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

201–210 of 510 posts

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

#201

Post by blablabla123 »

Joeri wrote: post #175
blablabla123 wrote: post #100

Had this already 3 times that interviewers ask me out about their Engineering problems, and how I would solve them. Initially I got good or very good feedback but then afterwards was rejected. It feels weird, also if I consider that they might do this with every person interviewed. Crowdsourcing knowledge through interviews, yay ;) Seems far more appropriate to get toy problems, if that is needed at all, or to get sc…

I don’t think there’s bad intent here, just a case of the interviewer wanting to offer up a challenge and taking the one that is top of mind.

True...

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

#202

Post by pbhjpbhj »

TheDong wrote: post #58
lkdjjdjjjdskjd wrote: post #44

It could just be people independently working on the same things, as is common in technology.

For the purpose of a patent, that doesn't help. "Independent creation" is a valid defense for copyright, but not for patents. Something cannot be patented if prior art exists before the filing of the patent. It doesn't matter if you knew about it. Even if you can prove that the prior art is not something you were aware of at the time you filed for a patent, your patent is invalid. That's how patents are supposed to w…

>If google knows that someone else has created such things (as they must have after said visit), the only responsible thing to do is not file a patent, regardless of if they independently worked on it. //

A job interview is not a public disclosure and so doesn't count as prior art. So novelty is not affected.

However, the applicant must derive rights (employment, assignment) from the inventor in order to apply for a patent.

In UK IIRC S.13 of the Patents Act allows an inventor to file to be named as the inventor (or co-inventor) and for the patent to be reassigned accordingly.

Of course taking Google to court is going to be a hard slog.

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

#203

Post by ionised »

sn41 wrote: post #120
georgeek wrote: post #94

Just a reminder that Google, or any company for that matter, has a fiduciary duty towards their shareholders to file a patent for everything they have learned about and that hasn't been patented yet.

Is this really the case? I know that Milton Friedman promoted this idea, but can pursuing some welfare at the cost of short-term profits be an offence?

I think it's time we all stopped listening to anything Friedman said.

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

#204

Post by pbhjpbhj »

kbutler wrote: post #107
gammateam wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So for 20 years, if I wish to create and sell a book with transistors I have to license the idea from google (that is if they're even willing to give me a license)? No. Google wasn't supposed to try and patent it. I responded to a very specific piece of the article which seemed to ignore that patent applications functioning as prior art is available to subculture enthusiasts too. The whole concluding paragraph was…

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 infringement, but not by willful negligence, is actually a defence against an award of damages in the UK. Precisely to protect this fundamental tier of the patent system.

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

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

#205

Post by dboreham »

Joeri wrote: post #180
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In software it is well known that nobody reads patents who does the actual work in the field. Getting rid of them would not have a meaningful downside in the dissemination of information. Most people in the industry agree software patents are bad for the software industry and they should be abolished. But, if that’s true for software, why isn’t it true for other fields? Simply put: what evidence is there patents are…

But...drug companies...

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

#206

Post by christophilus »

ilaksh wrote: post #133
CalChris wrote: post #34

Regina Dugan is a former head of DARPA as well as ATAP. She has an impressive resume. Why would she do something like this? For a not particularly important patent, LED popup books? It seems bizarre. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_E._Dugan

People don't get to the top by being ethical. They get to the top of the org chart by playing politics. Many of them are practically psychopaths.

It does increasingly feel this way, but I think (hope?) it's selection bias. In other words we hear about the psychopaths because they are newsworthy. We don't generally hear about the average CEO, because they are average and generally follow expected social norms.

At least, that's what I hope.

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

#208

Post by _urga »

jackvalentine wrote: post #164
_urga wrote: post #160

Software patents need to be banned. In the interim, employee incentives (ego, bonuses) to being listed as an "inventor" while BigCompany remains the "assignee" could be ameliorated with a "Software Patent Hall of Shame" (SPHS), which would list software engineers complicit in software patents. This would disincentivize software engineers from stealing ideas, from allowing their work to be patented, or from signing ag…

Is this even a software patent?

No, but it's Google's love of software patents that is spilling over into everything else, like popup books.

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

#209

Post by heurist »

StudentStuff wrote: post #109
setquk wrote: post #98

It’s down to individuals rather than culture in these things. By purely statistics, an organisation of any size has less than ethical people in it even if they have the best outward impression. Unfortunately these sorts of people tend to favour power and slowly work their way to positions that give them that. Then the whole org is a bad apple. Having been in a similar situation before, the correct answer is “I’ll get…

Repeated unethical behavior is not the fault of a few bad actors, but of an organization designed to encourage that behavior. I wouldn't discount Google as being at fault seeing as how we already have two instances of Google's ATAP committing patent fraud despite little research and outreach being done. One fun fact I stumbled across is any misconduct when filing for a patent voids the entire patent application, not…

Designing am organization and keeping it running well are incredibly difficult. What you see as encouraging poor behavior could easily be poor management. I have never worked at Google so I do not know.

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

#210

Post by adventured »

buboard wrote: post #156
taneq wrote: post #6

I'm amazed at how relaxed their response is. If I told someone about some of my work and then found out they'd tried to patent it, I would be pissed !

Probably wouldnt ring nice for MIT to go to war with google

Interestingly enough in the hierarchy of power in that context, MIT has more than Google.

MIT is free standing when it comes to their finances. They have a $16.4 billion endowment. So Google (etc) doesn't have economic leverage over them, such that MIT always needs money and can't afford to ever cross large organizations.

If you get three or four of the better schools together in the conflict, Google would beg forgiveness. They desperately need access to the best those schools have to offer, and they know it. That access and relationship is worth more than gold or pride to them. Money? They've got so much they have no idea what to do with it. Get cut out of critical relationships with elite schools and that can take enough of your edge away over time that you start losing in subsequent competitive rounds of don't be killed by tech inflection.

Post reply on HN