In the USA, you have one year from the date of FIRST 'public disclosure'
in which to file your patent. Unfortunately, 'prior art' is often
patented by resourceful lawyers who find an examiner who misses the p-a
(since it hasn't been patented of course). I remember hearing of
a number of ongoing lawsuits over some of these, but can't remember
the details.

Check out
http://www.uspto.gov/
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/utility/utility.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/faq.htm
for lots of helpful information.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/patrules03222001.pdf
1.292 Public Use proceedings... "
...on reference to the examiner, to make a prima facie showing that the
invention claimed in
an application believed to be on file had been in public use or on sale
more than one year before the filing of
the application, a hearing may be had before the Commissioner to
determine whether a public use proceeding should be instituted."

Which basically says that if someone finds that you've got a patent,
AND you made 'public use' of it more than a year before you applied
for said patent, they can apply to have your patent deleted.

Don Lancaster, of Radio Electronics/Electronics Now fame, says that
patents are basically useless unless you have the money to defend
them.
http://www.tinaja.com/
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.html
"
For most individuals and small scale startups, patents are virtually
certain to result in a net loss of time, energy, money, and sanity.

One reason for this is the outrageously wrong urban lore involving
patents and patenting. A second involves the outright scams which
inevitably surround "inventions" and "inventing".

A third is that the economic breakeven needed to recover patent costs
is something between $12,000,000.00 and $40,000,000 in gross sales.
It is ludicrously absurd to try and patent a million dollar idea.
"

Douglas Butler wrote:
>
> > In summary, a 'sealed envelope' is now next to useless for getting
> > or challenging a patent in the USA.
> >
> How about getting your work published, does that still prove "prior
> art".  If so how does web publishing apply?  I am mostly interested in

Probably, although it would be hard to prove the DATE of publication,
which is the point of publishing.

> "defensive patenting" so someone else can't patent my work out from
> under me.

As long as you can prove that it was in "public" use -prior- to
their filing a patent application, you're -probably- ok.

Dislaimer: I am NOT a patent lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
I have had some exposure to the patent process because of my work,
but if any serious money is involved GET THE ADVICE OF AN
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROFESSIONAL.

And be sure to read Don Lancasters warning about NOT patenting.

Robert

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads