Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 10, 2023 at 6:55 comment added David Schwartz Your last paragraph doesn't make much sense to me. Either the thing someone else developed is sufficiently innovative to patent or it's not. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter if you have a patent or not, it's unpatentable. If it is, then it doesn't matter if you have a patent or not, they can patent it, and you can't use it. Either way, everyone can still use whatever you made because nobody else invented it and you're letting everyone use it.
Mar 9, 2023 at 7:55 comment added Martin_in_AUT @apsillers The existence of a physical device might not show up in prior art search during patent prosecution. Therefore it is likely not enough to prevent that a patent application is allowed. And after a patent is allowed it is a cumbersome and expensive process to invalidate a patent.
Mar 9, 2023 at 7:51 comment added Martin_in_AUT "... you need to get your own patent." is definitely not a requirement. It would be correct to say "you need to create prior art", which can be done by publishing the idea. For example by 'Defensive Publishing'.
Mar 8, 2023 at 22:40 comment added Philip Kendall @apsillers I was more thinking of taking the thing and building it into part of a larger system.
Mar 8, 2023 at 20:15 comment added apsillers I don't quite grasp your meaning of "take the idea... and build a patent" in the second paragraph: isn't the existence of prior art sufficient to invalidate any patents on systems that existed prior to the application for a patent? Or do you mean they might take the existing device, improve on it, and patent their improvements? (If so, I do agree that is a concern, and could be controlled by patenting the underlying system as you suggest.)
Mar 8, 2023 at 18:04 history answered Philip Kendall CC BY-SA 4.0