Putting Ideas And Inventions Into The Public Domain
from the an-idea-who's-time-has-come dept
A few months back, we wondered why it was so difficult to opt out of copyright. Soon after that, Creative Commons added its CC0 license, which gets you a long way towards putting your content in the public domain (there are a few issues related to it, but it's better than nothing). With patents, the issue isn't quite the same. With copyright, you're automatically given a copyright on creative works. Obviously, that's not the case with patents. However, people have wondered how they can put their invention in the public domain, such that (a) others can benefit from it and (b) it prevents others from patenting it at a later date. Tragically, the US Patent Office tends to look pretty narrowly at what counts as prior art and requires that the information be "published," (something that is also defined very narrowly) so simply declaring an invention to be in the public domain isn't always good enough to prevent others from making a claim on it.I was thinking about the Slashdot post above for a bit, wondering if it was worth writing this post up, when someone else pointed out that some folks have now set up Public Domain Ideas, a wiki designed for just this purpose: to put your ideas into the public domain by publishing them in that wiki. There have been some efforts in the past to create a database of obviousness, but that's pretty difficult. The big problem with obvious ideas is that they're often so obvious, no one even thinks to put them down, until it's too late, and someone has patented an "invention" based on that idea. But the idea of a wiki for public domain ideas is much more interesting -- if people really do decide to make use of it -- and if the Patent Office recognizes it as a source of published inventions for prior art. In the meantime, if you've got some good ideas to share, why not check it out?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ideas, inventions, patents, prior art, public domain, publishing, wiki
Companies: public domain ideas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's not true at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But as far as published prior art goes, the claim that "publication" is interpreted narrowly is also patently (pun intended) false. I could provide you a string cite of cases, but I doubt you're interested in reading them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In terms of what the examiners will look at, I don't think it's false at all. It's true that on review, when other prior art is submitted, it can contain lots of other things -- but the basic set of things that an examiner looks at initially is, in fact, quite limited
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many of these are so common and obvious that no one in the room - the person saying the idea or the listeners - thinks the idea is particularly unique. Nobody in the room storms out to put in the first patent.
Often, some time later, a patent is filed for that same idea, and a USPTO reviewer would find no "published" prior art.
Sorry, no concrete example to offer here, but I would bet the concept of wireless email would probably fit. Didn't stop NTP from patenting it and getting half a Billion from RIM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talking about an idea is not an invention. However, that is not the only reason that it would not be "published." If several people get together and brainstorm an idea, but never do anything with it, then the invention is effectively suppressed. That means the invention never existed. Until the invention is enabled and in the public domain, it is not published, it is just a fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spoken like someone who has never practiced before the Patent Office. Like Lonnie said, patent examiners look at a myriad of sources for prior art when examining patents. The only resource of which examiners have a limited amount is time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, in theory. In practice... not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, in theory. In practice... not so much.
Here I have to ask you for your source of information. I personally have been rejected for foreign patents, foreign publications that were not patents, magazine articles and journals. I have even had at least one rejection that included an internet web page. I have cited internet web pages as art. If you like, I will go find the PAIR pages where these things have popped up. I am personally aware of one patent that was rejected on the basis of a science fiction book. I suspect other patent practitioners who have done any volume of prosecution have seen the same thing. So I have to ask, what are you citing as the source of your information for "In practice...not so much"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been to the CC site many times, but...
How can a non-profit give out licenses which circumvent U.S. Copyright law? Are these CC licenses legal? Approved by U.S. copyright and U.S. Code?
Could this be a reason it's so hard to do with patents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been to the CC site many times, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've been to the CC site many times, but...
This page http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/ offers licenses. Regardless if it gives them out or not, it's still hard to understand its purpose.
Especially if copyright law and U.S. Code doesn't honor them.
Can these stand up in court if someone chooses to try and copyright works one "freely" gives out?
Over the weekend, I'll try once again to understand Creative Commons.
My head hurts to much right now to try it today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've been to the CC site many times, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've been to the CC site many times, but...
You seem to have one other point of misunderstanding here. The work is already copyrighted the moment the work is created. Generally, the copyright goes to the content creator. It does not matter what the copyright holder does with it at that point, they still own the copyright. Even if they give it out all over for free with NO specific license, they still own the copyright. No one else can step up and try to copyright the work.
Now, if they have given it out for free with no specified license, they may find it hard to enforce the copyright in the future. That is the reason for Creative Commons. It allows the copyright holder to release a work for free, while still retaining some rights. CC specifically lays out the rights of the copyright holder and the end user/licensee for each type of license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've been to the CC site many times, but...
You think theres a list of approved license texts registered in some US office of copyright law and US Code? Baloney. A license is just a contract, and can be whatever you want, subject to all the normal constraints which are routinely dealt with by courts.
These contracts govern the use by others of your copyrighted materials. In order to use them in ways other than fair use, they must accept the terms.
They are just as likely to hold up in court as any other contract or license.
CC doesnt DO anything. CC is just a group that gives you suggestions for what license you might want to use. Youre the one that DOES something by placing your content under the license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been to the CC site many times, but...
I don't understand your last question. There's nothing difficult about licensing patents, but patents cost significant money to prosecute and obtain whereas copyright is automatic and "free." So, licensing patents this way seem silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have personally seen each of these cited as prior art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you looked at this stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have you looked at this stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CC0 isn't a license...
It should say "its CC0 waiver"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We badly need a site like this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent public domain
However most inventions require inve$tment to develop, produce and promote / market.
If a patent monopoly right may not be available this may deter business from investing since they may not recoup their investment and so public domaining may be counter productive as the invention may not become available.
Think about it.
Stuart Fox, Chairman, Inventors Society of Australia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent public domain
Now, think of some negatives.
Then try and balance them against each other.
Like we do here.
Every. Single. Day.
Like every business does every single day on a number of factors when they consider things which may reduce the likelyhood of investment recouping and whether or not to proceed with a product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent public domain
If a patent monopoly right may not be available this may deter business from investing since they may not recoup their investment and so public domaining may be counter productive as the invention may not become available.
Not really. Any *smart* business would recognize that the value is not in the exclusivity, but in the execution and the ongoing innovation. So, if it causes a few dumb or shortsighted businesses to stay away, so be it, but there's no real economic loss.
Think about it.
We have. A lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent public domain
We have. A lot. with our arse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Patent public domain
I've thought about it and I think--
angry arse dude is an ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent public domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirty tricks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirty tricks
Of course, if I'm too obvious about this I can get caught and probably be subject to criminal penalties for fraud on the patent office. But the patent attorney who described this to me - in response to a proposal to publish an idea that the company I was at (a) didn't see any gain in patenting but (b) didn't want to see someone *else* patent either - told me that actual cases of this game were known and you had to watch out for them. The trick to avoid the problem: Publish an article describing the invention in an obscure magazine - there are plenty in every relevant field, and nothing says "prior art" like a dated paper copy of a magazine published by an unrelated third party. Don't have anything in the article tying it to the company involved - this game is only worth playing if you think you can grab a patent out from under a large company. I suppose if the inventor is well-known in the field, it's better to put someone else's name on the article.
Unfortunately, as long as this kind of gaming is possible, any centralized mechanism for "neutering publications" may prove to have exactly the opposite of the desired effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty tricks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dirty tricks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dirty tricks
It does not matter whether the original patent "already contained the idea." What matters is the claims and whether they are enabled. You sue on the basis of the claims, and claims are allowed to the extent they are enabled. If the claims were not enabled by the initial application, you can play "games" all you want, but your priority in a continuation-in-part is the date that the claims were enabled. No amount of "games" or any other name you want to give it are going to give you a winning day in court.
I also think there are many here exaggerating the effect of court cases. Most defendants know that plaintiffs only win about 20% of cases actually filed. Let me say this all by itself:
Plaintiffs lose about 80% of all patent lawsuits.
This statement came from an AIPLA study a couple of years ago, and is extremely well documented. It accounts for all filed suits and includes all settlements.
Bottom line: Patent suits are not typically winners for the patent holders and it is in the best interest of the defendant to take the suit all the way to trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inventions v. Ideas
An idea is just an idea. An invention is a specific embodiment or set of embodiments of a concept or idea (machine, manual process, etc.)
So putting your IDEA on PublicDomainIdeas.org accomplishes nothing and is absolutely worthless. Someone could still create an invention based on that idea, and patent it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]