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

Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 156 posts

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#11

Post by bsder »

Groxx wrote: post #6
canada_dry wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Just like how engineers certify building plans to ensure the laws of physics are respected, patents really should need to go through some sort of peer certification review - at the submitter's expense - before it gets in front of an examiner!

Making patents even slower to approve, and even more big-corp-only focused. You win some, you lose some. I'm not even sure which I'd prefer. It's all just fairly terrible.

For the little guy--you lose some, they win more.

Patents need to have a much shorter lifetime except when regulation is involved.

Tech patents, in general, should probably last about 5 years. If you get a patent, you should have to actively promote and license it if you want money from it. You shouldn't be able to just sit on it for decades and then nail somebody who comes out with a useful product down the road.

Medical patents probably should be a little different. They should probably be 5 years OR you can tie the patent to an FDA approval which would give you FDA approval date+5 years. But, if that particular FDA approval fails, your patent falls.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#12

Post by eridius »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #2

That's stunning that (evidently) no one noticed the patents were for a physically impossible design. Was the legal battle even about the designs or more so for posturing?

From the article, it sounds like Waymo's attempts at rewriting the patent were what introduced the physical impossibilities. Presumably the circuit from the original patent was physically possible.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#14

Post by burfog »

canada_dry wrote: post #5
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #2

That's stunning that (evidently) no one noticed the patents were for a physically impossible design. Was the legal battle even about the designs or more so for posturing?

I agree. Just like how engineers certify building plans to ensure the laws of physics are respected, patents really should need to go through some sort of peer certification review - at the submitter's expense - before it gets in front of an examiner!

The review will never be enough.

It's better to eliminate the presumption of validity. Without that presumption, there is no need to bother with review, and patents become little more than certified timestamps.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#16

Post by isatty »

CloudYeller wrote: post #10
drakenot wrote: post #7

I'm impressed that the random engineer was willing to put up $6k of his own money to challenge the patent, despite not benefiting from the decision in any way.

"Random engineer", or guy who sold a company for $130M after a patent-induced nightmare? https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit...

Doesn’t matter - he saw something anyone with EE101 should’ve spotted from the rewrite, stuck with his guns for no personal gain and won.

I would love to have that much attention to detail (or even in the interest in reading through the patent).

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#19

Post by deepnotderp »

twtw wrote: post #13

Props to this guy. I just took a look at the patent (highly recommended), and it's fairly ridiculous. It's a 101 design to control a diode with a transistor.

Literally is a GaN xtor driving a laser diode. It's not like Velodyne has been doing that for years :/

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#20

Post by consp »

bsder wrote: post #11
Groxx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making patents even slower to approve, and even more big-corp-only focused. You win some, you lose some. I'm not even sure which I'd prefer. It's all just fairly terrible.

For the little guy--you lose some, they win more. Patents need to have a much shorter lifetime except when regulation is involved. Tech patents, in general, should probably last about 5 years. If you get a patent, you should have to actively promote and license it if you want money from it. You shouldn't be able to just sit on it for decades and then nail somebody who comes out with a useful product down the road. Me…

5 years, from filing to market to making profit is really short. Maybe it works for simple parents but I'm pretty sure most true inventions (and smaller companies with somewhat less complicated patents) will not be able to profit properly from the patent that way.
Post reply on HN