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

61–70 of 217 posts

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

#61

Post by cure »

mikece wrote: post #13
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.

How about an “On the record” public domain dedication where dates, code, issues, wiki, etc are a matter of public record and establish legal grounds of prior art for countering patent issues like this?

Yes, it's called 'defensive publishing'.

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

#62

Post by monochromatic »

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.

That is completely wrong.

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

#64

Post by fma »

DennisP wrote: post #55
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…

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.

We (USA) and are a first to patent country now.

https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/16/first-to-file-a-primer/

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

#65

Post by mcbits »

tacon wrote: post #47
mcbits wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That establishes prior art for X, but X+2 would still potentially infringe on X+1 and they'd have no leverage for negotiating a license. Except they're still one of the biggest patent spammers, so they probably do have leverage in the portfolio somewhere.

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

#66

Post by hedora »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #29
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…

> the author should have patented the idea, then freely licensed it This is the brutal truth of how crappy our current patent mechanisms are. The definition of what constitutes a patentable extension to practice of ideas that are well known or explicitly in the public domain is very weak. So, until something is patented and actively protected by bulldog lawyers, there is a risk of someone else trying to umbrella it i…

Having a patent doesn’t guarantee someone else will not patent the work as part of some other patent. Patent examiners miss things sometimes.

Publicly disclosing the idea in a way that can be verified after the fact establishes prior art just like filing a patent does.

I’m not a lawyer, but I do know there are services that inexpensively publish inventions and vouch for the publication date after the fact.

Also note that the vast majority of patent litigation never makes it to trial, so whether a patent is “valid” or not is a gray area in practice.

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

#67

Post by giancarlostoro »

philipov wrote: post #44
mcbits wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Software patents for sure. Not sure about algorithmn ones. Say you invent this exact compression algorithmn and want to patent it but you can't and Google steals it when you wanted to license it so you can fund a company that builds better compression algorithmns or whatever. Google is going to rip out of your profits.

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

#68

Post by mbrumlow »

DennisP wrote: post #56
laumars wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait a fee is imposed? I get why I think but if your posting of prior art proves to be true then you should have your fee refunded.

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

#69

Post by nbsd4life »

MattSteelblade wrote: post #39
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…

Licensing is not that simple. From the Creative Commons CC0 page. "Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically grante…

I don't see people dropping sqlite en masse.

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

#70

Post by hashkb »

jhall1468 wrote: post #60
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #26

Earlier 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.

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.

> profit at any expense

Redundant definition of profit?

Post reply on HN