Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dg!lewine
From: lewine@dg.dg.com (Don Lewine)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Patents and Misinformation
Message-ID: <591@dg.dg.com>
Date: 3 Jul 90 16:25:30 GMT
References: <1990Jun28.163043.501@craycos.com> <19165@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Reply-To: uunet!dg!lewine (Don Lewine)
Organization: Data General, Westboro, MA.
Lines: 17

In article <19165@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> jacobsd@mist.UUCP (Dana Jacobsen) writes:
>What sort of publications qualify as valid places to "publish"
>an invention?  For a computer graphics idea such as XOR cursors,
>would a group of comp.graphics postings qualify?  Or would the
>patent office only accept paper publications.  I suppose this
>means that the patent office's software experts should be on
>the net.  At least then we could have some expert input to this
>train..

The patent office does a fairly minimal search for prior art.  They do not
read usenet posting or even IEEE Transactions.  In general, the courts will
consider any prior art in declaring a patent invalid.  

You (the person who wants the patent declared invalid) need to show that the
patent holder did not invent the thing being patented.  If you can prove that
the invention was posted to usenet by someone other than the inventor, the 
patent is invalid.  "Prove" may turn out to be the key word here.