Talk:Defensive publication

message: The article claims companies decide to do this because of cost.  It doesn't address the underlying question, which is, is this just theoretical?  What companies, exactly, have engaged in this, and how often?  Tempshill (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not just theoretical. See for instance http://www.researchdisclosure.com/searching-disclosures/recent-disclosures. But, indeed, it would be good to have statistics to show how often this is used. --Edcolins (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent link, thank you.  In the absence of statistics we could at least use a couple of good quotes with interesting anecdotes about incidents of this.  Tempshill (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See also http://www.ip.com/prior-art-database/ .. didn't want to favour any particular service. --Edcolins (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do companies intentionally do this, ever? 

message: It is not clear in the article what actually constitutes disclosure to the public domain, per US patent law. Could someone elaborate? I know the article is not meant as a how-to but the current text could mean that a person wishing to follow this strategy must file a provisional patent (then not pursue it), or at the other extreme, does it suffice to post a blog article about the invention? Anniebiogirl (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that merely filing a U.S. provisional application and then abandoning it will ever create some prior art, since a U.S. provisional application is not published. Thus, doing so would probably be useless (as a defensive publication strategy). Some defensive publication services exist, see links provided above on this talk page. A blog post about the invention might also suffice, provided that the whole blog does not vanish after a few years. That can happen. --Edcolins (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more detail in the article 

message: It sounds like changes made to the United States patenting process has made obtaining a defensive publication no longer possible. The America Invents Act made some changes, then there was a lawsuit, and now... you can't do this officially through the USPTO anymore? What's the alternative for establishing officially recognized prior art? (Should this be discussed in the prior art talk page?)  -- DMahalko (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The USPTO isn't the only source of prior art.  Defensive publication is any enabling publication of IP be it expired patents, magazine articles, how to books, web archived build drawings, etc.  The only requirement is it has to have been "published" in some date verifiable way.Crcwiki (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently this cannot be done anymore in the USA? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Defensive publication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140801163148/http://pdf.dec.org:80/pdf_docs/PNACS088.pdf to http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACS088.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified