Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#2The state of software patents continues to deteriorate without any hope of reform in sight. I'm starting to suspect the situation will only improve once it has become bad enough that major players in the game begin to ignore litigation involving software patents. Perhaps defendants will not show up for court en masse, causing the current corrupt system to starve itself out of its patent attorneys, 'IP holding firms,' and the judges and districts willing to pander to them. What kind of trouble for the system would be caused by a large number of parties failing to appear?
Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#3Can one patent the method of reading open source code and patenting what's been found?
Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#4The state of software patents continues to deteriorate without any hope of reform in sight. I'm starting to suspect the situation will only improve once it has become bad enough that major players in the game begin to ignore litigation involving software patents. Perhaps defendants will not show up for court en masse, causing the current corrupt system to starve itself out of its patent attorneys, 'IP holding firms,'…
Not quite sure I follow. If you don't show up for your court date, a default judgement can be entered against you and the bad guys win.
Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#5Can one patent the method of reading open source code and patenting what's been found?
A meta-patent? Would still be vulnerable to meta-meta patenting tactics.
Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#6This is particularly troubling in the US, where the company could file for a patent after seeing the commit, but claim to have "invented" the idea before. IANAL, but I think the burden of proof would be on anyone who challenged the patent.
Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#7This is particularly troubling in the US, where the company could file for a patent after seeing the commit, but claim to have "invented" the idea before. IANAL, but I think the burden of proof would be on anyone who challenged the patent.
I was going to argue why I think you are wrong but I am also not a lawer so instead, I will point out that IANAL comments in legal threads generally provide more noise than signal. Maybe we should strive to avoid them?
Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#8Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#9This is particularly troubling in the US, where the company could file for a patent after seeing the commit, but claim to have "invented" the idea before. IANAL, but I think the burden of proof would be on anyone who challenged the patent.
I was going to argue why I think you are wrong but I am also not a lawer so instead, I will point out that IANAL comments in legal threads generally provide more noise than signal. Maybe we should strive to avoid them?
A reply from a lawyer would be ideal, but since the rest of us are affected by the legal system, I do think some attempts to understand it are worthwhile.
Here's a link to argue against me, but does it apply after the patent is granted, or only before? There's presumption of validity after. http://patents101.com/2009/03/date-of-invention-first-to-inv...
Re: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
#10This is particularly troubling in the US, where the company could file for a patent after seeing the commit, but claim to have "invented" the idea before. IANAL, but I think the burden of proof would be on anyone who challenged the patent.
I was going to argue why I think you are wrong but I am also not a lawer so instead, I will point out that IANAL comments in legal threads generally provide more noise than signal. Maybe we should strive to avoid them?
What are your arguments? He is right the US is first to invent. I think he is wrong in the claim to have invented it earlier bit is easy, the repo commit time line(and mailing list emails etc.) would give a firm date which the claiming party would have to have proof of inventing before. That is to say it isn't like a criminal case where only one side has to prove anything both parties have to prove invention dates.