Live data from Hacker News

Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

patentpandas.org

431–440 of 510 posts

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

#431
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s ironic to argue that an author’s identity doesn’t really matter, in which an author describes an eregious attempt by a company to steal credit for her work.

I'm sorry, don't see the connection you are trying to make. In the context of her story, gender is not relevant; she apparently didn't think so either, since the only way I could tell from the article was her hands shown in the last picture.

Her identity is important, and gender is one part of her identity. She didn't state her name either in the article, does that make it OK to refer to her as "Richard Stallman" until she explicitly demands credit?

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

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a level of douchiness I cannot fathom. What possesses these people to act in this fashion and how do they sleep at night? How is this not seen as clearly unethical behavior? A clear violation of Wheaton's Law, here. I mean... I could easily take that lollipop from that naïve baby in that baby carriage... but I don't, simply because I'm Not A Dick™. Did all of Silicon Valley get the wrong takeaway from the App…

>>What possesses these people to act in this fashion and how do they sleep at night? It is very simple, they only care about themselves. Everything else is irrelevant.

It is greed and a hefty bonus.. and if they have to walk over 50 corpses, it doesn't really matter. There is no point trying to discuss ethics with a snake. Those people have a distorted sense of honor (or not at all).

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

#433
30 years ago, I implemented pie menus at the University of Maryland Human Computer Interaction Lab, and the UMD Office of Technology Liaison wanted me to patent them, but I decided not to, and I don't regret it. The patent would have been assigned to a little patent trolling company that UMD has a parasitic relationship with, and very little of the money would have ever found its way back to me or the University.

https://medium.com/@donhopkins/pie-menus-936fed383ff1?source...

But that's not the worst problem patenting pie menus would have caused:

If I'd patented them, it would have effectively prevented me from using them myself in subsequent proprietary and open source projects, like The NeWS Toolkit, TCL/Tk, The Sims, SimCity, Unity3D, etc.

Convincing Sun or Electronic Arts or any other employer or client to license a patented user interface interaction technique instead of using an inferior freely available one would have been a non-starter, as would have been using it in any open source projects.

It was only because I didn't file a patent that I was able to freely implement pie menus for NeWS at Sun, and use them in SimCity and The Sims.

You're not always going to be working for the same company or attending the same school for the rest of your life, so it's not a good idea to hand over all the rights to your ideas to them, because you'll have to pay if you ever want to use them again yourself. But if you give them away to everyone for free, you get to use them yourself after you leave, and they're free for everyone to use in open source projects.

>Open Sourcing SimCity: Chaim Gingold’s “Play Design” PhD Thesis: "Pie menus play a critical role in The Sim’s user interface design, dovetailing perfectly with the object and AI architecture. Objects advertise verbs to character AI, so it is natural for the verbs to be arranged in a radial menu about objects. I can’t imagine an alternate design that would have had the same widespread usability, and therefore appeal, without them. It is difficult to imagine The Sims without pie menus." -Chaim Gingold, Play Design PhD Thesis, Open Sourcing SimCity

https://medium.com/@donhopkins/open-sourcing-simcity-58470a2...

Unfortunately other people filed misleading patents around pie menus that should never have been granted, because they tried to retroactively redefine what pie menus were by ignoring published prior art, and coined a new term "marking menu" which they defined by a straw man comparison to their self-servingly gerrymandered misunderstanding of pie menus.

So they ended up patenting fictitious "differences" between "marking menus" and "pie menus" that weren't really differences: obvious features pie menus had always had, and that I'd written about and demonstrated in SIGCHI videos, but they'd conveniently ignored, because they needed to trick the patent office into thinking those properties were unique to "marking menus".

Then they misleadingly and systematically used those patents as FUD for decades in their marketing brochures, advertisements, and word of mouth from their sales people on trade show floors. They purposefully discouraged other companies like Kinetix and open source projects like Blender from doing anything remotely resembling pie menus, whether or not they actually infringed on their patents.

https://medium.com/@donhopkins/pie-menu-fud-and-misconceptio...

Huge Problem: Software Patents and FUD

Autodesk Advertisement About “Patented Marking Menus”: "Marking Menus. Quickly select commands without looking away from the design. Patented marking menus let you use context-sensitive gestures to select commands."

http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/aliasdesign10_detail_b...

There is a sad history of people using software patents to make misleading claims about obvious techniques that they didn’t originate, and constructing flawed straw man definitions of ersatz pie menus to contrast with their own inventions, to mislead the patent examiners into granting patents.

There is a financial and institutional incentive to be lazy about researching and less than honest in reporting and describing prior art, in the hopes that it will slip by the patent examiners, which it very often does.

[...]

The Alias Marking Menu Patent Discouraged the Open Source Blender Community from Using Pie Menus for Decades

Here is another example that of how that long term marketing FUD succeeded in holding back progress: the Blender community was discussing when the marking menu patent would expire, in anticipation of when they might finally be able to use marking menus in blender (even though it has always been fine to use pie menus).

As the following discussion shows, there is a lot of purposefully sewn confusion and misunderstanding about the difference between marking menus and pie menus, and what exactly is patented, because of the inconsistent and inaccurate definitions and mistakes in the papers and patents and Alias’s marketing FUD:

"Hi. In a recently closed topic regarding pie menus, LiquidApe said that marking menus are a patent of Autodesk, a patent that would expire shortly. The question is: When ? When could marking menus be usable in Blender ? I couldn’t find any info on internet, mabie some of you know."

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

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Satanists do not believe in Satan. They do not worship the individual, directly, named Satan who is found in the Christian religion. Satanists look at Satan, especially Milton's Satan as a literary figure who embodies individualism and free thought. To that end, they are edgy Libertarians.

I ran across an interesting (fictional) variation of this viewpoint once where Satan was cast as the unsung hero of a resistance movement, fighting on behalf of human beings against a tyrannical God. Unfortunately, the resistance lost—and the "history" espoused by most major religions is basically just propaganda on behalf of the winning side. (IIRC this was mentioned offhand as background data for one character at s…

There's a piece of Lord of the Rings fanfic around that inverts it in the same way -- Mordor was really a democratic scientific place and they just wanted to understand how magic really worked, but were defeated by the autocratic kings of the rest of the world who wanted to keep magic to themselves. The standard history is propaganda, etc.

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

#435
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 litt…

Not just patents, but all intellectual property. Copyright is arguably even more broken, lasting a century or more. It's ridiculous. My disdain for the DMCA is immeasurable, and the upcoming EU directive looks even worse.

Not only are these systems broken in their implementation, but there is little evidence that even in their most pure form they accomplished their supposed intention.

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

#436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (even though the particulars on how it's possible to not be zero-sum still escape me and hurt my head). If I have a hamburger patty and a hot dog bun, and you have a hot dog bun and a hamburger patty, we both win if we trade (it's not zero-sum). You can generalize this across more than one party and more than two goods pretty easily.

Assuming no caloric difference between the buns and between the meats, the perceived increase in value is purely aesthetic/intangible though!

The analogy wasn't really about hot dogs and hamburgers, but about complementarity.

Assume that you have something that has a complementary relationship with something I have, but doesn't have a complementary relationship with anything you have. Assume that I'm in the same situation in relation to you. If we trade objects, we both benefit. Hot dog buns and hamburger buns are designed to be complements of certain respective forms of ground meats, hence the naming scheme.

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

#437

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.…

This is a level of douchiness I cannot fathom. What possesses these people to act in this fashion and how do they sleep at night? How is this not seen as clearly unethical behavior? A clear violation of Wheaton's Law, here. I mean... I could easily take that lollipop from that naïve baby in that baby carriage... but I don't, simply because I'm Not A Dick™. Did all of Silicon Valley get the wrong takeaway from the App…

One word: greed!

”For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” ‭‭I Timothy‬ ‭6:10‬

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

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bonuses are actually not that large. The real motivation is to have patents to put into your promo packet to help you the next time you apply for promotion. I had 2 patents issued when I was at Google. As best as I can recall, the bonus for first one was nice ($5K?), and then the second was much smaller ($1K). I'm not sure how far the reward decays (I do not recall if it reaches zero). I remember thinking at the…

$5K is large for a US company IMHO, but I don't work in CA. It's still a tiny incentive and peanuts compared to how much the lawyer and the PTO get paid for your patent. You know why they pay you? Two reasons. One is as an incentive - people get all excited about little 1K bonuses. The other is that they are effectively "buying" your idea. That whole bit about the assignee? Yeah, no. In the US, the inventor is legall…

Well, the first bonus was large. I think the idea was to give you an incentive to try it, and get you used to the system. After that, the benefits decreased. I think that after several patents, the bonus dwindled to (almost) nothing.

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

#439
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NDAs generally aren't worth the paper they're written on, but holy hell is that one a piece of work. The "residuals" concept basically gives them an open invite to copy anything they like so long as they didn't "intentionally memorize" it. Establishing intent is no easy task.

The one thing that NDAs do extremely well, and the reason that companies like them signed is protect against prior art (the opposite of what we're talking about above). Without an NDA, if you've had a conversation with another company about your tech, then it has become public domain and you can be prevented from patenting. With NDA that problem doesn't exist.

Conversation with a company doesn't count as prior art under new first-to-publish rules.

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

#440
post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bUt bUt...ChInA dOeS iP tHeFt

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Also for repeatedly posting flamebait and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Can you point me to the requests to stop? I've seen exactly one, a long time ago. I'm not personally attacking people, and I do contribute here with a positive upvote score. I don't see the issue.
Post reply on HN