Seriously, my bad ofcourse, but could the US government please freaking stop making names for acts that are the complete opposite of what they are called?
The problem is of course that the name is only valid in a thin context, i.e who have the rights to a patent if two inventors file for the same patent. In a first-to-file then all the patent office has to do is to look at the filing date of each patent. In the old first-to-invent either party would argue that they had invented the thing first. And in a very quick analysis of the two worlds, of course first-to-invent sounds the more morally and ethically correct thing to do, however the practice of those seeking patents have shown that to be a fallacy...
In both cases prior art would never have been evaluated by the patent office when deciding who has the right to the patent, prior art is only used to declare a patent as invalid. That is why the notion of prior art is not included in either of the "names".
Comment