Isn’t it already published then?
Yup. And if I had a nickel for every time a patent was granted despite the existence of prior art...
did we switch from prior art to first to patent a few years back?
Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
41–50 of 217 posts
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#42What is the relative advantage of putting something into the public domain versus releasing under an Apache 2 or MIT license? The latter doesn’t restrict anyone’s use AND establishes a public record to refute what Google is trying to do. Additionally, communications by email could be via GitHub issues and open to all to see.
enedil is correct. To expand on that: MIT and Apache2 grant a licence to copyrightable expression. But the literal code is not what is patented, the idea is. Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea. MIT doesn't say anything about patents. Apache2 additionally grants a licence to any patents which the author has which cover the work, and also tries to prevent s…
That sounds backwards if I'm reading you right. An idea can't be patented (well... in theory), but a new invention based on an idea can. Google apparently thinks they've got a new, non-obvious invention based on Duda's public domain work, which may itself have been patentable but wasn't.
That's one reason why companies rich enough to spam the patent office tend to do so. Company A invents X. If they don't patent it, then Company B can invent X+1, a minor improvement on X, and patent X+1 themselves. Now Invention X can't compete with X+1, so Company A invents X+2, an improvement on X+1, but now they have to pay license fees to Company B even though they invented the original thing! Solution: just try to patent every stupid thing.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations do not act with goodwill, and those that do are often not successful corporations for long, as others take advantage of them. Remember that every time you see a corporation seemingly acting selflessly, either you don't realize how it benefits them, or its just a public relations play. But corporations always act in self-interest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH
I guess you want to highlight that the company is owned mostly by a charitable foundation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH#Corporate_af... ), but I think it's important to realize that the company itself still operates as a profit maximizer for its shareholders. You only need to scroll down to the section about their involvement in the Volkswagen emissions scandal for proof of that.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
enedil is correct. To expand on that: MIT and Apache2 grant a licence to copyrightable expression. But the literal code is not what is patented, the idea is. Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea. MIT doesn't say anything about patents. Apache2 additionally grants a licence to any patents which the author has which cover the work, and also tries to prevent s…
That sounds backwards if I'm reading you right. An idea can't be patented (well... in theory), but a new invention based on an idea can. Google apparently thinks they've got a new, non-obvious invention based on Duda's public domain work, which may itself have been patentable but wasn't. That's one reason why companies rich enough to spam the patent office tend to do so. Company A invents X. If they don't patent it,…
And that is why patents should be abolished, in a nutshell.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#45The US used to have a great First-To-Invent patent system. It disappointingly switched to First-To-File in 2013 and these patents you are seeing are the result. With FTI Google could use the compression technique without filing because if someone else later filed Google could show that they had reduced it to practice first.
However with FTF, any technology Google might potentially use in the future, they must file a patent for - this compression tech, or one of the DNN techs they've recently developed. Otherwise they could start using the technology and another company could copy the technology, file a patent, and be granted the patent because of FTF. They could then pursue Google for patent infringement.
In FTI they could develop and use tech without patenting it. in FTF they have to patent it because if they don't they'll lose the ability to use the tech to the first copycat who files.
FTF is just continuing the trend in the US of making it harder and harder for IP to be in the public domain - moving more towards the privatization of IP.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#46The US used to have a great First-To-Invent patent system. It disappointingly switched to First-To-File in 2013 and these patents you are seeing are the result. With FTI Google could use the compression technique without filing because if someone else later filed Google could show that they had reduced it to practice first. However with FTF, any technology Google might potentially use in the future, they must file a…
This is not how FTF works. Prior art still trumps the patent filing.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
enedil is correct. To expand on that: MIT and Apache2 grant a licence to copyrightable expression. But the literal code is not what is patented, the idea is. Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea. MIT doesn't say anything about patents. Apache2 additionally grants a licence to any patents which the author has which cover the work, and also tries to prevent s…
That sounds backwards if I'm reading you right. An idea can't be patented (well... in theory), but a new invention based on an idea can. Google apparently thinks they've got a new, non-obvious invention based on Duda's public domain work, which may itself have been patentable but wasn't. That's one reason why companies rich enough to spam the patent office tend to do so. Company A invents X. If they don't patent it,…
No, the way to protect yourself is to disclose anything you don't want to patent, but don't want patented against yourself. IBM had a great system for several decades[0]:
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Technical_Disclosure_Bulle...
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their main goal is to not get sued. So there's no practical way to demonstrate prior art without filing a patent?
Your question suggests their goal is to win when sued. That can be expensive. The goal is not to be sued in the first place.
Not sure why a patent is a better guard against a lawsuit than clear prior art. If everyone knows you'll win if sued it doesn't matter if the reason you would win is because you hold the patent or if you demonstrated prior art.
I think the actual advantage is "mutually assured destruction"; big companies accumulate large patent portfolios so that they can (among other things) have enough stuff patented that they have the option to counter sue or if they get sued they can find some way that the suing company is violating something else in their portfolio and threaten to sue over that.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question suggests their goal is to win when sued. That can be expensive. The goal is not to be sued in the first place.
Not sure why a patent is a better guard against a lawsuit than clear prior art. If everyone knows you'll win if sued it doesn't matter if the reason you would win is because you hold the patent or if you demonstrated prior art. I think the actual advantage is "mutually assured destruction"; big companies accumulate large patent portfolios so that they can (among other things) have enough stuff patented that they have…
I live in a different jurisdiction, but based on what I've read on these discussions in the Internet, it appears that in the USA the loser doesn't pay the winner's court and lawyer costs. Having a stronger defense could allow the court case to finish on an earlier step, saving a large amount of the costs.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. And if I had a nickel for every time a patent was granted despite the existence of prior art...
did we switch from prior art to first to patent a few years back?
The switch was from "first to invent" to "first to file". Prior art is still prior art, just the same in both types of "filings".
The "first to file" setup changed some of the critical date ranges around slightly that determine under what statute clause any given publication (i.e. prior art) may be used, but did not change the fact that a prior publication effects the patenting of a later application.
Now, getting that prior publication in the hands of the patent offices so they can utilize it to effect a later application, that is the hard part. Esp. if that prior publication was not somewhere big and well known (i.e., a personal blog would be a prior publication, but it is doubtful any of the patent offices would discover the personal blog on their own).