If you don’t patent, how high is the risk that someone else will try to patent your method and patent troll over it?
This has historically been the reason that (non-patent troll) software tech companies in the past have claimed for patenting; I don’t have a good sense of how common that is.
That would be the best option, but I’m afraid the tech transfer office at the university, who will be the ones doing the filing, has no incentive to release a patent. Their whole goal is profit.
Are you under a contractual obligation to go through the tech transfer office? Could you in theory patent it on your own, with the help of an independent attorney?
In theory, publishing X and patenting X are both equally valid ways to prevent other people from patenting X. Does it not work that way in practice?
Could be wrong, but I had the impression that software companies have historically amassed patents NOT because patenting X is the best way to prevent another company from patenting the exact same thing X or things very similar to X, but rather because “the best defense is a good offense”, and if I have a dubious software patent on X and you have a dubious software patent on Y then we can have a balance of terror so that neither wants to sue the other. (That wouldn’t help defend Microsoft against patent trolls but would help defend Microsoft against Oracle etc.)
That is exactly my worry with just publishing it. As I understand it, anyone can make a small tweak and patent the whole thing in a way that limits the technology from being used widely.
If you publish it, a third party could make a small tweak and apply for a patent. If you patent it, a third party could make a small tweak and apply for a patent. What do you see as the difference? Or sorry if I’m misunderstanding the rules.
If you don’t patent, how high is the risk that someone else will try to patent your method and patent troll over it?
This has historically been the reason that (non-patent troll) software tech companies in the past have claimed for patenting; I don’t have a good sense of how common that is.
What about filing a patent and then releasing it?
That would be the best option, but I’m afraid the tech transfer office at the university, who will be the ones doing the filing, has no incentive to release a patent. Their whole goal is profit.
Are you under a contractual obligation to go through the tech transfer office? Could you in theory patent it on your own, with the help of an independent attorney?
In theory, publishing X and patenting X are both equally valid ways to prevent other people from patenting X. Does it not work that way in practice?
Could be wrong, but I had the impression that software companies have historically amassed patents NOT because patenting X is the best way to prevent another company from patenting the exact same thing X or things very similar to X, but rather because “the best defense is a good offense”, and if I have a dubious software patent on X and you have a dubious software patent on Y then we can have a balance of terror so that neither wants to sue the other. (That wouldn’t help defend Microsoft against patent trolls but would help defend Microsoft against Oracle etc.)
Possibly related? “Technical Disclosure Commons”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Defensive Publication.
IANAL.
That is exactly my worry with just publishing it. As I understand it, anyone can make a small tweak and patent the whole thing in a way that limits the technology from being used widely.
If you publish it, a third party could make a small tweak and apply for a patent. If you patent it, a third party could make a small tweak and apply for a patent. What do you see as the difference? Or sorry if I’m misunderstanding the rules.