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

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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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.