That's why we really need to make a stand against software patents.
Waiting until you are personally inconvenienced is the patent equivalent of going through the sequence that ends on 'and when they came for me there was nobody left to stand up for me'.
Software patents are bad, period.
The very few cases where there was merit to a software patent are outweighed massively by the downsides.
Still, this puts the burden of proof on the person claiming prior art. I'd like to see a reform of patent law that would make the infringing patent holder responsible for the legal fees for proving the prior art, if it's valid.
That would:
1. Force the potential infringer to do a more rigorous search prior to filing the patent.
2. Gives the person with prior art a little more leverage in negotiations.
So, let's pretend that Bob the developer has some magic piece of software that does something that nobody else has figured out how to do yet (my verbiage may be incorrect, let's assume that this meets the criteria for a patentable work).
Bob hasn't released this software to the world yet, because he's working on other parts of a larger system.
In this scenario, should Bob consider filing a patent in order to protect his invention (assuming it would get discovered eventually), or is there some way for him to file a record of what his method does so that he doesn't have to worry about someone coming to patent what he's doing out from under him?
(I'm not at all versed in patent law, so I apologize if the answers to this are obvious)
IANAL, but I think many patent lawyers would suggest that Bob consider a provisional patent application. This generally much cheaper to draft and file than a full patent application, it gives you an earlier filing date if you decide to go for a full patent, and makes your invention more likely to show up in a prior art search. You'll still have to invest time, and $2,000-$3,000 dollars, but it will probably give Bob some extra protection against someone else patenting his software.
There's nothing you can do to prevent someone coming after you. You can only protect yourself if you plan to have the means to actually fight the case. This is one of those areas where an accusation and intent to pursue a fight from a "big dog" can be bad enough to crush the "little guy".
Sorry, my point was whether or not Bob should go file for a patent himself.
I get why people call software patents evil, but they seem kind of necessary to protect against bigger companies (at least until the patent system is 'fixed').
The problem is litigating the twenty or so patents any large company can pull out of the bag, which, if you squint at the blurry lines, might overlap with what you are working on.
Basically, yes, having a patent yourself would be a great help, but it doesn't solve the problem when people are getting patents on what amounts to standard practice.
Yea, in this case I am suggesting that he shouldn't go file for a patent himself. It is expensive, a distraction, and offers no meaningful protection against deep-pockets.
Waiting until you are personally inconvenienced is the patent equivalent of going through the sequence that ends on 'and when they came for me there was nobody left to stand up for me'.
Software patents are bad, period.
The very few cases where there was merit to a software patent are outweighed massively by the downsides.