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).