter, it's realistically only a matter of time before the US switches to a first to file system anyway at which point it won't do much good anyhoo.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[USPTO]

First, I looked around for a "report prior art" button on the application page. None.

That's hilarious. Not because the poster looked for a report prior art button, which is not an unreasonable expectation, but because the USPTO website has been a disorganized, idiotic mess for years. Compared to the EPO patent site, and to even basic usability standards, the USPTO site is an embarrassment.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[foniksonik]

You've just described a new industry: SEP - Search Engine Patenting...

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[bsdaemonaut]

If Alice does not want to accept the responsibilities that go along with ownership of it, should it not go to the next rightful person? Fighting a patent merely to avoid licensing fees seems backwards to me. It would be one thing if Alice wanted her rights. The patent system is meant to protect an inventor's rights. If an inventor does not wish to claim those rights then that's his/her issue, not the person who wishes to get out of spending a buck. Honestly, I understand what your saying on some level, but the patent system is so fundamentally screwed up that I don't see an easy answer. The second person is not always a "patent troll." Sometimes they are merely a researcher unfortunate enough to be second. If the first researcher doesn't wish to accept the responsibility that comes with his invention, why not allow the second? Allowing consumers to avoid licensing fees seems a selfish reason to me.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Conficio]

Wkipedia is not a place where anything that is not an established fact survives very long.

It's an encyclopedia, so a new invention is certainly not something that the community there will share to publish. Also it is a site the is community edited. Given for some reason the publication would stay around, how would it potentially look like be the time the "patent examiner" would read it there?

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Anonymous Coward]

public notary on a sealed envelope is easier and in some cases probably cheaper

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If Alice does not want to accept the responsibilities that go along with ownership of it, should it not go to the next rightful person?

There is no "next rightful person" in this scenario. If Alice chooses to assert ownership, that's her right. If she doesn't, nobody owns it -- certainly not Bob, and not Chuck or Dave either.

The patent system is meant to protect an inventor's rights.

The purpose of the patent system, in the US at least, is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The phrase "inventor's rights" does not appear.

the patent system is so fundamentally screwed up

On this point, you and I are in total agreement. ;)

The second person is not always a "patent troll." Sometimes they are merely a researcher unfortunate enough to be second.

Fair enough. And there's nobody stopping people who do their own research from publishing it. It may be a little more difficult to get research published in a field where others have already done lots of work, but it's by no means impossible. But the reality is that there are a hell of a lot of patent trolls out there, trying to make a buck off someone else's work and producing nothing of their own.

If the first researcher doesn't wish to accept the responsibility that comes with his invention, why not allow the second?

Because the first researcher is the only one who has that right. "Accepting responsibility" is a fine-sounding phrase, but in this case what it really means is "taking other people's money."

Allowing consumers to avoid licensing fees seems a selfish reason to me.

You could put it that way. You could also put it as "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts," which doesn't strike me as selfish at all.

The scenario I outlined above is a realistic one; it's played out, with minor variations, all the time (and very often reported here on Slashdot.) I'll say it again: nobody wins. Absolutely nobody benefits when patent trolls sit on other people's work, not even the trolls themselves unless they can con other people into going along with their crooked game. Working to change this, to provide a way for somebody to benefit, is to bring patent law more in line with its stated intent.

If Dave does get the patent overturned, who benefits then? Obviously he does, and Chuck does. If the product is successful, ultimately so does Alice -- the currency of academic researchers is prestige, and being known as "the inventor of this wonderful product from ChuckCo Inc." isn't going to do her career any harm. The only person who loses is Bob, who (a) didn't deserve anything in the first place, and (b) wasn't going to get any money anyway.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[LonghornXtreme]

Mailing a sealed envelope is retarded. However, 35 USC 102 has a statutory bar to patentability. Basically, if the invention is published in a printed publication then a future inventor could not go get a patent on the same invention.

I am not a lawyer, not a patent attorney or patent agent. Go talk to your own lawyer.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[toddestan]

I believe with registered mail, the post office will stamp all seams on the envelope so that if it is opened and resealed it should be detectable. Obviously, the mail it to yourself method does have its flaws so it shouldn't be counted upon, but even the site you linked to suggests that it can't hurt.

Re:Have to publish it in the right place

[Gorm the DBA]

You believe incorrectly.

Registered mail gets you a shiny sticker on the front of the envelope that has a tracking number, and a receipt of what happened. Also requires a signature on delivery, unless you waive that.

It doesn't do thing one to prove the envelope wasn't unandresealed.

You *could* write it up, seal it in an envelope, and deposit said envelope with a lawyer/barrister along with an affadavit stating what is in the envelope dated appropriately. That's gonna cost more than the USPS charges, though. Probably easier just to publish it somewhere and be done.

Sell you idea... with terms

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know of a way to protect it other than patents, that's what they are there for. Is it possible that the idea could be sold with terms that will not prevent it's widespread use, still get you some sort of creator credit on the patent, but still allow the investor to "more than make their money back". You hopefully could make a fair trade in both parties eyes.

Letter bomb campaign

[darpo]

You could write an open letter to the major companies in the relevant industry (and make it clear that several companies are receiving the letter) explaining your inventions. One company may still try to patent them, but the other companies will have signed, dated, and carbon-copied letters from you stating prior art. Hmm, too far fetched?

Re:Letter bomb campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

just go write about it and get feedback from other users at www.whynot.net or edit existing/start your own wikipedia article about the advance.

Re:Letter bomb campaign

[kinnell]

Prior art requires that the invention be in the public domain, not simply "thought of first". This means it has to be actually published to the general public. You and I could make the same invention independently, and try and patent it, and the one to get the patent would be the first to apply, regardless of who actually made the invention first. IANAL, but I believe that in your scenario, any one of the companies would be perfectly entitled to patent the invention.

Re:Letter bomb campaign

[Dachannien]

The US is a first-to-invent country (the only one in the world, actually). In the US, if two pending applications claim the same stuff, an interference proceeding is held to determine who reduced the invention to practice first and/or who had a complete conception of the entire claimed invention first combined with due diligence thereafter in reducing the invention to practice.

If you invent something without filing for a patent on it, and then I invent it independently but I do patent it, then if I sue you for infringement, your defense could be that you were using the invention in the US more than a year before my filing date, or (as a more difficult approach) you could prove that I didn't actually invent it first.

Re:Letter bomb campaign

[stephanruby]

You could write an open letter to the major companies in the relevant industry (and make it clear that several companies are receiving the letter) explaining your inventions.

At my former company, your letters would have been received by a third party we hired to handle customer service. I think we had them send back a form letter asking you to take out a patent, or give up all rights to your invention by signing a waiver, before we'd even read your letter. Either way, we wanted to know where we stood with you before we allowed the letter to make it back up the chain of command, and possibly influence our actions. Many people contribute ideas, and then get upset when their idea gets implemented without them receiving a dime. And of course, this only gets compounded by the fact that many people have the exact same idea at the exact same time for the same company to implement.

Re:Letter bomb campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not true in the U.S., where it is a first to invent system. If you have evidence (lab notebook, prototype, board orders, whatever is appropriate) that you invented it first, you get the patent.

This was done because otherwise folks living nearer D.C. had an advantage due to the long transit time when the system was set up.

Re:Letter bomb campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

This is incorrect, at least in the United States - we are still a "first to invent" system. This precise scenario is what the interference procedure is for at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The general rule is that if you are first to invent, you are entitled to the patent as long as you have been diligent in developing your invention from before the 2nd inventors date of invention through the date you reduce your invention to practice. See 35 U.S.C 102(g).

Additionally, in the United States, only the inventor is entitled to a patent (see 35 U.S.C. 102(f)) - thus, no one to whom you disclose your invention can legally acquire a patent for it.

You're gonna have to patent it

[pnumoman]

While publishing it, and making it prior art would be nice, the only way for you to totally place it into the public domain would be for you to patent it yourself.

Sure, in a technical sense making it prior art would bar others from patenting it, effectively placing it into the public domain. However, in reality, people could still apply to patent the invention, and the burden would be on them to notify the patent examiner about your prior art.

Guess how much that will happen.

So, assuming they don't talk about your publication, and the examiner doesn't know, they get a patent. Once that happens, then it's up to an enterprising soul to file an appeal with the patent board... and sure, the patent would probably be revoked, but it would take time and money. During this time, people would be afraid to use the patent, etc etc.

Since a patent is a right to exclude others from using your invention, the easiest way would be to talk to your local law school, see if there's any sort of IP clinic, and ask them to help you file the patent. They will probably have someone student that has passed the patent bar early, and can help you file as a patent agent. Then you would just pay the fee, get the patent filed for you, and some law student would get some nice experience. After you get the patent, simply let people use it for free.

Re:You're gonna have to patent it

[servant]

I agree the best way would be to get a patent then release the license into the PD. This is basically what happens to expired patents. (My son has one for an invention he had in elementary school, he was in high school before it was granted.)

The problem is, the process is LONG (multi-year in my experience) and very expensive (the one my son got was done pro bono but it would have been about $20KUS about 10 years ago).

The current patent process is onerous and discriminates against the 'little guy'. I would like to see patents go back to a 'fee' for service basis to cover expenses and not a 'profit' basis for the government. It may not be but it sure seems like 'fees' are not so high that only ideas with significant profit potential (or companies with deep pockets that do patent protection as part of their business model) can afford the process.

A 'garage inventor' fee structure that give limited coverage for say 7 years, extendable to 14 for minimal fees, and extendable after that to the current 'protection' limits by 'paying up' to the current level of fees would be pretty equitable.

Just my $64K (.02 cents after inflation).

Re:You're gonna have to patent it

[Raenex]

The problem is, the process is LONG (multi-year in my experience) and very expensive (the one my son got was done pro bono but it would have been about $20KUS about 10 years ago).

The vast majority of that sum would be patent attorney fees, wouldn't it? If you've got time on your hands more than money I believe you'd be best off conducting your own research and not hiring a lawyer.

A 'garage inventor' fee structure that give limited coverage for say 7 years, extendable to 14 for minimal fees, and extendable after that to the current 'protection' limits by 'paying up' to the current level of fees would be pretty equitable.

The current fee schedule has a "Small Entity Fee" column that looks like half the price of the normal fee:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009january01_2009jan12.htm

Look at Patent Requirements

[LuckyJ]

I'm no lawyer, but looking at http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html, if you publicly disclose the details of your inventions, the novelty requirement for a patent should be impossible to meet for anyone trying to patent your invention.

I guess the issue might be, what is sufficient to constitute "known to the public". Is this a blog? A website you set up to describe your inventions? I'm not sure.

Just post links here....

[ZosX]

All you need to do is publish your designs somewhere. Who knows maybe people may offer suggestions that will improve them. Open sourcing hardware is certainly something that has been done before. As long as you don't care if companies potentially exploit your ideas and not compensate you then by all means go ahead and make the world a better place. I admit I am mildly disappointed that you did not even share any details at all. Maybe your invention is really cool and now we may never know.

Re:Just post links here....

[Nefarious Wheel]

You may see it here. I'm liking the idea of public disclosure here, Wikipatents, and BoingBoing. That is, if Cory and CmdrTaco don't life-ban me for opening this particular container of flexible, segmented invertibrates. Will finish reading the thread first.

Why not GPL or something similar

[beowulf]

Establishes the prior art, allows to the idea to benefit the public, and you can still receive compensation.

I'll take care of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just send all your documents regarding your patent to me and for a low low fee 99.95 i can patent it for myself... I mean you, yeah, you.

Call Cory Doctorow...

[memorycardfull]

You might discover that the answer is as simple as a handsome public domain patent cleverly constructed out of old paperback books.

statutory invention registration

[Anonymous Coward]

File a statutory invention registration with the patent office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration

Alternately, you can file a provisional patent application, and then just abandon it by not filing anything else for a year.

Either of these will become part of the patent office's database and thus will be searched by patent examiners.

Re:statutory invention registration

[Teancum]

File a statutory invention registration with the patent office.

I wish I hadn't posted earlier, as this comment deserves to be moded up. IMHO the best idea posted yet and one that actually fits the requirements of what is being asked.

Kudos.... and it is unfortunate this is an AC post.

Re:statutory invention registration

[itamblyn]

PublicPatent.org

If you register it here (free), the idea will ALSO be easily accessible to other people. I am the creator of this site, and I think that the author, like me, wants his ideas to be usable by the general public. Basically we are talking about the equivalent of linux for inventions.

Re:statutory invention registration

[cecil_turtle]

I checked out PublicPatent.org and clicked on the "Random Page" link a few times and it seemed to either go to what looked to be a page of spam for some "aaaoe" organization or a page of Chinese characters. All of the AAAOE.COM spam pages follow the same template with different keywords. There were a few other pages that looked like spam as well, I don't think I came across one legitimate article.

Re:statutory invention registration

[Anonymous Coward]

Filing a provisional patent application is NOT a way to put an invention into the public domain. Provisional patent applications are NOT published:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1100_1120.htm

If a document is not "published" (published is a legal term of art, there are factors that count into it being deemed published) it is not prior art.

Since we are talking about patent trolls...

[gnasher719]

Once they read about your invention, they would be legally obliged to disclose it to the patent office as prior art. So legally, they can't read it and then patent it. However since we are talking about patent trolls here, they can read it, write a patent application, don't tell the patent office about the prior art, forge papers demonstrating that they had the idea before you published it, and sue someone including yourself for the invention, and act very astonished if you show the prior art. Even with the prior art in someone's hands, it could cost them lots of money to defend against the case, even when they win. And whoever is sued might not know the prior art.

You could ask at the patent office, or someone here might know, how much it costs to _attempt_ to get a patent. In your situation, you don't need a patent. A failed patent application is good enough for you, because then it is prior art that is know to the patent office.

Re:Since we are talking about patent trolls...

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a bit of money to file a patent, and that doesn't include legal fees.

You really need a patent attorney, even if you are just going to publish it so it stays in the public domain. This is because, whatever you will write, will not be water tight in a legal sense. Then someone will improve your design in a way you didn't think of, or that you just missed, and they'll file a patent. Especially if your patent is good and really saves money, resources, etc. Somebody WILL patent it, because you can make so much selling such a patent.

At my work when we file a patent it'll go back and forth for over a year sometimes between the inventors and the patent attornies. This is in a research department too, where none of us on either side are strangers to such patents.

Re:Since we are talking about patent trolls...

[CajunArson]

As mentioned above, putting the invention in the Statutory Invention Registry is a low-cost way to publish the invention such that it will be covered in a standard USPTO search. While a patent applicant is required to divulge references to prior art that he knows about, there is no reason to expect every patent applicant to know the entire scope of the prior art... that's why every patent application includes a search fee where the USPTO conducts its own searches too!

Re:Since we are talking about patent trolls...

[hankwang]

You really need a patent attorney, even if you are just going to publish it so it stays in the public domain. This is because, whatever you will write, will not be water tight in a legal sense

For disclosure, you just need to describe the invention in a way that someone else can understand. It is wise to mention as many possible variations on the invention and its applications as you can come up with.

You need a legally water tight description only if you want to file a patent, not if you want to disclose the invention. My limited experience with patent attorneys is that they don't really have the technical knowledge to come up with other applications of the invention than the ones that you present to them. The patent attorney's job is to phrase the description such that it is as general as possible without any overlap with existing patents or prior art. For the disclosure, you don't need to avoid such overlaps.

A good book to read is David Pressman, "Patent it yourself", ISBN 978-1-4133-0516-6.

What isn't based on physical principles?

[DogAlmity]

"mechanical devices, based on physical principles"

raises a mental red flag. This isn't another water-powered car is it?

Re:What isn't based on physical principles?

[Anonymous Coward]

"mechanical devices, based on physical principles" raises a mental red flag.

He's trying to distance himself from business method/software patents. Slashdot as a whole usually doesn't look to favorably on a business method or software patents, so if he didn't specify that it was a mechanical device, he'd get grief from a contingent of posters who thought he was talking about software patents. (Because isn't everyone on Slashdot supposed to be a computer programmer?) I interpreted the "...based on physical principles" to be an emphasis, meaning "yes, it really isn't a software patent. I'm not a dummy who thinks that adding '... on a computer!' suddenly makes an algorithm or business method a mechanical device."

Re:What isn't based on physical principles?

[Nefarious Wheel]

No, I'm actually trying to distance myself from the costs. IAACP with about forty years experience. The inventions I have in mind have nothing whatever to do with computer hardware or software, so I was a bit at sea as to what to do with them. It is definitely all about the application of the adaptation of certain mathematical and physical principles to affect and improve an existing, familiar real world application.

A broader issue!

[jack_n_jill]

Publishing it on the net satisfies the "making it public" aspect of this issue. However the fact that internet publications are ephemeral, like everything on the net, poses a problem. How to prove publication on a certain date after it has disappeared.

I propose that some internet entity accept such publications and put them on the net. Someone like http://w2.eff.org/patent/ could put them up so there would be central location that could be searched for public domain prior art. This would establish the date and the content after the original vanished into the either.

Re:A broader issue!

[itamblyn]

I actually created a site for this specific purpose about a year ago.

PublicPatent.org

It's a free service that inventors can use to "publish" their work so that it is in the public domain. When something is prior art, it cannot be patented.

The database is backed up on a regular basis, and the contents are burned to a CD that I post to myself so that dates can be verified if they ever need to be. It is a wiki style setup, where only the user who created a page can edit it. Images can be included in a page.

The site is searchable, and if it takes off (there hasn't been much interest so far), the plan would be to write a letter to the US Patent Office (and Canadian, where I'm from) explaining that this database should be included in searches when new patents are checked.

I have no intention of ever charging for this service, though eventually I may have to put some ads on the side to pay for hosting if it gets too expensive. A donation system may also be enough.

If there are others that are interested in this, helping with the site, or contributing patents, please get in touch. This is an idea that I came up with trying to avoid studying for my PhD prelim - it would be nice if something came of it.

Re:A broader issue!

[mpeskett]

Unfortunately the whole thing seems to be filled with either pages of seemingly random Chinese characters or spam for WoW gold and "AAAOE.com"

Anyone ever tried 'buy free' patents?

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

The idea is simple; invent something, patent it, and allow no-one to use it until someone pays the fee, but once it is payed, everyone can use it.

BEFORE you publicize it

[pem]

You could spend $75.00 filing a "provisional patent application" with all the relevant information.

Even though you don't plan on turning this into a real patent application, it will establish a baseline date AT THE PATENT OFFICE for your invention. Someone else would have to prove that they invented before that date.

You will certainly want to publicize it widely, for it to count as prior art, but having an official date from the patent office itself couldn't hurt.

Re:BEFORE you publicize it

[sir_eccles]

This!

There is a huge misconception that patents are hugely expensive. The actual fees are relatively low for the initial filings and many are half price for small entities such as single inventors.

What is expensive is lawyers fees. But you don't necessarily need a lawyer, though many patent agents will offer no or low fee initial consultations or give your application a read through for a minimal amount. There are plenty of good books out there that can guide you through the process of making a provisional application. The most important thing is to include every single last tiniest detail in that first filing.

Once you have that, you are on a much more solid ground to go round to other people who can provide funding to take it to the next stage. And if you get to the initial application publication stage, it will be published for all to see (for all values of all that most importantly include patent examiners).

Re:BEFORE you publicize it

[al0ha]

Creating the patent may not be that expensive.

What is expensive is protecting it; which has to be done aggressively against everyone who infringes on it. Few except deep pocket conglomerates can afford this aspect of patent law.

Re:BEFORE you publicize it

[fishbowl]

"What is expensive is protecting it; which has to be done aggressively against everyone who infringes on it. Few except deep pocket conglomerates can afford this aspect of patent law."

You have patent confused with trademark, and even the part of your confusion that is justified, is exaggerated.

The exaggerated high costs of civil litigation often come from cases where one party isn't clearly in the right, but is trying to persuade a court that they are. That does tend to be very expensive, and, rightly, often fails. No matter how much you pay your lawyer, it won't help you if another party comes to the table with real, clear, rock solid evidence.

You can believe what you want, but you could also talk to people who have been in litigious situations without it bankrupting them.

Re:BEFORE you publicize it

[Theaetetus]

You could spend $75.00 filing a "provisional patent application" with all the relevant information.

Even though you don't plan on turning this into a real patent application, it will establish a baseline date AT THE PATENT OFFICE for your invention. Someone else would have to prove that they invented before that date.

You will certainly want to publicize it widely, for it to count as prior art, but having an official date from the patent office itself couldn't hurt.

... except that provisional patent applications that aren't converted to nonprovisionals are discarded at 12 months and are never published. They do not become prior art unless the individual Examiner happens to remember it, but even then he or she'd have a tough time making a prima facie case without any evidence.

Re:BEFORE you publicize it

[Anonymous Coward]

You could spend $75.00 filing a "provisional patent application" with all the relevant information.

Even though you don't plan on turning this into a real patent application, it will establish a baseline date AT THE PATENT OFFICE for your invention. Someone else would have to prove that they invented before that date.

You will certainly want to publicize it widely, for it to count as prior art, but having an official date from the patent office itself couldn't hurt.

Provisional patents are not indexed or published and are therefore not prior art. They are only worthwhile if you file for a real patent and claim priority to them. I would suggest following the advice above of filing a regular application and then just not responding to anything else after that. I'm not sure but I think the office might even publish applications where the filing fee hasn't been paid, but if you want to go that route I would confirm with someone at the office.

Re:BEFORE you publicize it

[Anonymous Coward]

A provisional application by itself won't be found by the examiners. Provisional applications are not published. The patent office basically throws provisional applications away after one year unless a regular application is filed by the original applicant that "claims the benefit" of the original provisional. Examiners won't find provisional applications that weren't followed by regular applications and the associated fees. Isn't the patent office fun?

Re:BEFORE you publicize it

[al0ha]

Exaggerated? Confused? Oh really? Hmmm, SCO comes to mind. So does SBC and their litigation against little guys years ago for infringing on their patented "structured document browser." Neither of these aforementioned entities have anything to do with a trademark.

Re:BEFORE you publicize it

[fishbowl]

>Hmmm, SCO comes to mind. So does SBC and their litigation against little guys years ago

None of that supports the assertion that one must "aggressively defend" a patent or risk losing it.
This is not entirely incorrect in trademark disputes, but there is a preposterous notion that someone with a trademark is somehow obligated to sue people on a regular basis.

Post a link here

[taskiss]

Put the drawings or whatever on a web page and link to it here. Not only will it get exposure, it'll generate discussion on the merits of the design.

As an aside, this reminds me of the crap article posted here not too long ago, with the only difference being that guy didn't want to share his great and wonderful idea.

Research disclosure

[An dochasac]

I've used Research Disclosure publications which I'm pretty sure U.S. patent applicants are required to look through in their search for prior art.

Re:Research disclosure

[Anonymous Coward]

From
http://www.researchdisclosure.com/publishing-disclosures/publication-rates

Publication rates

To publish in Research Disclosure you are charged a one off fee for each A4 or US letter page submitted for publication. The fee covers publication in both the paper Research Disclosure Journal and Online in the Research Disclosure non-patent prior art database.
Publication rates
US (USD) UK & Rest of World (GBP)
$120 Per Page £75 Per Page

Re:Research disclosure

[Anonymous Coward]

US patent applicants aren't required to perform a search for prior art, but they are required to disclose anything that they know about that is material to patentability. I've heard stories that inventors are discouraged from looking for similar art, but that's just a rumor.

Re:Research disclosure

[itamblyn]

PublicPatent.org

Same idea, but free and "open source".

Re:Research disclosure

[The_mad_linguist]

But so filled with spam nobody will be able to find your patent ever. It needs moderation and improved CAPTCHAs badly.

Re:Research disclosure

[Anonymous Coward]

Research Disclosure costs money to search. So 'publishing' there may stop other people getting patents (if, as the site claims, examiners search it) but then the vast majority of people without a subscription (costing around $1500) won't be able to access it.

So for defensive patenting purposes, job done. But sum total contributed to human knowledge and innovation = 0.

Don't patent it!

[Zackbass]

When getting started developing something usually the first thing people do is run a patent search to see if the idea is unencumbered enough even bother with. If you've got a patent sitting there most engineers are going to stop in their tracks, whatever your actual feelings about licensing it are. In my experience with engineers who are actually doing the development your patent will scare them away and chances are that your idea will languish until the patent period expires. Maybe if you can somehow fit into the claims the fact that your intend it to be public domain that would work.

First To Publish

[AvitarX]

In the US we are a first to Publish country.

Make sure it is published, and easily findable.

Keep all of your notes with dates, this can go to demonstrate you had the idea before the publication date (evidence, not proof obviously).

By keeping it a secret you are guaranteeing others may patent it, such as what happened when the British government kept RSA a secret.

Since patents are still theoretically to spread, not hid knowledge, the system does not recognize secret knowledge unless theft of ideas can be demonstrated. If there is no idea theft (piracy may be a more accurate word, as nothing is taken away), then the first to enlighten the world with the idea gets its rewards, not the first to think of it.

Re:First To Publish

[scientus]

If there is no idea theft (piracy may be a more accurate word, as nothing is taken away

Do you own a dictionary? piracy: Piracy is a war-like act committed by a nonstate actor, especially robbery or criminal violence committed at sea, on a river, or sometimes on shore. This comparison is absurd. Copyright infringement is certainly NOT piracy; as it is not theft: the owner of the exclusive right to copy directly loses absolutely nothing, and is completely uninvolved in the copying.

You've obviously been taken in by the misspeak of lobbyist.

Re:First To Publish

[AvitarX]

I think a term that has been in use with a meaning for over 400 years can be taken to have that other meaning too (using the same source you sited, following the first link in the page you linked to).

I suppose un-authorized radio stations shouldn't be called pirate radio either?

File a technical report with your local university

[mikael]

Contact your local university, ask them if it would be possible to file a technical report with a departmental archive... that's what all university departments do when submitting papers; submit the research as a technical report, then send it off for consideration for publication. Even if the paper is turned down, you still have the technical report filing.

I don't see the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Big companies can always afford to pay enough to either get a similar but differrently worded patent and just bribe the patent office. If you don't intend to make money off it, you're wasting your money.

can Patent Trolls read?

[aapold]

would illiteracy be an asset for a would-be patent troll?

Re:can Patent Trolls read?

[Luthair]

Well, it is dark under bridges.

patent trolls, defend by provisional patent appl.?

[LarryPf]

Greetings all, First off, this is my first post to /. so please bear with me. Also, IANAL; your mileage may vary! When I researched some ideas I had at a patent depository library, I was depressingly amazed by how many clever ideas I had, that others had already had (sometimes long before), and this was primarily US prior art. There are lots of clever, industrious folks in other countries, too. For the past ~30 years, the US patent office has been underfunded, and in consequence, the USPTO often doesn't do a good job of searching for prior art (they are under pressure to process a patent in something like 8 hours, AFAIK.) In consequence, the USPTO often grants patents for ideas that aren't novel at all. So, publication would not guarantee that a troll could not read your publication, and then try to patent it (as a previous commenter suggested.) I admire your desire to put your ideas out there, and I humbly suggest the following: Get ahold of the book _Patent it Yourself_ by David Pressman, published by Nolo press: http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/objectID/139AEDE9-69A0-4810-A7A87D2AD5422664/310/ Since one of your goals is to prevent others from patenting, then the "publication" that would really count is to convey your ideas to the patent office (in whatever country/ies) you want to prevent patenting. As a previous poster points out, even if your patent application is unsuccessful, it will be in those patent offices' databases, with an established date. I haven't followed the recent patent law changes, but I suspect that (in the US, at least) a provisional patent application might serve your purposes, and would be easier/cheaper. HTH, Larry

Have a fund raiser!

[VChris]

If you are really serious about being open with it then I would consider asking for the funding to file the patent. Keep the patent for yourself and just publish it on the web with terms such as Creative Commons.

The funding could come from private donations. A dollar here, a dollar there type of thing. Post a donation link to somewhere like Slashdot with a suitable teaser (or teasers if you want to attract a larger audience - multiple teasers targeting different demographics will only increase the size of the donation pool).

A few possible teasers for Slashdot...for the young crowd you could talk about how your invention would enable every individual to pour hot grits down Natalie's front. The middle age may enjoy something about the .cx domain. The old ones (see my Slashdot ID number) would be into something nostalgic - old hardware like Z80s for instance.

Another good things about the public fundraising - Documentation to help with any prior art disputes...

Re:Have a fund raiser!

[scientus]

You have no understanding of how patents work. All patent filings are public once they are granted. However only the person who owns it is granted a monopoly by the government and can force anyone else, under patent law, to cease distributing anything described in their invention (assuming the patent is valid).

Just blog about it

[presidenteloco]

What with Google and the Internet Archive that must consitute "publishing" your invention.

However in the, let's just say really "interesting" US patent system, I believe that someone else can read your invention online and patent it themselves within a year,

and then force you yourself to stop using your invention.

I could be wrong but that is my interpretation of the US rules.

Re:Just blog about it

[russotto]

However in the, let's just say really "interesting" US patent system, I believe that someone else can read your invention online and patent it themselves within a year, and then force you yourself to stop using your invention. I could be wrong but that is my interpretation of the US rules.

They could (and I've seen a few patents where it appears someone did exactly that -- there's even a recent one for a mousetrap that appeared in a very old advertisement). But that's fraud. Then there's the patent troll game where you file a bunch of vague patents, see what someone else does, and file a continuation which makes your patent cover their invention.

Notarize it!

[kallisti5]

A first good step would be to put it in paper in detail and have a notary public notarize each page with the date and your signature... that way if someone in the US gets a hold of your design you have proof when you designed it and that you did design it. Not sure if it's valid outside the US but it is cheap.

Put it into a PDF and HTML and make a website

[Ralph Spoilsport]

It's not that complicated.

You know your business well, so email the important parties and send them links to your site with the info.

If it's a good idea, and you are upfront about it being public domain, then people will use it.

RS

PublicPatent.org - free and "open source"

[itamblyn]

I actually created a site for this specific purpose about a year ago.

PublicPatent.org

It's a free service that inventors can use to "publish" their work so that it is in the public domain. When something is prior art, it cannot be patented.

The database is backed up on a regular basis, and the contents are burned to a CD that I post to myself so that dates can be verified if they ever need to be. It is a wiki style setup, where only the user who created a page can edit it. Images can be included in a page.

The site is searchable, and if it takes off (there hasn't been much interest so far), the plan would be to write a letter to the US Patent Office (and Canadian, where I'm from) explaining that this database should be included in searches when new patents are checked.

I have no intention of ever charging for this service, though eventually I may have to put some ads on the side to pay for hosting if it gets too expensive. A donation system may also be enough.

If there are others that are interested in this, helping with the site, or contributing patents, please get in touch. This is an idea that I came up with trying to avoid studying for my PhD prelim - it would be nice if something came of it.

Re:PublicPatent.org - free and "open source"

[Herve5]

tried "show random page" on your site: looks like there are much more spam-ads than inventions, unless I'm very unlucky... You should consider a spam filter like Akismet for instance http://akismet.com/

Does Poor Man's Patent work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of a way to use the USPS or Notary Public or some combination to make "official" documents of your prior art. Try Googling "poor man's patent" and see what is said in the results.

Sigh..

[Meor]

I can't believe a question with a huge glaring hole in it got posted on the front page. If an invention has ever existed before and can be proven it can't be patented. This is what "prior art" is.

Re:Sigh..

[maxume]

Yeah, the patent system works exactly that well.

Re:Sigh..

[Meor]

Slashdot readers tend to read patent abstracts instead of claims and make assumptions about prior art from there. This is equivalent to reading the back cover of a book to see the story is the exact same as another book.

Filing the patent is cheapest and most reliable

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you can also ask a notary to certify whatever method of publication you intend to use, but there are some major drawbacks. Firstly, sometimes courts only accept publications in venues which are deemed by some non-objective standard to have a wide audience. Expect to pay to be published. Secondly, the notary will want his cut. Depending on the specific details, this can actually cost you more than filing a patent. Thirdly, there is the international aspect to consider. Courts often don't assign foreign notaries any degree of trust, let alone the one they reserve for domestic ones, and could decide to simply throw out the certification, and ask you to prove that you weren't conspiring with the venue of publication. This can be very costly in terms of lawyer and court costs and there is always the risk that the judge will not just decline your prior art claim, but also think you have been lying to the court. In the end, I think if you do the math it will turn out to be cheaper, safer and more convenient to file the patent. If the invention can be applied as widely as you think you should have no problem convincing some other people to pay part of the application fee in return for a non-conditional patent licence.

Re:Filing the patent is cheapest and most reliable

[number11]

Of course, you can also ask a notary to certify whatever method of publication you intend to use, but there are some major drawbacks. Firstly, sometimes courts only accept publications in venues which are deemed by some non-objective standard to have a wide audience. Expect to pay to be published. Secondly, the notary will want his cut. Depending on the specific details, this can actually cost you more than filing a patent.

Oh, come on. I'm a notary. If the notary wants more than a couple of bucks per copy, you need to find another notary. In my state, maximum rates are pretty much set by law, and any notary who tried to get "his cut" would be at risk of substantial legal penalties.

That said, IANAL but merely getting something notarized probably isn't going to count as "publication". The very word implies "public" distribution.

How much justice can you afford?

[smchris]

One of the "how to start a business" books I read a long time ago basically suggested, "You see an idea you like, manufacture it and work out the details later" -- which could range from a reasonable percentage of profits to bankrupting the pursuer in court costs. I don't think the latter is unknown. And what are the chances your idea could be exploited in Taiwan or the Mainland, and what are you going to do about _that_?

Descriptive Documents

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't looked lately, and the name may have changed, but the Patent Office has always had a provision for filing a "descriptive document" for which the fee used to be nil or nominal (a decade ago it was something like $35). This both "secures your rights for a year" and makes it public domain within the patent office registry if you fail to file within the required time.

eh...my invention is better.

[TrekkieGod]

Originally I was going to post an ascii art circle, followed by the phrase, "You know, for the kids."

I could not get past the damn lameness filter (" Filter error: Please use less whitespace"), which has apparently gotten "better", because simply posting lots of normal-looking paragraphs later wasn't enough to override the "percentage" of whitespace, or whatever.

So now I'm forced to start a rant: why the hell is there a lameness filter? Doesn't the moderation system take care of the problem the filter is trying to solve, placing all the otherwise offtopic posts at -1 where no reasonable person will ever see them? And while on the topic of things that have gotten worse with time, what's with the new system that forces you to wait a certain amount of time in between posts? That's really annoying when I'm participating in a topic I know a lot about, and have a lot to say (ok, that only happens with Star Trek articles, but more knowledgeable people than I must run into this problem all the time).

Sigh...sorry about the rant. I had a post which I thought would be quite funny, with a reference that demanded more than simple text, and feel that I was robbed of the opportunity.

Re:eh...my invention is better.

[aardvarkjoe]

So now I'm forced to start a rant: why the hell is there a lameness filter? Doesn't the moderation system take care of the problem the filter is trying to solve, placing all the otherwise offtopic posts at -1 where no reasonable person will ever see them?

You obviously haven't been reading Slashdot long enough. Long, long ago, the slashdot comments were full of lameness. When the filter was implemented, all of the lameness disappeared overnight.

temporary patent

[Ofloo]

The other day i saw a tv show where people had the same issue and someone on that show can't remember which one, suggested to file for a temporary patent which is about 150$ .. the domain contained something with gov that is all i remember.

Re:temporary patent

[antispam_ben]

Would that be http://uspto.gov/?

File a provisional Patent

[solder_fox]

At $110 to file for a small entity, a provisional patent only costs a little bit. If you can't afford it and these are potentially useful medical devices, just go to a patient who would have benefited from it and ask for a little help, or go to a good doctor or med student and offer to let him or her write up the journal article *After* you file the provisional patent application. For that matter, I'm sure you can get five hundred or a thousand bucks from an undergrad in the sciences for the chance to write up something really medically useful, because they could put it on their apps to med or grad school.

IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and assume (as you should with every slashdot comment that could be interpreted as in a legal field) that I don't know what I'm talking about, but you can certainly write a little document saying simply what your agreement is with the person and sign it. There are a lot of people out there with at least a little disposable income--if you tell anyone who has a little money and who's experienced the pain of dealing with the medical system that you want to make a new medical device available for public use for free, you'll get the $110 for a provisional patent application.

If you also want a patentability finding and publication you can file a real utility patent application, but that costs a little more and the format is more rigid--you'd probably need a patent agent or attorney to help you draw it up.

I believe--but am not 100% sure--that the provisional application would handle the matter if it covers the subject matter of the patent.

Also, not to be silly about it, but did you try asking the USPTO what they would suggest? They know this stuff and it should just take them a minute to answer. Alternatively, one of the patients' rights or support groups might be willing to help.

Use IP.com

[cliffjumper222]

I don't work for them, but my former employer (a major IC maker) used them all the time. $200 gets it published and printed in a journal.

Re:Use IP.com

[Scrameustache]

I don't work for them, but my former employer (a major IC maker) used them all the time. $200 gets it published and printed in a journal.

But that's 200 bucks he could use to buy toasts! It's hard being a broke inventor.

Perils of public domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out that one of the reasons for patents is to give a company an incentive to develop an invention into a product they can make money from. If you put an invention into the public domain, perhaps no one will feel incented to actually use it in a product. Of course this depends on the nature of the invention.

Marketing forever!

[Anonymous Coward]

This wouldn't be phase 1 of a multi-phase marketing push to lure people into investing in your perpetual machine ideas, would it?

Cheaper to file and abandon

[AliasMarlowe]

Filing a Statutory Invention registration costs $920, with no discount for small entity. It's much cheaper to file an application and abandon it. Filing costs $330 or $165 for small entity (you are almost certainly a small entity). The filing fee can be higher if your application has a rather large number of claims or a complicated claim dependency structure. Here is the current fee schedule at the US PTO: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009january01_2009jan12.htm

Either way, you must conform to the required format for the filing. Special attention must be given to drawings, so that labels and textual descriptions in drawings match the associated descriptions in the text specification (and all drawings must have descriptions). Drawings may NOT be in colour, or employ shading to distinguish areas - only cross-hatching or other fill patterns are allowed. The application must be accompanied by copies of any references or prior art cited. This is to ensure that your disclosure will be interpreted in the correct way later, even if you abandon it. Before it is printed, there may be requests for formal changes.

I recommend you become familiar with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.htm

shampoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

shampoo, is that you?

But it ain't technically gonna be public domain

[essinger]

While publishing it, and making it prior art would be nice, the only way for you to totally place it into the public domain would be for you to patent it yourself.

If you actually patent the invention, then by definition it isn't public domain. A better answer that fits the requirements of the original question is to file a patent application, abandon it, then let the USPTO publish your application. That will put it into public domain.

Practicality of defensive publication in a novel?

[tepples]

Anyway [a well-known fiction author described a water-filled bed] back in 1934

Not everybody is a well-known author.

and the publication of it in three of his books was enough to consider it prior art.

The point is to stop the examiner from even approving the patent, not to show prior art after the fact and run up a bill with the USPTO. So unless you know which SF author's books your particular examiner reads for pleasure, and that author takes suggestions for plot points (like a dispute over who gets to sleep on a waterbed), I don't see how defensive publication in a novel can be practical.

I suspect that if you read enough Science Fiction books you will be able to invalidate a huge amount of patents.

Just reading SF doesn't pay the USPTO's fee for reexamining a patent.

Provisional patents are discarded

[Steve1952]

Actually if you don't file another patent referencing the provisional patent within a year, the patent office will discard the provisional patent. So this won't show up in their searches.

Several ideas...

[technomom]

ip.com, wikipedia article, facebook entry, and finally, boil it down to 140 characters and put it on your twitter.

Re:Several ideas...

[Nefarious Wheel]

The physical principle I could almost post on Twitter. But that's a wee bit ephemeral ;)

Public Domain Magazine

[jlebrech]

Someone should publish a magazine full of useful and useless inventions that people could submit to them for a small fee (to pay for the printing) and they could keep those ideas on record for posterity.

That's pretty much what the patent office does but it would be for cheaper! Maybe "Make Magazine" already does that?

Publish here, publish everywhere

[Quila]

Slashdot will be around for a while. There are tons of inventors web sites, post there.

Good luck with this effort

[rpillala]

Once you figure out a way to do this, you should patent it and then the real money starts rolling in.

IANAL...

[PPH]

...but from what I've seen, publishing alone won't save you, or anyone who implements your idea, from a patent lawsuit. The problem (and one of the biggest gripes heard here on /. and elsewhere) is that the USPTO will issue a patent on practically anything. Prior art be damned. While publishing provides clear evidence of such art, the problem remains that the patent troll^H^H^H^Hholder can still file suit and extract money from your licensees. Fighting a patent is expensive, even if its subsequently proven to be worthless. Not many people have the resources to do so and this is what the trolls depend on.

Now, if you obtain a patent (an expensive proposition) you can license it to whomever you want. But if you place it into the public domain, the return on your investment into the patent process is zero. Not many people or organizations can justify such economics. So the current patent process with its fee structure forces the capitalization of intellectual property. You can either recover your costs in periodic royalty payments or get it back as a lump sum by selling the rights. You might be willing to limit your fees to that which will just recover costs, but given the economics of such investments, your backers will likely demand to be cashed out.

lame or not lame

[NotQuiteReal]

Here, I'll "publish" your invention, thus:

O

It is a toy, "You know, for the kids"

Re:lame or not lame

[TrekkieGod]

That's not the point. I was obviously going bigger, but I could also have had a link to a picture of a circle and gotten that effect. The point is that the filters are limiting content that is not part of the "problem."

I like the moderation / meta-moderation system for two reasons: it's human controlled, so context matters, as opposed to "there's too much whitespace" and because it doesn't actually remove the post, so people who want to browse at -1 and see all those posts, garbage included, are free to do so.

Limiting what you can post, or how often you can post probably does help diminish the amount of garbage that gets posted. However, I don't think it's worth the price, and I think the moderation solution handles that problem well enough.

A postmark can be a proof of date

[Beerden]

Put copies of the invention documents into an envelope, seal it, and mail it to yourself. But don't ever open it, and put it in a safe deposit box, or in your bomb shelter. The postmark is legal proof that you have prior art.

Free legal advice from those who know.

[Samschnooks]

Go here and read up on it. It's free!

If you want your invention to be used...

[the grace of R'hllor]

... you need to patent it and find licensees. Or sell the patent. If you want your invention to be used as widely as possible, you need corporate backing to turn it into a product (either form your own company to exploit the idea, or sell/offer it to other companies).

If it's not patented, what company in their right mind would spend their time and effort marketing the product, so that if/when it becomes popular, any competitor can step in?

Re:If you want your invention to be used...

[rally2xs]

Exactly so. The inventor / discoverer of penecillan allowed it into the public domain and it languished for years, because no company wanted to market it and have it copied by dozens of its competitors, thus forcing the price into the basement. So, to guarantee it won't be used, just release it to the public domain. It will be read, everyone will say its a great idea, and... it'll never get built.

Good idea but wrong

[Theaetetus]

At $110 to file for a small entity, a provisional patent only costs a little bit.

I appreciate the direction you're going with this, but it won't work. Provisional patent applications are not published, and won't count as prior art.

Patent applications are published at 18 months from earliest filing date, if they're still pending. Provisionals expire in one year from filing date if they're not converted to nonprovisional, so they're not pending at the 18 month point.

Disclaimer: I am a patent agent, but I'm not your patent agent. Any observations I make are most likely correct, but are not legally binding.

WikiPatents

[kostmo]

http://www.wikipatents.com/ may be a good place to post the prior art. It is a site for "community patent review".

I blog on blogspot to create prior art

[DeBaas]

I blog on blogspot to create prior art. My ideas are likely not feasible. But I would just hate it if I find out later that someone else thought of it and patented it. Then at least I can claim prior art. On blogspot you have a clear date etc.

Only thing I wonder about is the fact that I can edit old blogs. If it would actually come to a law suit it might be that I would have to ask blogspot for evidence that a certain blog was not altered after a certain date.

Couple of bucks = 1122 + You fail at English

[Anonymous Coward]

I just checked the state maximum tariff for notaries and it's a lot more than a couple a bucks: 1122
Also, I didn't say that merely getting something notarized counts as a publication. Read it again.

Re:Couple of bucks = 1122 + You fail at English

[atraintocry]

Part of what you did say was that going to a notary public could cost a lot of money if the guy basically holds it for ransom. That's not even possible to do. Every bank that you've ever seen has a notary working there in some capacity. They might ask you for a couple of bucks.

Becoming a new notary public might cost you a few hundred depending on the state you're in, but renewing it is not that bad. My father's a notary public just for the hell of it and I've never seen him charge anyone. It's something that you do because you know a lot of people who might need those services and it makes life easier. It's not a profit-making venture.

Re:Couple of bucks = 1122 + You fail at English

[number11]

I just checked the state maximum tariff for notaries and it's a lot more than a couple a bucks: 1122

Wow, either things are expensive over there in the EU, or what you call a "notary" is completely different from ours. Here (in Minnesota, USA) a notary mostly administers oaths and certifies that documents were signed in their presence. For a maximum of US$1. Anybody can become a notary for a mere $140 plus the cost of a rubber stamp.

Also, I didn't say that merely getting something notarized counts as a publication. Read it again.

So what is the purpose of getting it notarized? If you publish it, any moron can verify the date it was published, you don't need a notary. And if you don't publish it, it's not going to count as prior art no matter how many notary seals are on it.

this has been done

[scientus]

The guy who invented fleece did this. He documented his invention but did not patent it. Because he had proof he invented it, prior art, nobody but he could patent it.

Of course patent law is so crazily messed up these days so make sure you have good evidence, and try to prevent someone from embracing, extending, extinguishing like with Micro$oft and FAT32 (should never have received a patent cause it is totally obvious and non-novel)

Dedicating your invention into the public domain is the default, but patent mongers are trying to reverse this.

Re:this has been done

[3247]

The guy who invented fleece did this. He documented his invention but did not patent it. Because he had proof he invented it, prior art, nobody but he could patent it.

That's only true in the US, which has a first-to-invent system.

Most other countries have a first-to-file system; anyone who discovers the same invention would be able to patent it there.

Re:this has been done

[scientus]

even if there was evidence of prior art? ie it was already invented and someone is just being a royal asshole.

Re:patent trolls, defend by provisional patent app

[Theaetetus]

Since one of your goals is to prevent others from patenting, then the "publication" that would really count is to convey your ideas to the patent office (in whatever country/ies) you want to prevent patenting. As a previous poster points out, even if your patent application is unsuccessful, it will be in those patent offices' databases, with an established date.

One caveat. Provisional patent applications are neither published nor searched. If you don't convert to a nonprovisional patent application, they are discarded and will never be able to be used as prior art.

Copyright

[servant]

Publish your invention in a publication, or write a 'book' about it. Publish the book and ensure a copy is sent to the Library of Congress (you probably need to get an LC number and possibly an ISBN). In your copyright area, mention that the idea is covered by (your favorite copyleft) concept usage authorization document. (Creative Commons, GPL, whatever). At least that is my idea.

You might contact the USPTO at http://www.uspto.gov/main/contacts.htm and ask. You might also suggest they publish it on their web site. Make sure they understand you want to have it included as 'prior art' for patent and/or copyright purposes.

Making it also available as prior art for international patents and copyright purposes may be different, but the USPTO might help there too.

Slashdot eats currency signs

[Anonymous Coward]

And /. eats currency signs. I don't know what idiot coded the software this site runs on, but wasn't this supposed to be a tech site, run by techies who supposedly were good at coding? Anyway, to remove all doubt, I meant 1122 euros, as in 1513 dollars.

Re:Slashdot eats currency signs

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the EUR abbreviation. It's accepted way to write without the currency symbol. Like this: 1122 EUR

ip.com

[dtmos]

What you are looking for is a defensive publication that patent examiners are likely to search when reviewing a patent application. One candidate is The IP.com Journal, part of the prior-art database maintained at ip.com. The ip.com prior-art database is accessible on-line; in addition, physical copies of the journal are distributed to patent offices and libraries worldwide.

ip.com has many well-known corporations as clients, entities most likely to need the services provided by an effective defensive publication. The cost of electronic publication for an individual invention, $200 (plus $40 if you want the entire disclosure, not just an abstract and reference to the online version, to be in the printed edition), is much less than a patent application.

[Disclaimer: I have no association with ip.com, other than as a satisfied user: They have published several of my inventions, none of which I have ever seen patented elsewhere.]

Tag tellslashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

One answer is to post your invention to slashdot.

Re:I told you geeks are DUMB !!!!!

[wisty]

If it is a useful invention, and it's not easy to produce, you want to file a patent. Otherwise nobody will build it.

Let's say you invent a better wheel. If you publish it freely, then none of the car manufacturers will use it, because it will probably be too expensive to modify their machinery, and there is too much market risk (i.e. New Coke), and when they have done the hard yards to bring the new product to market their competitors will just copy it.

Patents are there to reward innovation, but they also reward the hard work in developing new markets.

Software is different (because it's trivial to implement), but real products need development.

"Best" way is to file, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

While there are definitely best ways to go about establishing prior art, as a technical matter, any publication counts. Back in law school, I remember reading a well-known cautionary case where the court disallowed a patent in light of prior art where the prior art was an undergraduate's 7-year-old senior thesis, in French, in the archive stacks of a small university in France. Only three copies even existed and had only been disclosed to a small number of people, but that was sufficient for the court to interpret it as 'publication' sufficient to bar the patent. Wow.

MODERATE UP

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, ip.com's database is searched by the USPTO during prior art searches, so it really is a cheap way to go. Also, not an employee, just a client.

Just wait until they run health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until we all get the same government "efficiency" and "caring" that has made the DMV famous.

Hillary-care is coming.
Get ready to die.

Amateur

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a mechanical device based on non-physical principles, I'd be impressed.

Check to see if it is already Patented

[CB-in-Tokyo]

This is the first step, as it could have already been done.

http://www.google.com/patents

http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm

If it hasn't already been patented and you are confident of the acceptance of the invention in the the targeted area then by god man find an investor to fund the patent for a percentage of the potential licensing fees.

Patents were originally created specifically for people like you, to encourage and reward people who provide useful inventions by allowing them a limited monopoly on the sales of the invention in return for making the knowledge public.

Heck, if you are that sure, and you can sell me on the idea, I will fund your patent.

do research

[tsjaikdus]

It may take a few days of patent search (not really fun to do, but ok), to find that your ideas have all been patented 100+ years ago already. And thus being in the public domain. Problem solved.

Too Much Misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Talk with a patent attorney

They'll probably even do it for free if you find a friend-of-a-friend, or approach a small (or even a large) firm for a consult.

Really, there's just too much misinformation and noise in this forum. Find a professional.

Everything?

[tepples]

Would Everything2.com count?

Ya know what they say...

[kpainter]

If it isn't worth stealing, it isn't worth having.

Nobody remembers shouldexist

[Gnaythan1]

The Wayback machine can still read the archives.... it's basically a bunch of people, myself included, that did exactly that, put every random half baked idea they could into the public domain... I truly wish someone would start that website back up.

the URL was shouldexist.org its been down for a long time... meaning all ideas in there not patented at this time should now be prior art. Go. Invent these things. Do what I can't.

Laston Kirkland.

Publish a Book

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem that the biggest problem is establishing prior art in a way that is easily defensible. Well, why not just self publish a book describing it.

It could be a hell of a lot cheaper than a patent, and you are producing ample evidence of when you actually published the invention.

Do what the Italians do...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/magazine/16-11/ff_openmanufacturing

Re:I told you geeks are DUMB !!!!!

[JuzzFunky]

Good point, however, if it's useful enough then it will be built.

I'll do it.

[JuzzFunky]

Tell me what your inventison are - if they are as good as you think then I'll pay for the patent and begin production immediately.

Statutory Invention Registration

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution to your problem is to submit a Statutory Invention Registration (SIR) which lists the bounds of your invention and prevents others from patenting it immediately upon publication.

To check it out, go to the USPTO website, click on "patents" on the side, click on "10 Guides & Manuals," click on the "Manual of Patent Examining Procedure," and take a look at chapter 1100 on SIRs.

Use a Patent Book

[WhiteHorse-The Origi]

I have a laboratory-grade($30) notebook in which I write down all my patentable ideas with decent ink and date/sign. It has a spot for someone else to sign upon disclosure. This is what they recommend for all inventors/researchers. It's admissible in court and they are frequently used to over-ride patents.
http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.ACCT107430/sc.23/category.56/.f

ask OIN?

[bugi]

Contact the Open Invention Network. They're focused on protecting Linux, but maybe they'd give you some advice.

Some avenues to put your idea in public domain

[sonamchauhan]

halfbakery.com
Slashdot.com comment history
Self-published Paper

Open-source Hardware licences

[Anonymous Coward]

We are developing a licence to protect hardware in the public domain from being 'snatched'. Please have a look at: http://www.fridayafternoon.org/wiki/index.php/License ... and provide your feedback!

Best regards,

Jacco