Subject: Re: [Freesw] priorart.org
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:58:36 -0700
Sun, 13 May 2001 19:58:36 -0700
on Sat, May 12, 2001 at 08:12:50AM -0400, Russell Nelson (nelson@crynwr.com) wrote:
> bennett@nomolog.nagoya-u.ac.jp writes:
>  > the war on software patents.  If one wishes to see the coverage of software
>  > patents constrained, then so long as this initiative does not show promise of
>  > affirmatively worsening the problem, I would think that one should be inclined
>  > to support it.
> 
> Stallman is saying that it affirmatively worsens the problem.
> 
>  > But it does prepare the ground for a strong rebuttal to a warning letter:
>  > "Thank you for drawing attention to this important technology.  Please note
>  > that the PTO recognizes filings in the IP.com archive as prior art.  This
>  > technology, for the purposes for which we are using it, is listed in that
>  > archive.  The references are attached.  Have a nice day."
> 
> I don't see the advantage of priorart.org over any other publication.
> Or is it simply that priorart.org happens to be recognized as a
> publication by the PTO even though it's online?  Wouldn't it be a
> better precedent to get them to recognize registration on
> freshmeat.net as publication?

Regarding what is or isn't "publication", a friend in the biotech field
in New Zealand commented that a discussion of an invention in standard
(unencrypted) email might be considered sufficient publication to at
least raise possible doubt of patentability.  To the extent that this is
New Zealand and not the US, I don't know what differences exist, but
apparently the risk is perceived as worth avoiding in NZ.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]