This 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.
If the patent is granted, then any litigant bears the burden of proof in disproving it. The cost of patent litigation is sufficient that any institution would have difficulty pursuing such a case to that point, much less a group of volunteers that maintain an open source project.
Oh well... It's clear the USPTO isn't doing any reasonable homework in approving patents, but this issue in particular isn't that troubling because there is clearly prior art. Sounds like these companies are just wasting their money on something that will never actually be useful.
The techdirt author obviously didn't bother to read the comments on the slashdot article outlining the second claim.
The IBM patent lists the coder's software as prior art. If they were stealing the idea, they obviously wouldn't do that. They're patenting enhancements that aren't in the coder's software, although the difficulty of reading patents makes that difficult to distinguish.
Oh well... It's clear the USPTO isn't doing any reasonable homework in approving patents, but this issue in particular isn't that troubling because there is clearly prior art. Sounds like these companies are just wasting their money on something that will never actually be useful.
The vast information required to do "reasonable homework" on software patents makes me hesitant to blame the USPTO. I blame the rest of the system for not making it clear that such patents are nonstatutory.
"It's funny how often we hear patent system supporters tell us that if you haven't actually gotten a patent for your invention, it's perfectly reasonable for someone else to go and patent it instead."
The 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,'…
I think you started off with a good idea: major players beginning to ignore litigation might improve the situation. But I think that would be more likely to come from judges throwing out cases than defendants not showing up for court, for reasons that eli stated. You also kinda lost me at the word "corrupt," because you took on a sensationalist tone. I think that "corrupt" and "in need of reform" are not the same problem. The patent system was designed with noble intentions. Its major fault (IMHO) is that it hasn't kept up with technology.
Can one patent the method of reading open source code and patenting what's been found?
That's it. I'm patenting patent-related recursive jokes. If I see one more of these on HN, I'm taking the poster to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction for a few very rare types of cases (which are outlined in the US Constitution) and discretionary jurisdiction for everything else, so they have no obligation to grant a writ of certiorari and hear your case.
You have to start with one of the lower federal courts, instead.
That's it. I'm patenting patent-related recursive jokes. If I see one more of these on HN, I'm taking the poster to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction for a few very rare types of cases (which are outlined in the US Constitution) and discretionary jurisdiction for everything else, so they have no obligation to grant a writ of certiorari and hear your case. You have to start with one of the lower federal courts, instead.