On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:42:11AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 07/23/2018 10:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> Isn't 'defensive', in patent-speak, used to mean 'establishing prior > >> art usable to challenge future patent claims by others on the same > >> technique'? > >> > >> Is there any way that conditions of use, or lack of them, on an > >> existing patent, would make it unusable in that context? > > > > It doesn't have to be a patent on the same technique; this URL was > > referenced in the thread: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_termination > > Ah, a very different understanding of defensive use of a patent, > and one that I can see would lose force if there could be no > conditions on its use. > > I was thinking more of the use of a filing to establish prior art > so somebody else later can't obtain and enforce a patent on > the technique that you're already using. Something along the lines > of a statutory invention registration[1], which used to be a thing > in the US, but now apparently is not, though any filed, published > application, granted or abandoned, can serve the same purpose. > > That, I think, would still work.
Yes, those preemptive patent approaches work too. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +