> Not how it works, actually. The system changed in 2013 and now whoever is first to file gets the patent, even if someone else can demonstrate prior art.
This is not true, and it's a really damaging misrepresentation.
First to file deals with interference between parallel applications, it doesn't change prior art based on publication.
If two parties show up claiming patents on the same thing based on unpublished work, under the prior rules the party that was willing to fabricate the earliest date of invention won, under current rules the first to file wins.
The misinformation you're spreading is particularly pernicious because the change increased the incentives for publishing your work early and often (to establish prior art ASAP)-- but the misinterpretation implies you should avoid publishing at all costs (to avoid a third party dishonestly patenting your publications).
This is not true, and it's a really damaging misrepresentation.
First to file deals with interference between parallel applications, it doesn't change prior art based on publication.
If two parties show up claiming patents on the same thing based on unpublished work, under the prior rules the party that was willing to fabricate the earliest date of invention won, under current rules the first to file wins.
The misinformation you're spreading is particularly pernicious because the change increased the incentives for publishing your work early and often (to establish prior art ASAP)-- but the misinterpretation implies you should avoid publishing at all costs (to avoid a third party dishonestly patenting your publications).