wayner@CS.Cornell.EDU (Peter Wayner) (04/08/91)
Peter_Gutmann@kcbbs.gen.nz (Peter Gutmann) writes: > There's been a fair amount of discussion about the patenting of compression >algorithms (and all sorts of other algorithms) recently. Well I've got a >related question: What about anti-patenting something? Publication is sufficient. Many companies (like Xerox) have a Technical Disclosures Bulletin that they fill with information about discoveries they've made that they don't feel worthy of patenting. This "documents" that they made the discovery at a certain date and prevents someone from "rediscovering" the concept later and suing the company. You can do the same thing. Just publish. Of course the larger the circulation the better. >-- > Peter_Gutmann@kcbbs.gen.nz || peter@nacjack.gen.nz || pgut1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz > (In order of decreasing reliability) >Warning! > Something large, scaly, and with fangs a foot long lives between <yoursite> >and <mysite>. Every now and then it kills and eats messages. If you don't >receive a reply within a week, try resending... -- Peter Wayner Department of Computer Science Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850 EMail:wayner@cs.cornell.edu Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008 Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 607-277-6678
jra@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (John Ackermann) (04/09/91)
Peter_Gutmann@kcbbs.gen.nz (Peter Gutmann) writes: > There's been a fair amount of discussion about the patenting of compression >algorithms (and all sorts of other algorithms) recently. Well I've got a >related question: What about anti-patenting something? Lets say I've >developed a new super-duper compression algorithm which compresses twice as >well in half the time, which I don't patent - how do I stop others from >patenting it? It has been suggested that I patent it and then let the patent >lapse - will this stop anyone else from patenting it, or will it merely >invalidate the patent so anyone else can patent it? What I want to do is find >a way of making it impossible for *anyone* to "claim" the algorithm and thereb >restrict others from using it - whats the best (and most bulletproof) way of >doing this (preferably with the minimum amount of fuss involved)? Publish it, widely and often. If it's cited in the "prior art" no one else will be able to claim it as his own. (In the US, someone could still apply for a patent, but they'd have to prove that they invented it before you did. Now, if you don't want to put the algorithm in the public domain, there's really nothing you can do other than obtain your own patent and use it to fend off others... not a simple or inexpensive idea. Waiting for the patent to expire won't help, since an expired patent is in the public domain (apart from the fact that patent terms are quite long... 17 years in the U.S.). Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer, but not a patent lawyer. This answer was based on a quick discussion with a coworker who does patents, and I may have missed something in the translation. Reader emptor. John R. Ackermann, Jr. Law Department, NCR Corporation, Dayton, Ohio (513) 445-2966 John.Ackermann@daytonoh.ncr.com Packet Radio: ag9v@n8acv tcp/ip: ag9v@ag9v.ampr [44.70.12.34]
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr9.113446.24904@kcbbs.gen.nz> Peter_Gutmann@kcbbs.gen.nz (Peter Gutmann) writes: >Let's say I've developed a new super-duper compression algorithm >which compresses twice as well in half the time, which I don't patent >- how do I stop others from patenting it? Publish a description of your algorithm. It will be "prior art" and hence no patents filed by anyone else on it after the date of publication will be granted. (Publication on USENET would probably count if you could prove the date, but putting it in a journal or conference would be better.) Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+----------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | "VMS Forever!" | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+----------------+
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr9.113446.24904@kcbbs.gen.nz> Peter_Gutmann@kcbbs.gen.nz (Peter Gutmann) writes: >It has been suggested that I patent it and then let the patent lapse No, what you do is patent it then dedicate the patent to the public.
magik@chinet.chi.il.us (Ben Liberman) (04/11/91)
In article <1991Apr9.113446.24904@kcbbs.gen.nz> Peter_Gutmann@kcbbs.gen.nz (Peter Gutmann) writes: > > There's been a fair amount of discussion about the patenting of compression >algorithms (and all sorts of other algorithms) recently. Well I've got a >related question: What about anti-patenting something? Lets say I've >developed a new super-duper compression algorithm which compresses twice as This was done by the folks at Bell Labs in the early 60's (?) with the transistor. They published the info plus every possible combination of uses that they could come up with. This gives the author up to 1 year in which to file for a patent. This prevents other people from being able to get a patent. If someone else anticipated you and already built the same device and sold one or more of them, then they have prior rights to file for a patent. This won't stop someone from comming along and improving on your idea and then patenting the improvemt, though. -- ------------ ------ ---------------------- Ben Liberman USENET magik@chinet.chi.il.us
nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) (04/14/91)
Publication is in theory good enough, but the examiners may not be
up on the literature, so someone else might get a patent, which would
have to be fought in court. The definitive way to patent-proof something
is to file a Statutory Invention Registration. This requries drafting
a full patent application and submitting it to the PTO, with a fee of
several hundred dollars. A summary will be published in the Official
Gazette and it will be indexed as if a patent, so examiners will find it.
You get no monopoly rights, and no one else can either. The Nolo Press
"Patent it Yourself" gives instructions, although the fees have gone up
since that book last came out.
Few people bother with this, but if you're planning the distribution
of something likely to become a standard, it might be worth it.
John Nagle