Publicly disclosing a new product on the internet...

[Externet]

Hi all.

If I publicly display/explain a new product, idea, design, prototype, application, demonstration movie of its operation in a forum or this forum or anywhere public site on the web;  would that prevent from being patented by anybody else, as becomes public knowledge  'existent since the date of disclosure' ?

My patent lawyer explained something in that line a loooong time ago.  Would it be effective ?

[fiveworlds]

No all patents must be filed with the relevant authority. For yourself that is https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/about-efs-web

You must then pay the subsequent fees.

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule

It is possible to fill out the application yourself if you feel confident or don't have the money to pay a lawyer.

Note that not all countries will respect your patent. So it is not always the best route to patent things as people in countries such as china can still copy your patent and sell your product without your consent. Sometimes you are better keeping the design a trade secret (like the coca cola recipe) if possible.

Edited May 21, 2018 by fiveworlds

[J.C.MacSwell]

If you disclosed it I think the inventor would have up to one year to file for a patent

[Externet]

Thanks.

Am not trying to avoid the fees, or patent myself.  Just trying to prevent it from being patented by anyone.

Your link helped finding this, and websites are listed :

Edited May 21, 2018 by Externet

[Strange]

Yes. Publicising the information will stop someone else patenting the idea. 

They may still be able to get a patent if they can achieve the same thing in a different way.

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you disclosed it I think the inventor would have up to one year to file for a patent

I think that only applies (applied?) if the inventor disclosed it. 

[Frank]

Patent rules change and are different in different countries.  Look at "first to file", US is such, VS "first to invent" VS "prior art".

Ultimately, lawyers must get involved to defend rights/claims and it seems like deepest pockets win, esp. in US (my biased opinion).

 

[fiveworlds]

"first to file" is definitely a thing even if there is a post on a website that is not proof enough that you were the original inventor if somebody else files a patent application.

Quote

deepest pockets win

Unfortunately this is very true not many people can afford an international patent. Applying for a patent in the US only protects that patent in the US an international patent can cost thousands more and still won't be respected in some countries. 

There is a website that files international patents but it is very expensive.

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, fiveworlds said:

"first to file" is definitely a thing even if there is a post on a website that is not proof enough that you were the original inventor if somebody else files a patent application.

If the information is public then you cannot file a patent.

11 minutes ago, fiveworlds said:

Applying for a patent in the US only protects that patent in the US an international patent can cost thousands more and still won't be respected in some countries. 

There is no such thing as an international patent.

[Externet]

Thank you.

A patent gives the right to $ue, if pockets are deep enough.  A patent lasts 3, 5, 10 years of whatever.  Preventing from patenting will last forever... I think.

[Endy0816]

Probably better to file first to be safe.

Note a patent means you have to sue or otherwise legally defend it.

[Externet]

I know that part well,  last time could not fight against 3M pockets... And in the middle of everything, my patent lawyer died.

 

[StringJunky]

44 minutes ago, Externet said:

Thanks.

Am not trying to avoid the fees, or patent myself.  Just trying to prevent it from being patented by anyone.

Why not just keep it to yourself and not say anything to anyone? 

[Externet]

It is too good to waste.  Well, I recognize that is also the opinion of anyone who comes up with a product, anyway.

Alternative as I see in my inexperience to deal with a situation like this would be  just build and sell the product.  Perhaps a big corporation will buy the factory some day.  But chances are it would be just copied...

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Probably better to file first to be safe.

Note a patent means you have to sue or otherwise legally defend it.

Actually, filing a patent is relatively cheap. If your only objective is to prevent anyone else getting a patent, then filing your own application and then abandoning it is a good way of putting the prior art on record.

[Endy0816]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Actually, filing a patent is relatively cheap. If your only objective is to prevent anyone else getting a patent, then filing your own application and then abandoning it is a good way of putting the prior art on record.

 Yeah, was going to add 'to keep your patent'. Work interrupted, lol.

[Frank]

54 minutes ago, Externet said:

It is too good to waste.  Well, I recognize that is also the opinion of anyone who comes up with a product, anyway.

Alternative as I see in my inexperience to deal with a situation like this would be  just build and sell the product.  Perhaps a big corporation will buy the factory some day.  But chances are it would be just copied...

Another possibility is that as you build the thing, some other problem or better way crops up which requires or constitutes some IP.  Then selling that secret (and a working prototype) is a possibility.  It happened to me after filing a patent application.  This IP may never be disclosed unless I decide to build one, but it's a similar pickle.  As the inventor, you have knowledge of the problem and it's solutions and non-solutions that others may not grasp even if explained.  Sort of like the patent clerk who just didn't get it.  Putting in an application, whether a patent is granted or not, certainly guarantees that should you ever choose to build your invention, it won't be encumbered.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 hours ago, Strange said:

Actually, filing a patent is relatively cheap. If your only objective is to prevent anyone else getting a patent, then filing your own application and then abandoning it is a good way of putting the prior art on record.

Another advantage is that if you apply you have something to sell (patent pending) and you could get investors including those working on the same or similar...the people you are concerned with could become your allies.

The disadvantage is that your one year starts, as do some further expenses to keep it going.

21 hours ago, Strange said:

 

I think that only applies (applied?) if the inventor disclosed it. 

Not certain, but in the case of one and only one inventor (or one group), any disclosure would have to come from the inventor in some manner, directly or indirectly. The debate might be  as to when it was made public, or what it means to be made public.

I don't believe I could steal your invention, make it public, and lose you all your rights. (though I might start your year sooner than you wished...not sure)

[koti]

20 hours ago, Externet said:

...It is too good to waste.

Forgive my sceptisism but if it's to good to waste, why would you mention anything remotely related to it to anyone especially on the internet ?

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't believe I could steal your invention, make it public, and lose you all your rights. (though I might start your year sooner than you wished...not sure)

You could if you did it before I managed to file my patent.

It's a long time since I did any patent work, but I was under the impression that the USA got rid of the one year "grace period" when they removed the "first to invent" rule (so they would be consistent with the rest of the world).

[J.C.MacSwell]

59 minutes ago, Strange said:

You could if you did it before I managed to file my patent.

It's a long time since I did any patent work, but I was under the impression that the USA got rid of the one year "grace period" when they removed the "first to invent" rule (so they would be consistent with the rest of the world).

I think it still applies, though it is generally much better to apply first than disclose it publicly.

Edit: Still there but perhaps changed wording and effectiveness

http://www.tuckerlaw.com/2014/07/22/5497/

Edited May 22, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Bender]

IIRC, you cannot be prevented of using your invention if you can prove you had it first, even if you never made it public. It could still be patented, but you can still use it.

Caveat : if a big company does have a patent, they can still sue you until you are broke. It could also be difficult to prove you were first if it wasn't public.

Publicising on the Internet is also no absolute guarantee if someone patents and nobody encounters that website in the process. Technically, the patent would be void, but that doesn't prevent big companies to sue.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Bender said:

IIRC, you cannot be prevented of using your invention if you can prove you had it first, even if you never made it public. It could still be patented, but you can still use it.

America used to have a "first to invent" rule. I guess under that, you would have been able to invalidate someone else's patent if you could prove you invented it first. Or maybe it would allow the the "free license" you suggest, but I haven't heard of that. But they have got rid of that stupid rule now!

7 hours ago, Bender said:

Publicising on the Internet is also no absolute guarantee if someone patents and nobody encounters that website in the process. Technically, the patent would be void, but that doesn't prevent big companies to sue.

It doesn't matter whether anybody has encountered it; as long as t is public and could have been.

But, yes, if it goes to court it is usually those with deepest pockets that win.

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It doesn't matter whether anybody has encountered it; as long as t is public and could have been.

I'm calling dibs on purchasing the forum

[Frank]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:23 PM, Externet said:

Hi all.

If I publicly display/explain a new product, idea, design, prototype, application, demonstration movie of its operation in a forum or this forum or anywhere public site on the web;  would that prevent from being patented by anybody else, as becomes public knowledge  'existent since the date of disclosure' ?

My patent lawyer explained something in that line a loooong time ago.  Would it be effective ?

Externet, It occurred to me, maybe you haven't done a patent search?  Many new ideas, surprisingly, aren't new.  Search here:   Espacenet - Home page

Not sure about google patents privacy, or any google search privacy for that matter...

Also, I hear wayback machine (archive.com) is used for prior art time stamping, so if this forum is archived there, it would qualify.  Backups are spotty though.  Plus, a bunch of us could attest as to timeline should it come down to it...

 

[Externet]

Thanks.  Will try Espacenet.  Immediately jumps to mind that terms  entered and results in that site will be captured by someone.  Paranoia...

Years ago; I sent the  documents of a product development to myself on plain mail and kept the sealed envelope unopened at reception.  The time stamp from the postal carrier was proof of existing design then,  but without disclosure.  And no first-to-file.