I didn't say there weren't better ways to publish. But if you are disclosing it for defensive purposes only, as an individual, chances are you don't want to spend the time and money trying to get your paper published in an official journal.
You state that "you simply don't want to spend time arguing in court about whether a blog post counts as prior art" and "Doing anything else [besides established ways of publishing] is unnecessarily risky." Perhaps you would like to elaborate on these additional requirements which pertain to the medium in which something is published? Otherwise, you're merely generally alleging a point.
The USPTO doesn't require a disclosure accessible to the public to be in a certain format to constitute prior art...an informal, off the cuff, profanity-laden, dated comment on slashdot.org would constitute prior art if it was pertinent to any claims at hand. Your personal website that is the last search result on google, if relevant and accessible via archive.org or dated with CMS or whatever, would fit the USPTO definition of "published".
Who modded this up? Publishing on the internet does count as prior art, if it is accessible via archive.org or is dated such that there is generally no reason to believe it was backdated. A dated comment on slashdot.org would constitute prior art as there is the presumption that the date was not altered for deceptive intent. It may be more transient over the course of decades as opposed to an actual publication, but it certainly would be usable as prior art if found.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say there weren't better ways to publish. But if you are disclosing it for defensive purposes only, as an individual, chances are you don't want to spend the time and money trying to get your paper published in an official journal. You state that "you simply don't want to spend time arguing in court about whether a blog post counts as prior art" and "Doing anything else [besides established ways of publishing] is unnecessarily risky." Perhaps you would like to elaborate on these additional requirements which pertain to the medium in which something is published? Otherwise, you're merely generally alleging a point.
The USPTO doesn't require a disclosure accessible to the public to be in a certain format to constitute prior art...an informal, off the cuff, profanity-laden, dated comment on slashdot.org would constitute prior art if it was pertinent to any claims at hand. Your personal website that is the last search result on google, if relevant and accessible via archive.org or dated with CMS or whatever, would fit the USPTO definition of "published".
Who modded this up? Publishing on the internet does count as prior art, if it is accessible via archive.org or is dated such that there is generally no reason to believe it was backdated. A dated comment on slashdot.org would constitute prior art as there is the presumption that the date was not altered for deceptive intent. It may be more transient over the course of decades as opposed to an actual publication, but it certainly would be usable as prior art if found.