Wiki's & forums are no good for Prior-Art

[PaulLowrance]

I just learned of some very bad news. It appears that even the all mighty WikiPedia no longer holds weight in the court of law as far as Prior Art. The other smaller wiki's and forums, including this forum appear to be absolutely worthless where a company could patent your designs and own them.

A little more investigation looks like even the mighty WikiPedia is now worthless when it comes down to the court! -->

Quote, "Business Week (9/4/2006 Issue 3999, p12) reported that the United States Patent & Trademark Office will no longer accept Wikipedia entries as 'accepted sources of information'"
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-reliability-of-wikipedia-for-prior.html

Quote, "On Aug. 15, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office yanked Wikipedia from the digital toolbox its examiners use to help determine a patent application's validity."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_36/c3999012.htm#ZZZ6MALU8RE

Quote, "Citations of Wikipedia as actual prior art are problematic, however, due to the fluid and open nature of its editing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art#Pending_patent_applications

Also, "In August 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ordered examiners to stop using Wikipedia as a source of information for determining the patentability of inventions.[17]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_as_a_source_of_prior_art#United_States

We need an alternative. Maybe your gang can come up with something that is sound in the court of law that does not cost the inventor a dime. Until then, I have no choice but to hold back all new designs and breakthroughs until this is resolved. IMO a powerful company could easily rip off any prior art posted at WikiPedia and other wiki's by patenting it.

[Azorus]

Really?  WIKI is not a quotable source of valid information?  You don't say.

[PaulLowrance]

Really?  WIKI is not a quotable source of valid information?  You don't say.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

WikiPedia provides references, which is why it is valuable.

For years WikiPedia has been used as prior art in patents *due to it's date stamps*, but no longer. That has nothing to do with valid information. As with any source, you need to check the references, which is what WikiPedia provides, but that has nothing to do with prior art for patents.

[the_big_m_in_ok]

A provides references, which is why it is valuable.

@all
Wikipedia is supposed to provide sources, which is okay by itself, but not always (of course--there's incomplete information through the Internet), and Wikipedia always was merely someone's opinion in any case.

For years WikiPedia has been used as prior art in patents *due to it's date stamps*, but no longer. That has nothing to do with valid information. As with any source, you need to check the references, which is what WikiPedia provides, but that has nothing to do with prior art for patents.

Right. For prior art as references, the patents themselves could be inspected at the likes of:

http://www. pat2pdf.org  and,
http://www.google.com/advanced_patent_search

The first one has more complete information, but loads and runs slowly.
The second one is faster, but not all the drawings are fully shown with lines.  Sometimes only reference numbers appear in all or part of a drawing.

--Lee

[PaulLowrance]

To be more specific, WikiPedia states that the references must be peer reviewed. So if someone tries to post a reference of a blog site at WikiPedia, then it will be removed. Also remember there are a lot of admins at WikiPedia, and various levels of admin. All abusers are dealt with. There IP address will be banned. If they are a hacker and have access to nearly unlimited IP's, then that Wiki page will be locked, and system admins will work on the case by contacting the ISP and go from there.

Those are the reasons why WikiPedia has worked as well as has. Nothing is perfect, but it's a great source of information.