Re: defensive publishing for medical ideas?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <cunu0yocx2q.fsf@zero-based.org>,
 Martin Dickopp <expires-2004-06-30@zero-based.org> wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
> > In article <mailman.4292.1084179819.1061.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>,
> >  amylaar@spamcop.net (Joern Rennecke) wrote:
> >
> >> I've got an idea for a mediacal procedure.  It's one of those things that
> >> are obvious once you put all the pieces together, put with a huge 
> >> potential.
> >> I think it would be immoral to put a premium on its use, so it shoudn't be
> >> patented.  But undoubtedly some will try to.
> >> Where is the best place for defensive publication of such ideas?
> >
> > I would guess a well-known medical journal would be the best place.
> 
> As far as patentability is concerned, it doesn't matter how well-known
> the journal is.  The only thing that counts is if the idea has been
> published at all.

That would be true in a perfect world.  But putting it in a more 
well-known journal should hopefully make it more likely that the patent 
examiner will find it and reject the patent.

> I don't know about medical journals, but in my own field of research,
> publication in the best-known journals usually takes several months, and
> of course the journal might always reject the publication.  So if the
> OP's goal is quick action, deliberately choosing a lesser known journal
> might indeed be preferable.

But that might result in the patent being granted because the examiner 
didn't check all the obscure journals.  You might still be able to get 
the patent rejected during a reexamination by referring them to the 
obscure journal, but that's more work.

I realized that getting a paper published in a major journal (e.g. JAMA) 
could be very difficult.  That's why I made the alternative suggestion 
of patenting it himself.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***