Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by padrack 5385 days ago
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.
2 comments

Am I misreading this, or is what you said the opposite of true?

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=120251473037...

(It is very likely I'm misreading it).

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.
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).

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.