patent busting

[John Griessen]

On 07/03/2014 08:39 AM, Cathal Garvey wrote:
> There *is* scope for using patents in an open-source way, by using
> licenses like the DPL that establish an irrevocable license for use and
> re-use, but it would be my view that the stultifying impact of even
> registering patents, and the absence of a "patent metadata" search
> function for people to know that it's DPL licensed, still makes it a net
> lose versus simply registering public prior art.
>
> Speaking of which, the Muufri guys have been pretty public about their
> intention to make yeast-produced synbio milk, so it's not even clear
> that the non-obvious parts of the project are patentable, anymore.

So what is the most effective way of "registering public prior art"?

And is it enough? With what we hear of the functions of the USPTO
being low these days, they may grant a patent even though prior art
technically exists, and then patent grantees have a foot in the door of court
and might stifle an avenue of innovation without merit. To develop
a product with no official patent office filings might be so
invisible to the mainstream that it is not effective.

One might need to constantly search for new patent apps to thwart
people getting grants on his/her prior art before the product gets
enough publicity to inform the world.

[SantaMonica]

One might need to constantly search for new patent apps to thwart
people getting grants on his/her prior art before the product gets
enough publicity to inform the world.

Monitoring published patent applications is a fairly standard thing in the IP world. However nothing replaces you filing your own application/art as soon as possible. That's what the whole IP thing is about: You file early, in exchange for IP protection.