Patent prior art database

[Randy Kramer]

I'm looking for a place where I can publish some ideas so as to (if they are
not already patented), show some prior art so they cannot be patented.

Suggestions on such places and the best approach?

Randy Kramer

[Randy Kramer]

On Wednesday 02 July 2008 03:50 pm, Randy Kramer wrote:
> I'm looking for a place where I can publish some ideas so as to (if they are
> not already patented), show some prior art so they cannot be patented.
>
> Suggestions on such places and the best approach?

Sorry, forgot to mention that I have Googled and looked at a few things (like
the TEKPAD and the EFF's Patent Busting Project, but they are not quite what
I'm looking for.  (TEKPAD is more for "ecological" indigenous knowledge, and
the EFF project seems to focus on searching for prior art to invalidate
specific patents.)

No obvious answer on the other links I've looked at.

Randy Kramer

[Thomas Lord]

Randy Kramer wrote:
> I'm looking for a place where I can publish some ideas so as to (if they are
> not already patented), show some prior art so they cannot be patented.
>
> Suggestions on such places and the best approach?
>
> Randy Kramer
>
>  

IANAL -- strictly amateur -- but faced the same problem a little ways
back so I can tell you what I did (but can't tell you if it "sticks").

I put up a web site and published there.  I announced fairly loudly
on various lists / forums.   I also ponied up some money and went
ahead and filed a provisional patent application.   The last one
costs a few hundred but you don't need to actually construct the
patent claims per se and your document will sit on a shelf in the
patent office where it can be referred to in the future.

I also suggest, if you're talking about software, considering
Mr. Rosen's OSL (Open Source License).   It has OSI approval.
It has FSF approval.   Nevertheless, it theoretically gives you
ways to still make licensing money off of your invention!  IMO
it is a terribly under-appreciated license.

Nevermind theory:  rumor / anecdote has it that Mr. Rosen's
showcase client for that license (discussed on this list extensively
a while back) does *in fact* see some money from licensing.
Software patents are not obviously evil.  And, in my opinion,
the exclusions offered by patent law do not obviously extend
to interfere with the four basic freedoms of software freedom
(per RMS / fsf.org) *if* a copyleft license is being used.

-t

[Don Marti]

begin Thomas Lord quotation of Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 01:49:47PM -0700:

> I also suggest, if you're talking about software, considering
> Mr. Rosen's OSL (Open Source License).   It has OSI approval.
> It has FSF approval.   Nevertheless, it theoretically gives you
> ways to still make licensing money off of your invention!  IMO
> it is a terribly under-appreciated license.

What makes OSL different?  Can't you dual-license
with any reciprocal license, MySQL-style?

Sounds like there's a market for an Open Disclosure
Journal -- a print publication that would accept
properly formatted disclosures (to save editor pay)
from paying subscribers, and send free subscriptions
to university libraries and patent offices.

--
Don Marti                                               [phone] mobile
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference: http://freedomhec.org/ 

[richbodo]

Ideally, one could mark up data they believe to be significant prior art
on their own site, and get it indexed by sites like
http://www.peertopatent.org.  That would just organically cause the
artwork to be found.

Probably wouldn't want to get too complicated.  I think ATOM would be
o.k. for marking up art, and someone would create a site from something
like the reddit.com code for indexing and ranking, and feeding it.  I'm
sure a reasonable implementation would attract a sponsor or two.

I think it would make a nice collaboration between EFF, CC, and
peertopatent.

-Rich

Don Marti wrote:

> begin Thomas Lord quotation of Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 01:49:47PM -0700:
>
>  
>> I also suggest, if you're talking about software, considering
>> Mr. Rosen's OSL (Open Source License).   It has OSI approval.
>> It has FSF approval.   Nevertheless, it theoretically gives you
>> ways to still make licensing money off of your invention!  IMO
>> it is a terribly under-appreciated license.
>>    
>
> What makes OSL different?  Can't you dual-license
> with any reciprocal license, MySQL-style?
>
> Sounds like there's a market for an Open Disclosure
> Journal -- a print publication that would accept
> properly formatted disclosures (to save editor pay)
> from paying subscribers, and send free subscriptions
> to university libraries and patent offices.
>
>  

[Thomas Lord]

Don Marti wrote:
> What makes OSL different?  Can't you dual-license
> with any reciprocal license, MySQL-style?
>  

Again, I am not a lawyer (consequently this isn't legal advice)
but, my thinking:

OSL is a copyleft free software license.  It satisfies the four
freedoms.  It's reciprocal (aka copyleft).  Every bit as good as
GPL *other than* by popularity and by (purported) "globalization".
(Rosen seems good, not to make him, who is on this list, self conscious
but Moglen is obviously no slouch either and some of Moglen's craft
is specifically in making a license that is globally portable.)

Problem is, if you dual license that way, you could well wind up
with Rosen and Moglen as opposing council, afaict.   I happen
to think Rosen has patents much closer to right than RMS/Moglen
(and myself, I have a stronger position than both of them combined)
so, I find OSL just fine.

Don't confuse my brashness with success.  Haven't actually seen
any ROI here so my position is all just theory.


> Sounds like there's a market for an Open Disclosure
> Journal -- a print publication that would accept
> properly formatted disclosures (to save editor pay)
> from paying subscribers, and send free subscriptions
> to university libraries and patent offices.
>  

Heh.  You should be aware, if you aren't already, that IBM (for
one example of many) has done exactly that (for in house authors)
since way, way, way back.



-t

[Don Marti]

begin Rich Bodo quotation of Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:02:53PM -0700:

> Ideally, one could mark up data they believe to be significant prior art  
> on their own site, and get it indexed by sites like  
> http://www.peertopatent.org.  That would just organically cause the  
> artwork to be found.

I still don't understand Peer to Patent.
  http://www.linuxworld.com/community/?q=node/654
Why would a non-patent holder want to increase the
patent power/dollar ratio for patent holders?

--
Don Marti                                               [phone] mobile
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference: http://freedomhec.org/ 

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Don Marti writes:
 > begin Thomas Lord quotation of Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 01:49:47PM -0700:
 >
 > > I also suggest, if you're talking about software, considering
 > > Mr. Rosen's OSL (Open Source License).   It has OSI approval.
 > > It has FSF approval.   Nevertheless, it theoretically gives you
 > > ways to still make licensing money off of your invention!  IMO
 > > it is a terribly under-appreciated license.
 >
 > What makes OSL different?

I think Tom is confusing the OSL, which is a software license that
contains a patent license, with a certain "covenant" that is
effectively a public (pure) patent license (ie, the licensor hasn't
necessarily written, let alone distributed, any software).

 > Can't you dual-license with any reciprocal license, MySQL-style?

The point is that once you've used the GPL or the OSL, you have
granted a patent license to certain claims embodied in your software.
Dual-licensing doesn't allow you to restrict the use of those claims.

Now, since software patents are a much more powerful franchise than
copyright, I suppose you're at much greater risk.

 > Sounds like there's a market for an Open Disclosure Journal -- a
 > print publication that would accept properly formatted disclosures
 > (to save editor pay) from paying subscribers, and send free
 > subscriptions to university libraries and patent offices.

Unfortunately, only the patent office matters until such time as the
courts and/or Congress tell the examiners to look outside the USPTO
database.  There is nothing in law that forbids an examiner from doing
a search for prior art on SourceForge or Savannah ... they just
don't.  Nor does prior art need to be "properly formatted", except
that the examiners are probably more likely to read and understand it
if it is well-written.

[Luis Villa-3]

Possibly relevant:
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Prior_Art

I tend to think that in practice no one has built this because the
payoffs are very abstract and very far off, and the costs to do it
well are fairly high. But YMMV.

Luis

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Randy Kramer <rhkramer@...> wrote:

> On Wednesday 02 July 2008 03:50 pm, Randy Kramer wrote:
>> I'm looking for a place where I can publish some ideas so as to (if they are
>> not already patented), show some prior art so they cannot be patented.
>>
>> Suggestions on such places and the best approach?
>
> Sorry, forgot to mention that I have Googled and looked at a few things (like
> the TEKPAD and the EFF's Patent Busting Project, but they are not quite what
> I'm looking for.  (TEKPAD is more for "ecological" indigenous knowledge, and
> the EFF project seems to focus on searching for prior art to invalidate
> specific patents.)
>
> No obvious answer on the other links I've looked at.
>
> Randy Kramer
>

[Rob Cameron-2]

As I'm the CTO of the patent-based open source company that Larry
Rosen is assisting, perhaps my comments will be useful.   I can also
give a bit of an update on what we're doing.

In answer to the main question, the answer is to publish in multiple
ways, much as Tom suggests.   A USPTO filing is ultimately the
best to ensure that your technology can found and used as prior
art.   However, I believe that it must be a full, nonprovisional filing.
The USPTO fees for this are less than $500.  

A provisional filing must be followed up within one year with a full
application, or it is considered abandoned.   It would not then be
considered prior art (by itself) because it is not published.   

Filing a full application will ensure that the application will actually
be catalogued according to the USPTO classification system and
published.   The published application database is routinely used by
examiners in the prior art search process.  Publication occurs
18 months after initial filing.   (So make sure that you also publish
in another forum at the time of filing the application.)

However, if you use this strategy, I encourage you also to make
a patent dedication that your patented technology (if granted) will be
available free for open source.

I can also comment on peer-to-patent having participated on both
sides (reviewing applications and submitting prior art; putting two
applications through the process.)   This is currently a pilot program
to test the idea of oprn submission of prior art before applications
are granted.    It is a good idea, but difficult to implement well.
However, I suspect that the results will be good enough, and the principle
important enough that the project will continue.

As for what International Characters is doing with its high-performance
XML technology, we are continuing the patent-based open-source
strategy.   We now have two code repositories available under OSL 3.0.
Our high-performance UTF-8 to UTF-16 transcoder is available at
http://u8u16.costar.sfu.ca/ and is quite stable.  It demonstrates some
of the most complex algorithms with our technology.   Our ongoing
development of a high-performance XML processing stack is available
at http://parabix.costar.sfu.ca/ - a work in progress.   However, we
are able to demonstrate end-to-end performance in XML applications
that is 2.5X to 10X better than Xerces or Expat on various measures.

I've recently returned from making an invited presentation on our technology
at the IBM TJ Watson Research lab.   We are looking forward to research
collaboration to further develop our technology (particularly in coupling
the intraregister parallel bit stream technology with the intrachip parallelism
of multicore processors).   We hope to continue to do so in an open way.

I must say, however, that we have not yet been successful in engaging
the open source community in public participation with our projects. 
Several factors are probably in play, including the difficulty of SIMD
programming in general, the added difficulty of dealing with parallel
bit stream technology, our own inadequacies with respect to public
documentation, as well as continuing distrust of the patent-based
open-source model.   Nevertheless, we still think the model has value -
it allows small companies and their partners to develop novel technology
in an open way with significant protection against being beaten to market
by proprietary competitors with deeper pockets.   

Robert D. Cameron, Ph.D.
CTO, International Characters, Inc.
http://international-characters.com/

[Don Marti]

begin Luis Villa quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:07:05AM -0700:

> Possibly relevant:
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Prior_Art

Yes, it seems like lawyers always come up with the
idea of "hey, let's index prior art and increase
patent quality" which, even if it does result in
higher-quality patents doesn't necessarily affect
the goal of "let's reduce the impact of the patent
system on Free Software."

If you find prior art for a patent applicant, won't
the applicant either redraft the patent to avoid the
prior art or save his money and patent something else?

> I tend to think that in practice no one has built this because the
> payoffs are very abstract and very far off, and the costs to do it
> well are fairly high. But YMMV.

Richard Stallman --
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html
-- writes:

  "What's more, the courts are reluctant to overrule
  the Patent Office, so there is a better chance
  of getting a patent overturned if you can show
  a court prior art that the Patent Office did not
  consider. If the courts are willing to entertain a
  higher standard in judging unobviousness, it helps
  to save the prior art for them. Thus, the proposals
  to 'make the system work better' by providing the
  Patent Office with a better database of prior art
  could instead make things worse."

--
Don Marti                                               [phone] mobile
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference: http://freedomhec.org/ 

[Lawrence Rosen]

> Richard Stallman --
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html
> -- writes:
>
>   "What's more, the courts are reluctant to overrule
>   the Patent Office, so there is a better chance
>   of getting a patent overturned if you can show
>   a court prior art that the Patent Office did not
>   consider. If the courts are willing to entertain a
>   higher standard in judging unobviousness, it helps
>   to save the prior art for them. Thus, the proposals
>   to 'make the system work better' by providing the
>   Patent Office with a better database of prior art
>   could instead make things worse."

That's a dumb strategy if you hate patents, waiting to disclose what you
know on the off-chance that you will someday be involved in getting an
issued patent overturned in court later. It saves your best weapons for way
too late in the day when the price to play is far higher. ($3M on average,
I've been told, for *both* parties, just to start to litigate seriously in
the US.) And meanwhile you deny yourself and the community your published
knowledge they could use now *and* throw at a patent before it attacks
someone.

You don't lose your good prior art weapons by using them now! You can still
argue them in court!

Plus as a statement of fact this is wrong; the so-called reluctance of the
courts means only that there is a higher standard of proof for reconsidering
prior art once the PTO has considered it. But the courts know that sometimes
the PTO is wrong. Good evidence of prior art remains good evidence and
courts pay attention to it. There is a reasonable chance nowadays of having
patent applicants and the PTO not waste their time and money on prosecuting
and litigating patent applications for which there is good prior art.

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Marti [mailto:dmarti@...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: Luis Villa
> Cc: Randy Kramer; fsb@...
> Subject: Re: Patent prior art database
>
> begin Luis Villa quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:07:05AM -0700:
>
> > Possibly relevant:
> > http://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Prior_Art
>
> Yes, it seems like lawyers always come up with the
> idea of "hey, let's index prior art and increase
> patent quality" which, even if it does result in
> higher-quality patents doesn't necessarily affect
> the goal of "let's reduce the impact of the patent
> system on Free Software."
>
> If you find prior art for a patent applicant, won't
> the applicant either redraft the patent to avoid the
> prior art or save his money and patent something else?
>
> > I tend to think that in practice no one has built this because the
> > payoffs are very abstract and very far off, and the costs to do it
> > well are fairly high. But YMMV.
>
> Richard Stallman --
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html
> -- writes:
>
>   "What's more, the courts are reluctant to overrule
>   the Patent Office, so there is a better chance
>   of getting a patent overturned if you can show
>   a court prior art that the Patent Office did not
>   consider. If the courts are willing to entertain a
>   higher standard in judging unobviousness, it helps
>   to save the prior art for them. Thus, the proposals
>   to 'make the system work better' by providing the
>   Patent Office with a better database of prior art
>   could instead make things worse."
>
> --
> Don Marti                                               [phone]
> mobile
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference:
> http://freedomhec.org/

[Chris DiBona]

I think that organizations that purport to organize 'ideas' as a defense again future stupid patents should patent that stupid idea so we don't have to hear about it anymore. Floss organizations and floss-friendly companies and individuals should make good with thier patents patents, either explicitly publishing non-asserts, joining patent defense organizations like OSI and donating to the SFLC. Otherwise, frankly, they're part of the problem and it isn't really worth believing them when they say they are using their patents defensively.

Chris

PS: Yes, we do all of those at Google. Just saying.

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Don Marti <dmarti@...> wrote:

begin Luis Villa quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:07:05AM -0700:

> Possibly relevant:
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Prior_Art

Yes, it seems like lawyers always come up with the
idea of "hey, let's index prior art and increase
patent quality" which, even if it does result in
higher-quality patents doesn't necessarily affect
the goal of "let's reduce the impact of the patent
system on Free Software."

If you find prior art for a patent applicant, won't
the applicant either redraft the patent to avoid the
prior art or save his money and patent something else?

> I tend to think that in practice no one has built this because the
> payoffs are very abstract and very far off, and the costs to do it
> well are fairly high. But YMMV.

Richard Stallman --
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html
-- writes:

 "What's more, the courts are reluctant to overrule
 the Patent Office, so there is a better chance
 of getting a patent overturned if you can show
 a court prior art that the Patent Office did not
 consider. If the courts are willing to entertain a
 higher standard in judging unobviousness, it helps
 to save the prior art for them. Thus, the proposals
 to 'make the system work better' by providing the
 Patent Office with a better database of prior art
 could instead make things worse."

--
Don Marti                                               [phone] mobile
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference: http://freedomhec.org/

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Chris DiBona]

(and by OSI, I meant OIN)

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Chris DiBona <cdibona@...> wrote:

I think that organizations that purport to organize 'ideas' as a defense again future stupid patents should patent that stupid idea so we don't have to hear about it anymore. Floss organizations and floss-friendly companies and individuals should make good with thier patents patents, either explicitly publishing non-asserts, joining patent defense organizations like OSI and donating to the SFLC. Otherwise, frankly, they're part of the problem and it isn't really worth believing them when they say they are using their patents defensively.

Chris

PS: Yes, we do all of those at Google. Just saying.

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Don Marti <dmarti@...> wrote:

begin Luis Villa quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:07:05AM -0700:

> Possibly relevant:
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Prior_Art

Yes, it seems like lawyers always come up with the
idea of "hey, let's index prior art and increase
patent quality" which, even if it does result in
higher-quality patents doesn't necessarily affect
the goal of "let's reduce the impact of the patent
system on Free Software."

If you find prior art for a patent applicant, won't
the applicant either redraft the patent to avoid the
prior art or save his money and patent something else?

> I tend to think that in practice no one has built this because the
> payoffs are very abstract and very far off, and the costs to do it
> well are fairly high. But YMMV.

Richard Stallman --
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html
-- writes:

 "What's more, the courts are reluctant to overrule
 the Patent Office, so there is a better chance
 of getting a patent overturned if you can show
 a court prior art that the Patent Office did not
 consider. If the courts are willing to entertain a
 higher standard in judging unobviousness, it helps
 to save the prior art for them. Thus, the proposals
 to 'make the system work better' by providing the
 Patent Office with a better database of prior art
 could instead make things worse."

--
Don Marti                                               [phone] mobile
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference: http://freedomhec.org/

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Don Marti]

begin Chris DiBona quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:16:01AM -0700:

> I think that organizations that purport to organize 'ideas' as a defense again
> future stupid patents should patent that stupid idea so we don't have to hear
> about it anymore.

Larry Augustin on "One Patent Per Developer"
  http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2007/05/one_patent_per_.html

What we could use is something like a "Summer of
Patents."  Participating developers would write up
ideas as provisional patent applications, a panel of
mentors would pick the good ones, and the Summer of
Patents sponsor would pay the PPA fee.  Everyone who
gets a PPA successfully turned in then gets a copy
of _Patent It Yourself_, a ticket to a "how to get a
patent" seminar, an account on a web board for legal
help, and support with the remaining fees to finish
getting the patent.

Developers would own their own patents, and the
OPPD organization would have to be separate from
the sponsor (so they get the small business pricing
at USPTO) but all patents could be licensed under
something like the Red Hat patent promise.

Plenty of students and broke-ass hackers would do
this if the USPTO fees were covered -- a patent always
looks good on the resume.

(Still trying to figure out how to get IDG to file
for a prose patent.)

--
Don Marti                                               [phone] mobile
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference: http://freedomhec.org/ 

[Luis Villa-3]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Don Marti <dmarti@...> wrote:

> begin Chris DiBona quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:16:01AM -0700:
>
>> I think that organizations that purport to organize 'ideas' as a defense again
>> future stupid patents should patent that stupid idea so we don't have to hear
>> about it anymore.
>
> Larry Augustin on "One Patent Per Developer"
>  http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2007/05/one_patent_per_.html
>
> What we could use is something like a "Summer of
> Patents."  Participating developers would write up
> ideas as provisional patent applications, a panel of
> mentors would pick the good ones, and the Summer of
> Patents sponsor would pay the PPA fee.  Everyone who
> gets a PPA successfully turned in then gets a copy
> of _Patent It Yourself_, a ticket to a "how to get a
> patent" seminar, an account on a web board for legal
> help, and support with the remaining fees to finish
> getting the patent.

Red Hat/Fedora offered money for this years ago, but got nowhere with
it, primarily because the motivation of the volunteer developers fell
apart on contact with the idea of how much work was actually going to
be needed to actually push the thing through to completion. They've
got to have the patience to deal with *years* of paperwork. And as RH
discovered basically no one actually has that for an abstract,
low-payoff thing like filing a defensive patent.

Luis

[Chris DiBona]

Yeah, a summer of patents can be the project of some other organization :-)

Chris

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Luis Villa <luis@...> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Don Marti <dmarti@...> wrote:
> begin Chris DiBona quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:16:01AM -0700:
>
>> I think that organizations that purport to organize 'ideas' as a defense again
>> future stupid patents should patent that stupid idea so we don't have to hear
>> about it anymore.
>
> Larry Augustin on "One Patent Per Developer"
>  http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2007/05/one_patent_per_.html
>
> What we could use is something like a "Summer of
> Patents."  Participating developers would write up
> ideas as provisional patent applications, a panel of
> mentors would pick the good ones, and the Summer of
> Patents sponsor would pay the PPA fee.  Everyone who
> gets a PPA successfully turned in then gets a copy
> of _Patent It Yourself_, a ticket to a "how to get a
> patent" seminar, an account on a web board for legal
> help, and support with the remaining fees to finish
> getting the patent.

Red Hat/Fedora offered money for this years ago, but got nowhere with
it, primarily because the motivation of the volunteer developers fell
apart on contact with the idea of how much work was actually going to
be needed to actually push the thing through to completion. They've
got to have the patience to deal with *years* of paperwork. And as RH
discovered basically no one actually has that for an abstract,
low-payoff thing like filing a defensive patent.

Luis

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Don Marti]

begin Lawrence Rosen quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:14:58AM -0700:

> There is a reasonable chance nowadays of having
> patent applicants and the PTO not waste their time and money on prosecuting
> and litigating patent applications for which there is good prior art.

But don't you _want_ the other guy wasting his time
and money acquiring a useless patent instead of a
dangerous one?

And if Peer-to-Patent type projects were a threat to
trolls, wouldn't the "independent inventors" patent
bar groups be complaining about them?

--
Don Marti                                               [phone] mobile
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference: http://freedomhec.org/ 

[Luis Villa-3]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Don Marti <dmarti@...> wrote:
> And if Peer-to-Patent type projects were a threat to
> trolls, wouldn't the "independent inventors" patent
> bar groups be complaining about them?

P2P, as currently structured, is purely voluntary. You only submit
your patent for review if you want to have it reviewed. So the trolls
aren't threatened. (I guess they think that in the long term it won't
scale to cover all patent applications, so they also aren't worried
about it being made mandatory at some point. That seems like a
reasonable bet.)

Luis

[Lawrence Rosen]

Don Marti wrote:
> But don't you _want_ the other guy wasting his time
> and money acquiring a useless patent instead of a
> dangerous one?

Any patent--even a "useless" one--is potentially dangerous if I have to pay
$3M (minimum) to challenge it in court. I'd rather get it discarded much
earlier in the game when it is far cheaper, or spend my time now learning to
design around it.

> And if Peer-to-Patent type projects were a threat to
> trolls, wouldn't the "independent inventors" patent
> bar groups be complaining about them?

Like you, I'm mostly worried about open source. That's why Rob Cameron's
message earlier was that there is a business model that offers patents
friendly to open source. I can't control trolls any better than you can, but
hopefully I can influence against "useless" patents, and help make sure
"dangerous" patents are available for free for open source.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Marti [mailto:dmarti@...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:43 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: fsb@...
> Subject: Re: Patent prior art database
>
> begin Lawrence Rosen quotation of Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:14:58AM -0700:
>
> > There is a reasonable chance nowadays of having
> > patent applicants and the PTO not waste their time and money on
> prosecuting
> > and litigating patent applications for which there is good prior art.
>
> But don't you _want_ the other guy wasting his time
> and money acquiring a useless patent instead of a
> dangerous one?
>
> And if Peer-to-Patent type projects were a threat to
> trolls, wouldn't the "independent inventors" patent
> bar groups be complaining about them?
>
> --
> Don Marti                                               [phone]
> mobile
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> dmarti@...         Linux device driver unconference:
> http://freedomhec.org/