A project to algorithmically generate all "prior art" and obviate the patent system

[Read the post]

3 Likes

Isn’t prior art irrelevant under the new “first to file” rules?

2 Likes

Is this a recent change? I thought the USPTO uses a first-inventor-to-file system with all the funny fall-out such a system generates and not - like most other patent offices - a strict FTF.

1 Like

Yeah, the USPTO recently changed to conform to the European practice which is first to file. I think the prior art can still invalidate a patent, but it can’t be used to claim a patent which somebody has already filed for.

3 Likes

I’m not an expert in this field, but as I understand it, the US used to award patents on a first-to-invent basis. Recently (last few years) they have changed to a first-to-file basis. As I understand it, this makes prior art mostly irrelevant.

My hope is that someone with a greater level of understanding than mine will comment here confirming or correcting this.

1 Like

Don’t all irrational numbers already contain all of these…and everything else?

9 Likes

from the site:
"-Even with the change to the first-to-file system in the USA, the patent applicant still needs to prove they are the original inventor, which would not be true for any inventions published here."

4 Likes

No, it doesn’t. Arguably it is almost the opposite.

The basic first-to-file system is that if there is prior art, then the patent can’t be granted. If there isn’t then it can, no matter who invented it originally.

1 Like

Yes, but only if you file. If you just create prior art then (presumably) someone else can file on it.

1 Like

No, they can’t because then it is no longer novel. The point of first-to-file is just that inventions are treated as original if nobody filed or published before, ignoring what may have happened behind closed doors.

3 Likes

I see. That clarifies things for me.

So if one were to invent something they intended to patent, they should publish ahead of filing, so as to prevent another inventor from filing ahead of them?

1 Like

That’s where it gets tricky and you have to read the fine print for your jurisdiction because in principle your own prior art can count against your application, too.

3 Likes

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation of the new system!

2 Likes

Wouldn’t it be easier just to create a simulation of a world supporting the development intelligent life, then let the resulting beings invent everything…unless

5 Likes

These samples disclose inventions that are so specifically described as to be easily circumvented.

2 Likes

Unfortunately the burden is still on the court system to disprove illegitimate patents.

We really need a burden of proof for those who file, though I’m unsure how that would be achieved.

Perhaps go back to patenting actual inventions rather than ideas?

4 Likes

Ah, but is it the right order of infinity?

1 Like

I would like to see far more ex parte reexaminations. You could even have a crowd sourced system to identify good targets.

2 Likes

Patents are countable; in fact, text strings are also countable, and patents are a subset.

2 Likes

Ah, but doesn’t it turn out that part of the well-orderedness requires them being first filed before being counted?