Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 217 posts

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#51

Post by laumars »

wtetzner wrote: post #30
ajb wrote: post #10

Earlier 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…

> Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea. But doesn't the fact that the code has already been released mean it's prior art?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the US patent office doesn't check for prior art (that was one of the cut backs several years ago) so instead prior art is now something that has to be challenged in court.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#52

Post by DennisP »

delbel wrote: post #41
seandougall wrote: post #8

Earlier 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?

We switched from "first to invent" to "first to file," but published prior art still invalidates a patent.

The change just means that if two people try to patent something that they've invented privately, then the one with priority is the one who filed first.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#54

Post by ghaff »

chii wrote: post #32
ldjb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MIT License requires copies of the software to give attribution to the copyright holder, as well as the licence text. Though it is a very permissive licence, this does pose some barrier to using the software. Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for, but would not mind using software that is in the public domain. Releasing software to the public domain ensures that as many…

> Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for why would that be? They certainly already need to put in a license page/dialog/display somewhere, so it makes so little difference adding an extra piece of text there.

Perhaps because it can be error-prone to keep attributions together with the thing requiring attribution.

This is certainly an issue with things like photos and Creative Commons. Anyone who uses CC-BY-SA photos in presentations knows very well that, as photos get reused and mixed in different presentations, it's very easy to end up dropping a credit somewhere. I know I try hard not to do so, but I'm sure I still miss things from time to time.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#55

Post by DennisP »

ajb wrote: post #10
mikece wrote: post #5

What 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…

Just publishing prior art, in a way that proves when you did it, is sufficient. It can still be a problem if you're not aware your idea is being patented, so the patent office doesn't find your prior art, but that's not an issue here.

There are also services where you can register your prior art, which say the USPTO uses them when evaluating claims; I don't know how useful they are in practice.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#56

Post by DennisP »

laumars wrote: post #51
wtetzner wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea. But doesn't the fact that the code has already been released mean it's prior art?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the US patent office doesn't check for prior art (that was one of the cut backs several years ago) so instead prior art is now something that has to be challenged in court.

Or challenged before the patent is issued. The USPTO encourages this; fees for notifying them of prior art are much lower before issuance.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#57

Post by jhall1468 »

dpark wrote: post #46
gregatragenet3 wrote: post #45

The 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.

Prior art is a legal defense. Patents are lawsuit prevention. Even with prior art it's cheaper to just patent.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#58

Post by teddyh »

williamxd3 wrote: post #12

intellectual property shouldn't exist.

Usually included in the grab-bag term “Intellectual property” is trademarks, which as far as I know is mostly benign and exists to protect consumers from being deceived with fake products.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#59

Post by dpark »

jhall1468 wrote: post #57
dpark wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not how FTF works. Prior art still trumps the patent filing.

Prior art is a legal defense. Patents are lawsuit prevention. Even with prior art it's cheaper to just patent.

Sure. But it’s untrue that someone can simply file a patent for an existing invention and effectively steal it from the inventor. Filing the patent can minimize legal headaches, though.

(To the extent that a bad actor can “steal” an invention, FTF vs FTI is irrelevant.)

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#60

Post by jhall1468 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #26
brisance wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we are going to have to rely on the goodwill of Google not to sue others if they are awarded the patent? How about being a good corporate citizen like the others and not trying to patent it in the first place?

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.

You act like self-interest is black and white. Oracle persues profit at any expense, often via lawsuits. Google uses patents as a defense mechanism against other companies. Both are self-interest, but very different degrees.
Post reply on HN