yes you might be right, NIST standardized timestamping methods are themselves full of patents. And I believe Jury would accept only those + a certified authority which would want to be testify in front of Jury.
NIST standardized timestamping methods are themselves full of patents
hu?
And I believe Jury would accept only those + a certified authority which would want to be testify in front of Jury.
I think you've missed my point. I'm saying that the problem isn't the TIME of the prior art, it is proving to a civilian jury that prior art relates to a patent.
Comments
I was developing a similar online notary. My idea is to timestamp open code, docs etc create a prior case database against patent trolls and goliaths.
Are there any documented cases where that would help?
It seems to me that the real problem is convincing a jury that a prior piece of work is related to a patented piece of work.
yes you might be right, NIST standardized timestamping methods are themselves full of patents. And I believe Jury would accept only those + a certified authority which would want to be testify in front of Jury.
NIST standardized timestamping methods are themselves full of patents
hu?
And I believe Jury would accept only those + a certified authority which would want to be testify in front of Jury.
I think you've missed my point. I'm saying that the problem isn't the TIME of the prior art, it is proving to a civilian jury that prior art relates to a patent.
Now I just have to trust their hashing algorithm..
Hashing is performed locally, probably via crypto.js, so you can verify it, I'd wager.