Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blue prints are absolutely covered by copyright.
I think that’s what they meant. See “only.”
Do you mean the "only" that's followed by "not by copyright?"
Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
111–120 of 217 posts
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Google isn't persuing profit via lawsuits... yet . Google is well positioned to patent troll when it stops being the top dog. In fact, Google already has Patent Shield, which provides a latent threat that if you leave their umbrella they can turn around and sue a company that used to use their services. Even if you have unwavering faith in a company's current leadership, when that leadership is not making money, they…
> Google isn't persuing profit via lawsuits... yet. Google is well positioned to patent troll when it stops being the top dog. In fact, Google already has Patent Shield, which provides a latent threat that if you leave their umbrella they can turn around and sue a company that used to use their services.
Slippery slope much?
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#113This reminds me of the "pull to refresh" patent that Twitter owns, but has promised to only use defensively. Optimistically, Google wants a similar thing so they can defend the use of this technique if someone tries to seek royalties for use of this video encoding technique. A little less optimistically, Google wants it so they can pull the license from a specific party if that party tries to sue them for an unrelate…
What do you mean by defensively then
Isn't patent war a bit like Risk in that whoever has more patents (no matter how related) used by the other party wins?
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#114Another example why software patents don't really work. Because most thing software patents cover are not really inventions but ideas. Also the written code is already protected via copyright. That is the difference to a eg. wind mill, the blue prints are only protected by a patent, not by copyright. And it effects only the implementation.
What’s the difference between an invention and an idea?
An invention is an actual thing that implements the idea.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#115This reminds me of the "pull to refresh" patent that Twitter owns, but has promised to only use defensively. Optimistically, Google wants a similar thing so they can defend the use of this technique if someone tries to seek royalties for use of this video encoding technique. A little less optimistically, Google wants it so they can pull the license from a specific party if that party tries to sue them for an unrelate…
What do you mean by defensively then Isn't patent war a bit like Risk in that whoever has more patents (no matter how related) used by the other party wins?
More like MUD. The cost of litigating a patent war between companies at the scale of Google is so high, that it’s generally not in anyone’s interest.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% CPU -> 100% billable hours -> IP law is now an incredibly attractive profession -> more capacity for patents / lawsuits... and that's essentially how we got here.
Then we all stop at the same time, the market collapses and IP lawyers go extinct.
You'll have better luck herding cats.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#117Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#118Another example why software patents don't really work. Because most thing software patents cover are not really inventions but ideas. Also the written code is already protected via copyright. That is the difference to a eg. wind mill, the blue prints are only protected by a patent, not by copyright. And it effects only the implementation.
What’s the difference between an invention and an idea?
It can be a kind of gray area.
Leonardo da Vinci had the idea of a human powered flying machine. I pretty sure nobody would say that his sketches are an invention. On a second thought, there are so many people around, probably somebody would claim it.
http://www.flyingmachines.org/davi.html
The South Hampton University eventually made it happen centuries later in 1961.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUMPAC
Did they invent it or "just" built it? Probably they could patent parts of the final airplane. I didn't check if they did.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#119intellectual 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.
I'm not always a fan of Stallman's terminological dogma, but here I am.
Someone says intellectual property shouldn't exist. We have no idea whether they mean that software patents shouldn't exist, all patents, or even all the various laws and precedent around the not-very-related concepts like copyright, patents (or perhaps just software patents), and trademarks.
You respond with a potential benefit of one domain which is either a subset of the term the OP used, or is orthogonal because the OP was only talking about software patents, or perhaps software patents and copyright, etc.
Now the OP must respond simply to explain what was meant by intellectual property in the first place.
If instead OP had imagined RMS rudely interrupting them to complain that "intellectual property" is a poor term because it brings together many areas of law that are not related, OP would have ended up with a clearer statement with 60% fewer posts here.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#120This reminds me of the "pull to refresh" patent that Twitter owns, but has promised to only use defensively. Optimistically, Google wants a similar thing so they can defend the use of this technique if someone tries to seek royalties for use of this video encoding technique. A little less optimistically, Google wants it so they can pull the license from a specific party if that party tries to sue them for an unrelate…
Pull to refresh is a cancer which has wasted hours in my life online because of over eager scrolling. I hope twitter starts aggressively suing and charging people who use it and they all go bankrupt and come to rue their life choices.
EDIT: somebody flagged me, sorry I didn't frame it correctly. I forgot to mention jobless so lots of time to ponder over the mistake.