Talk:Defensive publication
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Do companies intentionally do this, ever?[edit]
The article claims companies decide to do this because of cost. It doesn't address the underlying question, which is, is this just theoretical? What companies, exactly, have engaged in this, and how often? Tempshill (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is not just theoretical. See for instance http://www.researchdisclosure.com/searching-disclosures/recent-disclosures. But, indeed, it would be good to have statistics to show how often this is used. --Edcolins (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is an excellent link, thank you. In the absence of statistics we could at least use a couple of good quotes with interesting anecdotes about incidents of this. Tempshill (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- See also http://www.ip.com/prior-art-database/ .. didn't want to favour any particular service. --Edcolins (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is an excellent link, thank you. In the absence of statistics we could at least use a couple of good quotes with interesting anecdotes about incidents of this. Tempshill (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
They do. I've been at a company that's done it, once we determined that the ideas weren't something we intended to build a business around or use in our existing one, and my current company intends to do this soon. I'm not aware of anything I can point to citation wise, though: the former company's been bought, and their website reworked, making all my old references invalid. The bigger issue I have with this article is the claim that cost is "at least a couple thousand". That's not a number, and I'm pretty sure it's not true anyway. Will correct shortly. AnthonySorace (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for more detail in the article[edit]
It is not clear in the article what actually constitutes disclosure to the public domain, per US patent law. Could someone elaborate? I know the article is not meant as a how-to but the current text could mean that a person wishing to follow this strategy must file a provisional patent (then not pursue it), or at the other extreme, does it suffice to post a blog article about the invention? Anniebiogirl (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt that merely filing a U.S. provisional application and then abandoning it will ever create some prior art, since a U.S. provisional application is not published. Thus, doing so would probably be useless (as a defensive publication strategy). Some defensive publication services exist, see links provided above on this talk page. A blog post about the invention might also suffice, provided that the whole blog does not vanish after a few years. That can happen. --Edcolins (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Apparently this cannot be done anymore in the USA?[edit]
It sounds like changes made to the United States patenting process has made obtaining a defensive publication no longer possible. The America Invents Act made some changes, then there was a lawsuit, and now... you can't do this officially through the USPTO anymore? What's the alternative for establishing officially recognized prior art? (Should this be discussed in the prior art talk page?) -- DMahalko (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The USPTO isn't the only source of prior art. Defensive publication is any enabling publication of IP be it expired patents, magazine articles, how to books, web archived build drawings, etc. The only requirement is it has to have been "published" in some date verifiable way.Crcwiki (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Defensive publication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140801163148/http://pdf.dec.org:80/pdf_docs/PNACS088.pdf to http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACS088.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)