5 ms·

I believe under the new law you would need to show you employed your invention as part of a business prior to their filing in order to have a case for prior art

• wccrawford 15y ago
  Oh jeez. The only way to make that fair would be to require that people employ the invention as part of a business prior to suing, too. But of course, that won't be in there.
• tptacek 15y ago
  Am I misreading this, or is what you said the opposite of true? http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202514730370&Finally__A_Revitalized_Patent_Act&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=120251473037... (It is very likely I'm misreading it).
  • jaekwon 15y ago
    I'm an entrepreneur and inventor. I want to make a record here that I have no fucking idea whether publishing my invention is enough to have Prior Art, or whether I need to state the use of the invention in my business case, or whether I need to file a patent.
    • tptacek 15y ago
      As an entrepreneur, an "inventor", and a patentholder: I believe this is simple: (a) if you're planning on staking a claim on a patent, get a patent lawyer (no part of this bill reduces the need for IP lawyers; whether you like the concept of requiring IP lawyers or not is besides the point). (b) if you're not planning on getting a patent (and I think you shouldn't, for simple pragmatic reasons), just publish what you're doing as soon as you can, and you'll have established a prior art track record. The reform we're talking about changes the mechanics of competing claims for a patent, but it doesn't make prior art harder to establish (my understanding is that in a variety of little ways it makes prior art easier to establish).