I think it would be useful if there was a patent type for "free for anyone to use", something like the MIT License in open source. This would make it easier for patent officers to discover and reject applications conflicting with prior free to use patents and offload the burden of keeping track of this from the inventor to the patent office.
Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
131–140 of 217 posts
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. Sounds like a win win scenario for Google. If the courts decide Google can't patent it, it probably means nobody else can either.
How is this a win-win scenario for Google? They’re attempting to do something that is strictly against the interest of the inventor and abusing the patent system in order to achieve a commerical advantage at the cost of the rest of humanity. This is totally evil in my view.
If Google wins, they have the patent on this implementation. If Google loses, no one can have the patent. Either way, Google isn't paying anyone else to do this.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#133"Don't do evil" my ass
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#134I wish more of the world would take New Zealand's stance. Software patents are banned in that country. The US/EU should really go a similar route.
It’s probably too late. Too many entrenched interests and public interest groups don’t have resources.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think you mean MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Although a patent-war MUD (multi-user dungeon/domain) might be an interesting premise.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#136intellectual property shouldn't exist.
Intellectual property done right puts bread on the table of many researchers and engineers and is arguably a protection agains't direct Chinese theft. That being said, Google is really turning into a monster at this point with all their patents on random algorithms.
If I take a Range Rover, reserse engineer it and sell it for a lower price who is harmed? The society at large or a special interest group involved in the manufacturing of the original Range Rover? If you want to make money off manufacturing you should invest in novel things. Not things that rely on the IP system to generate wealth for you. China is booming because they disregard Western IP. IP is a construction that benefits wealthy countries for the benefit of the wealthy.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#137But this is a bit of a dark area. Even if Google stopped pursuing the patent, who is to say that someone else wouldn't?
Is there a form of theft that can't be justified with that sentence?
"If the USA didn't take land from the Native Americans, who is to say that someone else wouldn't?"
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#138If you watch "American Genius" (documentary show about inventors) you will see how some of the most important inventors of the 20th century wasted decades of their life in patent related litigations rather than working in more inventions.
This stupid scent marking bullshit needs to stop.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#139I think it would be useful if there was a patent type for "free for anyone to use", something like the MIT License in open source. This would make it easier for patent officers to discover and reject applications conflicting with prior free to use patents and offload the burden of keeping track of this from the inventor to the patent office.
I agree with you, however, I think the difficult part is finding an entity capable of enforcing such a patent. I mean, we have things like the EFF or Apache foundation, but what organization could manage such a patent type? There would have to be enough trust in a granting body of such a patent, and it would need to be able to operate unencumbered for the global public good. I think this is an interesting problem worth solving though, if it can be.
Edit: this was an interesting related HN discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17240429
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#140Earlier 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…
So - prior art is no longer good enough? I was at Xerox when they were fighting a patent on their ideas. At that point in time all you had to do was prove prior art on the idea. Xerox used their notes during software development plus the code to prove prior art. Similarly I was at Apple when they fought a basic patent on color matching. Apple succeeded in fighting the patent then proactively started patenting everyth…
> The America Invents Act signed on September 16, 2011, switched U.S. right to the patent from the previous "first-to-invent" system to a "first-inventor-to-file" system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_inv...
Thought it could be challenged as unconstitutional:
> Many legal scholars have commented that such a change would require a constitutional amendment. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to “promote the Progress of ... useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to ... Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective ... Discoveries.” These scholars argue that this clause specifically prohibits a first-inventor-to-file system because the term "inventor" refers to a person who has created something that has not existed before. (Wikipedia)