Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology • Hacker News Board

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#41

Post by ezoe » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 6:40 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #36

ezoe wrote: post #30

So, the last year, Waymo claimed that Uber infringe this patent and Uber claimed they redesign it so it didn't infringe the patent now. And then, the same patent is concluded to be "impossible" and "magic". What kind of nonsense is this? How do you use or redesign to avoid using the impossible magic tech?

The way I understand the story from this article, the patent wasn't magic, it was just obvious and plenty of prior art existed. When this guy challenged that patent, Waymo started rewriting it, and this is when the "impossible magic tech" was introduced.

Yes. I read the article and it looks like so.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#42

Post by greenleafjacob » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 6:42 AM UTC

discjockeydom wrote: post #22

I have actually reviewed this man's supposedly vigilante's submission to the USPTO and it is clear that this story is not what it seems. The document is a highly professional 95+ page document of complex legal argumentation that only a law firm with a small team of lawyers with a lot of prior experience doing this could have put together. It contains lots of lawyer speak and contemporary argumentation that a lay pers…

Can you share the document?

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#43

Post by pmorici » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 6:42 AM UTC

discjockeydom wrote: post #22

I have actually reviewed this man's supposedly vigilante's submission to the USPTO and it is clear that this story is not what it seems. The document is a highly professional 95+ page document of complex legal argumentation that only a law firm with a small team of lawyers with a lot of prior experience doing this could have put together. It contains lots of lawyer speak and contemporary argumentation that a lay pers…

If you are willing to sink the time into it it it not impossible for a smart person to do legal work that appears to require a professional lawyer.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#44

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 6:43 AM UTC

consp wrote: post #20

bsder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends on the market. For most software patents, even 3 years might be too much, as in that time the "invention" will be already obsoleted by something else.

I strongly agree with GP that companies should not be able to just sit on patents. The ability to literally prevent useful ways of thinking from manifesting in this world is something that goes against the core justification of the patent system.

Also, I'd like to see much bigger pressure put on quality of patents. All patents are eventually meant to go to public domain, and the public is meant to be able to recreate the invention from the text of the patent. Therefore, I believe a patent should not be granted if it isn't demonstrated that it contains all and accurate information necessary to reproduce the invention.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#45

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 6:58 AM UTC

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.

I disagree that he did not benefit. When a bad patent is invalidated, everyone in society benefits. That so-called "invention" is no longer exclusively locked up in the hands of a single company.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#46

Post by C4stor » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 6:59 AM UTC

simias wrote: post #27

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.

It does look that way but then if that's the case why didn't anybody at Uber point that out during the lawsuit? From the article: >The patent describes how a laser diode can be configured to emit pulses of laser light using a circuit that includes an inductor and a gallium nitride transistor. That chance discovery helped spark a lawsuit in which Waymo accused Uber of patent infringement and of using lidar secrets sup…

Maybe Uber is big enough that noone in the legal team even thought about asking for an engineer opinion on the claims to begin with ? You know, like "This thing is a matter for our department, we'll take of it for sure !"

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#47

Post by endymi0n » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 7:01 AM UTC

calcifer wrote: post #38

discjockeydom wrote: post #22

I have actually reviewed this man's supposedly vigilante's submission to the USPTO and it is clear that this story is not what it seems. The document is a highly professional 95+ page document of complex legal argumentation that only a law firm with a small team of lawyers with a lot of prior experience doing this could have put together. It contains lots of lawyer speak and contemporary argumentation that a lay pers…

It is really funny that a conspiracy theory posted by an anonymous person with no backing evidence whatsoever is sitting at the top of this thread.

It's funny how I seriously can't tell whether you mean the comment or the article on top of this thread.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#48

Post by Buge » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 7:03 AM UTC

ObsoleteNerd wrote: post #39

discjockeydom wrote: post #22

I have actually reviewed this man's supposedly vigilante's submission to the USPTO and it is clear that this story is not what it seems. The document is a highly professional 95+ page document of complex legal argumentation that only a law firm with a small team of lawyers with a lot of prior experience doing this could have put together. It contains lots of lawyer speak and contemporary argumentation that a lay pers…

Or he hired a law firm to write it for him? Not far fetched.

He said he paid $6k, and that he considers the money well spent. It seems weird that he would pay $100k and then claim to have paid $6k.

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#49

Post by haser_au » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 7:04 AM UTC

discjockeydom wrote: post #22

I have actually reviewed this man's supposedly vigilante's submission to the USPTO and it is clear that this story is not what it seems. The document is a highly professional 95+ page document of complex legal argumentation that only a law firm with a small team of lawyers with a lot of prior experience doing this could have put together. It contains lots of lawyer speak and contemporary argumentation that a lay pers…

I think this story does an injustice by calling him an 'engineer'. He cofounded Speedera Networks, which was acquired for $130m by Akamai after a 3-year patent battle, a battle he was on the front-line of and learnt a lot about patent infringement. Yes, he's an engineer, but he's also an engineer who knows more than the average engineer about patents and complex legal argumentation.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit...

Re: Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

#50

Post by akavel » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 7:05 AM UTC

discjockeydom wrote: post #22

I have actually reviewed this man's supposedly vigilante's submission to the USPTO and it is clear that this story is not what it seems. The document is a highly professional 95+ page document of complex legal argumentation that only a law firm with a small team of lawyers with a lot of prior experience doing this could have put together. It contains lots of lawyer speak and contemporary argumentation that a lay pers…

The Ars article omitted an important background note about the guy, that he sold a company for $120M at one point, and that it was "cheaply" because he was forced to do so by a lost patent dispute: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18119018