Slashdot Log In
How Do I Put an Invention Into the Public Domain?
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Apr 04, 2009 09:47 AM
from the co2-powered-self-replicating-gravity-detector dept.
from the co2-powered-self-replicating-gravity-detector dept.
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?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
First thought from a Republican... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I told you geeks are DUMB !!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
JUST publish it, make it "prior art" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's the discussion wrapped up nice and neat in just two comments. Well done Slashdot!
Parent
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's the discussion wrapped up nice and neat in just two comments. Well done Slashdot!
Last Post! ;-)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair, someone should have mentioned Statutory Invention Registration and file-and-abandon.
There, we are done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Have to publish it in the right place (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Robert Anson Heinlein [wikipedia.org] still was alive you could have asked him since he did put the concept of the water bed [opinionjournal.com] 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 w
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Good idea but wrong (Score:3, Informative)
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 n
Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art" (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:JUST publish it, make it "prior art" (Score:4, Interesting)
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) [merriam-webster.com]
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. ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 l
Prior Art? (Score:2)
Publish the invention (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 fil
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 gra
simple (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Here [thinkgeek.com] is the invention.
Letter bomb campaign (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Letter bomb campaign (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Letter bomb campaign (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
You're gonna have to patent it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Just post links here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why not GPL or something similar (Score:2, Interesting)
Call Cory Doctorow... (Score:3, Funny)
statutory invention registration (Score:5, Informative)
File a statutory invention registration with the patent office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration [wikipedia.org]
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.
Cheaper to file and abandon (Score:5, Informative)
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 [uspto.gov]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since we are talking about patent trolls... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
patent trolls, defend by provisional patent appl.? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone ever tried 'buy free' patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
BEFORE you publicize it (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Post a link here (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Free legal advice from those who know. (Score:4, Informative)
Check to see if it is already Patented (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the first step, as it could have already been done.
http://www.google.com/patents [google.com]
http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm [uspto.gov]
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.