[3978] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: How to put info in the public domain for patent puropses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arnold G. Reinhold)
Fri Jan 15 13:57:39 1999
In-Reply-To: <199901141730.JAA02629@servo.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:31:47 -0500
To: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net, karn@qualcomm.com
At 9:30 AM -0800 1999-1-14, Phil Karn wrote:
>>I f I recall correctly, the US Patent and Trademark Office has said that it
>>would not consider information placed on the Internet to be published for
>>patent purposes. Preparoing papers for journals or conferences is a pain,
>
>Is this really true? I thought I had heard the opposite, but I'm not sure.
Here is what it says at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/novelty.htm
>In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in
>the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if:
>"(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or
>patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
>country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or
>"(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in
>this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more
>than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . .
>."
The key term is "printed publication." I believe that the PTO has said it
will not consider the Internet under this catagory. In general if there is,
say a 30% overlap between common sense and regular law, the is maybe a 0.1%
overlap between common sense and patent law. Terms like "obvious" "prior
art" or "public domain" have very specific meanings in the patent field
that have little to do with their meanings in other legal areas, such as
export regs. For example, I am pretty sure putting a looseleaf binder in a
library somewhere won't work for patents.
>
>Not that it really matters, of course, because the PTO never bothers
>to read much prior art (including even prior patents) before granting
>a claim. Their apparent policy is to just sit on an application for
>about 18 months during which time they may quibble about the precise
>wording of a few claims to maintain the fiction that they really
>"examine" them. Then they issue the patent -- no matter how obviously
>bogus -- and let the courts sort it all out. It's all very depressing.
>
I understand you feeling on this, but it excess cynicism can be a trap too.
I think it is worth getting as many ideas as possible into the public
domain for patent purposes, even if it mean starting a journal to do that.
IMNALACNAPL (I am not a lawyer and certainly not a patent lawyer)
Arnold Reinhold
Got cyrpto? http://ciphersaber.gurus.com
