From: David Van Wie <dvw@hamachi.epr.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 13:19:55 PDT
To: perry <perry@frankenstein.piermont.com>
Subject: Re: Patents and trade secrets was: Encryption algorithms used in PrivaSoft
Message-ID: <306319E6@hamachi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Perry E. Metzger at Sep 22, 95 01:19:37 am wrote:

>David Van Wie writes:
>> It just moves the prior art date from the date of invention to the date
>> of filing the patent application.

>What happens if the chronology goes like this ?
>
>(0) Alice invents a snaffleblort.
>(1) Bob invents a snaffleblort.
>(2) Bob files for a patent on a snaffleblort.
>
>From what you said, it would appear that Alice's prior art won't count when
>it comes to considering the validity of Bob's patent claim. Is that correct 
?

Unless Alice made public statements about her invention, you are right. 
 Something becomes prior art when it is made public.  If she (like most 
patent lawyers will advise) kept her mouth shut about what she had invented 
until her patent application was filed, she would lose under first to file 
rules (assuming step three is that Alice files a patent application).

A quick trip to the soapbox:  First to files rules are good for big 
companies, and bad for small inventors.  Big companies have many lawyers, 
and know exactly how each step of the process works.  Small inventors 
usually don't know the process as well, usually have to scrape together the 
thousands of dollars necessary to pursue a patent, and then find a good 
lawyer that they can trust -- all while ensuring that they don't break one 
of the rules about how you must treat your invention before filing.

Moral: First to invent rules, like "natural copyright," are good for the 
little guy because they base patent decisions on when the important things 
(i.e. invention and reduction to practice) happened, not administrative 
things (i.e. complex documents filed with dotted i's and crossed t's).