You can patent it and explicitly not enforce that patent. Conductor does it as well as Tesla. You basically release the patent as open source and grant wide open licenses to use that patent. A patent comes with a right to enforce it, not an obligation to.

Very related: patents.stackexchange.com/search?q=defensive+publications

Not sure about the US procedure, but in Germany filing a patent is a two-step procedure. The initial filing is comparably cheap, and if you do not have any intention to exploit the patent you can save the costs for the patent attorney (the risk that the formulation isn't good enough to defend the patent in court is a non-issue for you). In addition to filing the documents, for obtaining a proper patent, you need to request (and pay) the examination. (There's also a possibility (lower fees) to just request the patent office to check the state-of-the-art, postponing the full examination.) ...

... you have several years to decide on this, while you application already has a file number and priority date, and there's nothing to force you going the (costly) way to a full patent application. However, your documents are filed and thus the patent office knows them (and they are part of the state-of-the art in case someone else tries to get a patent).

In this day and age can you just not publish all the glorious details of an invention on the internet and back it up on archive.org to establish prior art?

@Willtech maybe you can. But the places people would try to place such stuff are likely also the places where investments would be made to be able to apply pressure.

If you file a provisional patent, then never file the real thing, would that make the USPTO more aware of it? Do they search previously submitted provisional patent applications?

@mikeazo Sounds like a good question for this site.

@Willtech basically all countries today are on some version of a "First to File" patent system. Establishing prior art by publishing your work may be insufficient to prevent another entity from patenting a substantially similar idea that would make the use of your work a patent infringement.

@asgallant That is why I suggest adding the use of archive.org, is that still not sufficient proof?

@Willtech, maybe, depending on jurisdiction, but first-to-file patent systems can still award a patent to someone else who can justify the origin of their invention predating your prior art. If you invent on day 1, I invent on day 2, you publish on day 3, and I file on day 4, the patent is mine because I filed first, even though you invented first and published your invention before I filed a patent on it.

@asgallant - Your first filing on day 4 would not mean you got a patent if the examiner looks at Willtech 's document that was published on day 3 and sees your invention as not novel or obvious in light of his publication.

@GeorgeWhite that may be the case, but it's not guaranteed.

@asgallant - in your scenario you invent the day before he publishes. Since you are discussing a scenario in a fist to file system, the fact that you invented before he published is irrelevant. Your phrase "can justify the origin of their invention predating your prior art" is exactly what first-to-file eliminates from consideration.

@GeorgeWhite first-to-file prevents patent conflicts over the timing of patent filing, not prior art.

@asgallant - that is incorrect. It means that we only care about when it was filed (a very clear fact there are not conflicts as to when a patent was filed). We do not care when it was invented. To other readers, I'm a registered patent agent and happen to be the all-time high point person on patents.stackexchange.com by about a factor of two.

@GeorgeWhite yes, that's what I'm saying. I think the confusion comes in over the prior art argument. My understanding is that if I file a patent and someone else challenges with prior art, I can counter that challenge with my own documents proving my invention predates the prior art. Am I mistaken about that?

@asgallant - yes, you are mistaken. That is exactly what first-to-file eliminated. For patents filed before the AIA went into effect you could "swear behind" a prior art reference with an affidavit with some evidence that you invented (meaning conceived and reduced to practice) before the prior art was published. If that was accepted by the examiner, references after your reduction-to-practice would be removed from consideration as prior art. Now, rather than argue about what proof of "reduced-to-practice" requires, etc. we have a clean but not necessarily fair cut-off at date at filing.