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

Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

patentpandas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 510 posts

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#261

Post by nathan_f77 »

paul7986 wrote: post #91

I met/had a similar experience with Google ATAP in 2013 (was Motorala ATAP then; Google recently bought them) though not for a job interview but to discuss working together to build our tech SpeakerBlast into the Moto X. They asked if we ever thought about selling our technology to them before the meeting and at the meeting they baited us for how our tech worked saying we'd like to work with you tell us how it works.…

Wow that's crazy. I didn't know they did stuff like that.

Also I didn't know Google had patents for syncing audio across phones. I wonder if any of the mobile apps (like AmpMe [1]) have to pay some license fees.

I once spent an evening researching the different apps that could sync audio across multiple devices [2]. I also wanted to build my own app, so tried to see if it would be possible (only if you have a jailbroken phone.) I just wanted to play the same audio on two pairs of AirPods. I found out that the Samsung Galaxy S9 has a Dual Audio feature, and the iPhone X can theoretically support this with Bluetooth 5.0. And the AmpMe app can sync audio across multiple phones. (I was also really surprised to find out that they're a pretty huge company with 20 full time employees.)

[1] https://www.ampme.com

[2] https://www.evernote.com/l/ACo7ItT-pItKkZoYf0YJy0raGhN5255FR...

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#262

Post by 2_listerine_pls »

jackgavigan wrote: post #198

IANAL, but 35 U.S. Code § 115 requires that "each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute an oath or declaration" that they believe "himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application," and acknowledging "that any willful false statement made in such declaration or statement…

I hope someone makes an example out of them.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#263

Post by xigency »

beautifulfreak wrote: post #24

If the author pops in here, I hope he takes a look at this patent, because it might be prior art: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8512151 I complained about it to the "Stupid Patent of the Month" attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (here: https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month ) and got a nice response agreeing that it looks obvious.

I used to work in the online slot machine business and saw some of the patents related to slots. Most of them seemed trivial but it did affect how we could design our games. Certain features of the reels bouncing or paylines being awarded were patented. There were other ideas like connecting players to each other that seemed like they shouldn't be patent-able.

With that perspective, this board game patent actually looks very good. It certainly isn't an idea that I've thought of before or seen.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#264

Post by mathattack »

paul7986 wrote: post #91

I met/had a similar experience with Google ATAP in 2013 (was Motorala ATAP then; Google recently bought them) though not for a job interview but to discuss working together to build our tech SpeakerBlast into the Moto X. They asked if we ever thought about selling our technology to them before the meeting and at the meeting they baited us for how our tech worked saying we'd like to work with you tell us how it works.…

Didn’t they spoof this in the Silicon Valley series?

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#265

Post by mathattack »

m_mueller wrote: post #249
Waterluvian wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king.

Also holds for someone saying "I'm intelligent" and "trust me".

And “Frankly” and “I’ll be honest”...

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#266

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

_Schizotypy wrote: post #250
jules wrote: post #134

If your country has "democratic" in the name it's probably not democratic. If your major has "science" in the name it's probably not science. If your company has "don't be evil" in its motto...

So what is neuroscience then

That's why it should just be under neurology.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#267

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

zawerf wrote: post #35

She worded that way too diplomatically. What google did here is one of the evilest things you can do. They are taking open research and trying to close it off. Research that they didn't even contribute to! Research that they didn't need patent rights for because it's already free for them to use. But they can't allow anyone after them to have the same privilege can they?

These are just some of the reasons patents are fundamentally broken and the patent system as a whole should be scrapped. Another big issue is that, like most any law, enforcing it costs significant money, and that cost scales depending upon who your opponent is. The cost for a little guy to enforce a patent claim against google is vastly out of proportion to the cost of google to enforce a patent claim against a little guy. This means that the patent system ends up being another form of regulatory capture used to squash competition. If we just removed patents, major corporations would be just as free as today to steal from the little guys, but at least they couldn't then weaponize their patents to crush the original inventors.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#268

Post by kbutler »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #204
kbutler wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems with patents as prior art for new inventions are manifold: - The common advice is for practitioners to avoid learning about existing patents, because this knowledge increases liability in case you are found to infringe. This means that the body of patented work is really only useful for patent lawyers, rather than for inventors. - Similarly, patents are not written in ways to instruct practitioners to us…

Hmm, being aware that you're infringing a patent, and continuing to do it anyway, is of course bad legally speaking. But inventors not using parent literature is catastrophically bad. So many applications are repeated, in some fields the same thing is "invented" over and over because people don't even makea cursory attempt to understand the technology in the field vs the products available. Being unaware of infringem…

> If people can't use the disclosures then the system serves virtually no purpose.

That's not quite true - although disclosure is an often argued benefit of the patent system, there are very few inventions that cannot be copied once a working item is in someone's hands, so a formal disclosure is not necessarily required to be able to build upon and extend existing work.

But even without disclosure, when appropriate patents are granted, they can "[secure] for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" even if the patent library is not useful for research.

Re: Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

#270

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #171
perfunctory wrote: post #92

Patents must be abolished. Recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele...

And replaced with? Industrial secrecy doesn't seem like a better system. Perhaps you'd like shorter term patents, or want to fix some other deficit?

>And replaced with?

Nothing. Industry secrets is a far better model than giving major corporations access to government power that they can use to crush smaller competition, sometimes for work that they stole from the smaller competition.

Post reply on HN