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

181–190 of 217 posts

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

#181

Post by martin1975 »

wb36 wrote: post #150
trhway wrote: post #148

>A Google spokesperson told Ars that Duda came up with a theoretical concept that isn't directly patentable, while Google's lawyers are seeking to patent a specific application of that theory that reflects additional work by Google's engineers. and this is how you do it, children. You patent a straightforward implementation and application ("additional work by engineers") of the idea, and thus you effectively prevent…

You can't patent an idea, only an implementation of an idea.

I'm trying to wrap my head around your distinction - is pseudo code that demonstrates Quicksort different than an actual implementation of it in, say, C, C++, Python?

How about where the line's even thinner - Amazon's infamous 'one click purchase' 'algorithm' - which they managed to patent - would you call that an 'idea'? An 'implementation'? A 'process'?

I think anything, including ideas can be patented - and if Google is trying to go by the spirit of the law rather than being Pharisaic about it, they need to cut this guy in for a percentage of the patent of his idea, rather than shafting him because they can.

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

#182

Post by Natanael_L »

paulddraper wrote: post #143
maxk42 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it used to be that no action was necessary to prevent someone from patenting something you've already invented and released publicly: The first person to invent it had the right to patent or not patent it, and nobody else. A few years ago we switched to a "first-to-file" system and this is a direct consequence of that. Someone who didn't invent something can now file a patent. Doing so is a lengthy, expensive pr…

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but there is a reason we switched to the current system. If I've invented widgets (or think that I've invented widgets), I should be able to know if I can patent and sell them, without years later getting sued because someone once did it in their basement and left it at that.

First to invent doesn't automatically mean they can sue when you file your own patent and intend to sell - they have to file their own patent first, and if you've already published enough of the invention before they even filed, then that only means neither side gets a patent (original inventor because they can't wait until after publication to file, second inventor because they were late).

Also, first to file has the same problem you mention. You can invent something, never publish, and get sued by somebody who reinvented it later.

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

#184

Post by Zeklandia »

martin1975 wrote: post #181
wb36 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't patent an idea, only an implementation of an idea.

I'm trying to wrap my head around your distinction - is pseudo code that demonstrates Quicksort different than an actual implementation of it in, say, C, C++, Python? How about where the line's even thinner - Amazon's infamous 'one click purchase' 'algorithm' - which they managed to patent - would you call that an 'idea'? An 'implementation'? A 'process'? I think anything, including ideas can be patented - and if Goo…

He doesn't want money, he wants his work to be in the public domain.

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

#186

Post by bch »

bdowling wrote: post #177
bch wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t this exactly just the job of licensing? With favourable licensing, it seems to me (IANAL) the patenting is just defence for us all, keeping a less-sharing third party from patenting and locking-down a process or implementation.

No. Patents grant a monopoly for a limited time and there is no compulsory licensing regime for patents. Many patent-owners do license their inventions, but others don't.

I think we’re saying the same thing. The licensing isn’t compulsory, but if ONE CHOOSES to license liberally, those are the terms of use. A benevolent actor could patent a thing, freely license, and head off another actor that would patent-and-lock-down.

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

#187

Post by Nomentatus »

bdowling wrote: post #162
maxk42 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it used to be that no action was necessary to prevent someone from patenting something you've already invented and released publicly: The first person to invent it had the right to patent or not patent it, and nobody else. A few years ago we switched to a "first-to-file" system and this is a direct consequence of that. Someone who didn't invent something can now file a patent. Doing so is a lengthy, expensive pr…

A public disclosure by a first inventor prevents a later inventor from receiving a patent on the same invention. Even if that publication happened only one day before you file your application and you had no chance to be influenced by it at all, you will not get a patent (or it will be held invalid). Saying that first-to-file means a non-inventor can lawfully obtain a patent is also wrong. It seems to imply that a ne…

False. A recent U.S. decision holds that such a disclosure must be well known to practitioners of the art, not just known to a few! Publication is no longer sufficient.

You do have to lie and say you thought of it independently; something impossible to disprove. The number of people who'd lie for big money is... innumerable.

You can patent ideas thousands of years old - if they're not well known to practitioners.

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

#188

Post by Nomentatus »

bdowling wrote: post #166
Bjartr wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does copyright handle that problem since copyright is automatic?

It doesn't matter who created a copyrighted work first, because independent creation is an absolute defense to copyright infringement.

Proof of independent creation might be; but similarity provides a statistical test of that. Cases use similarity and probability, they don't take "independent creators" at their word.

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

#189

Post by Nomentatus »

paulddraper wrote: post #143
maxk42 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it used to be that no action was necessary to prevent someone from patenting something you've already invented and released publicly: The first person to invent it had the right to patent or not patent it, and nobody else. A few years ago we switched to a "first-to-file" system and this is a direct consequence of that. Someone who didn't invent something can now file a patent. Doing so is a lengthy, expensive pr…

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but there is a reason we switched to the current system. If I've invented widgets (or think that I've invented widgets), I should be able to know if I can patent and sell them, without years later getting sued because someone once did it in their basement and left it at that.

The extreme case of this being the patents over radio, only settled long after they had expired (tesla won, who died in povery, won.)

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

#190

Post by Nomentatus »

temporalparts wrote: post #149
hamami wrote: post #131

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.

There are such things as defensive publications, which prevents others from patenting something by providing a publicized proof of prior art. But most companies would rather just patent something.

Very hard to manage given that publication is no longer enough - the average practitioner has to be aware of that publication, or it doesn't count, according to a recent U.S. decision.
Post reply on HN