rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) (06/28/90)
I have recently seen many articles in this newsgroup, which, if they weren't dangerous, I would call silly. Does anyone have a copy of the article posted a few years ago about patents written by someone who knew? Among the more absurd claims made was "If it has been published, it can't be patented." This is patently (ugh) false. If I recall correctly, someone who invents an idea and publishes it does have a limited time to apply for a patent, but publication does not preclude a patent (at least in the U.S.). I'd like to see that article again... Also, one should be very careful about EXACTLY what has been patented. XOR cursors and RMW on frame buffers seem like silly patents, but any ingeniousness/limitations in their particular use may make the patents themselves quite reasonable. For instance, it is generally believed that Bell Labs first invented and patented the transistor. This is simply not true. Bell Labs did invent and patent the bipolar(?) SEMICONDUCTOR transistor, which is a very different thing. The first transistor (that I know of) was invented and patented by someone named Lilienfeld about 1930, who made one out of cadmium sulfide and demonstrated its utility for amplifying electrical signals by building an oscillator with it. Unijunction transistors, FETs, MOSFETs, IGFETs, Gunn diodes, etc., also all have separate patents, even though they are all for "solid state" devices that amplify electrical signals. Robert Herndon Cray Computer Corp. rh@craycos.com 1110 Bayfield Dr. 719/540-4240 Colorado Springs, CO "Ignore these three words"
jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) (06/29/90)
Publication more than 12 months before the application or anytime prior to the claimed invention date is sufficient to disqualify an application. Still, if a patent is what you want, it's risky to publish or give out too much useful information before applying, especially if you have not yet reduced the idea to practice. There is always a danger that someone else has had the same idea and could file before you. In this case, the first inventor can actually lose patent priority to a more recent inventor if he was not the first to reduce the process to practice or was not at least diligently trying to do so before the other inventor thought of it. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics 6 Trillium Lane Stanford University San Carlos, CA 94070 (jim@thrush.stanford.edu) (415) 723-9127
rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) (06/29/90)
In article <JIM.90Jun28190813@baroque.Stanford.EDU> jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) writes: +--------------- | Publication more than 12 months before the application or anytime | prior to the claimed invention date is sufficient to disqualify an | application. +--------------- That's true for *U.S.* patents only! Publication anywhere at any time before the patent application is grounds for denial of the patent in most other countries. Inventors beware! -Rob ----- Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311
karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) (06/29/90)
In article <1990Jun28.163043.501@craycos.com> rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) writes: > I have recently seen many articles in this newsgroup, >which, if they weren't dangerous, I would call silly. > Among the more absurd claims made was "If it has been >published, it can't be patented." This is patently (ugh) >false. If I recall correctly, someone who invents an >idea and publishes it does have a limited time to apply >for a patent, but publication does not preclude a patent >(at least in the U.S.). Mea Culpa. What I meant to say was that if you don't want something that you invent to later be patented by someone else, then publish it. If you publish something, then you have 12 months to patent it in the US. In most other countries, publication does prevent patenting though. Usually its not worth it to only patent in the US, so beware. There are good reasons for an invention to not be patented. Some inventions will do more good in the public domain that they will under proprietary ownership. The patent system makes it very simple for an inventor to put their invention in the public domain. Simply publish a description of it and don't patent it. Bruce Karsh karsh@sgi.com
jacobsd@mist.cs.orst.edu (Dana Jacobsen) (07/01/90)
What sort of publications qualify as valid places to "publish" an invention? For a computer graphics idea such as XOR cursors, would a group of comp.graphics postings qualify? Or would the patent office only accept paper publications. I suppose this means that the patent office's software experts should be on the net. At least then we could have some expert input to this train.. -- -- Dana Jacobsen Oregon State University jacobsd@cs.orst.edu Computer Science .!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!jacobsd
lewine@dg.dg.com (Don Lewine) (07/03/90)
In article <19165@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> jacobsd@mist.UUCP (Dana Jacobsen) writes: >What sort of publications qualify as valid places to "publish" >an invention? For a computer graphics idea such as XOR cursors, >would a group of comp.graphics postings qualify? Or would the >patent office only accept paper publications. I suppose this >means that the patent office's software experts should be on >the net. At least then we could have some expert input to this >train.. The patent office does a fairly minimal search for prior art. They do not read usenet posting or even IEEE Transactions. In general, the courts will consider any prior art in declaring a patent invalid. You (the person who wants the patent declared invalid) need to show that the patent holder did not invent the thing being patented. If you can prove that the invention was posted to usenet by someone other than the inventor, the patent is invalid. "Prove" may turn out to be the key word here.