en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

November 2014: About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits

Defensive publication and prior art databases

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

What this article documents is not a solution.
For information of the risks of putting too much work into these, see duds and non-solutions. See also: Abolition is the only solution.

One way to invalidate a patent is to find prior art - an example of the idea that pre-dates the patent. Publishing prior art is a common business strategy. The most known publication to this effect is the IBM Disclosure Bulletin[1], but other companies like ASEA[2][3] has used it extensively. By publishing ideas, you block others from patenting what is (now) already known.

Whether it is better or worse for Free Software to make it easy to find prior art is a subject of much discussion, as is the question whether published source code may be regarded as prior art[4].


[edit] Limits to effectiveness

  1. Sometimes there is no prior art.
  2. Sometimes the prior art only eliminates part of the patent. The patent holder will be permitted to redraft their patent to keep the non duplicated parts while avoiding the prior art you've found.
  3. This can backfire if the database is public because patent applicants could use the database to see what changes are necessary (the smallest changes possible) to avoid being similar to the prior art, so they won't have to worry about their patent being invalidated.

[edit] Defensive publication

Defensive publication is the idea that by documenting and publishing an idea, you can prevent the future problem that someone else will patent that idea.

For example, in 2004, a paper was published on "Precise detection of memory leaks".[5] In 2007, a patent application was filed at the USPTO for a follow-on invention.[6] The 2007 application cited the 2004 paper as being part of the state-of-the-art which is extended by the patent application. The authors of the 2004 paper have no connection to the authors of the 2007 patent application. Ironically, one of the authors of the 2004 paper is a prominent member of the anti-software patent group FFII.

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] External links

[edit] About the Drawbacks

[edit] References

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Technical_Disclosure_Bulletin
  2. http://www.sslug.se/emailarkiv/patentdirektiv/2004_03/msg00001
  3. http://www.sslug.dk/patent/eudirektiv/sv/sslug02-92sv.html
  4. http://lists.keionline.org/pipermail/a2k_lists.keionline.org/2012-October/001576.html
  5. http://camanis.blogspot.com/2009/08/someone-wants-to-patent-three-year-old.html
  6. http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080294853%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080294853&RS=DN/20080294853

This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)