[deleted]
Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
31–40 of 217 posts
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#32What is the relative advantage of putting something into the public domain versus releasing under an Apache 2 or MIT license? The latter doesn’t restrict anyone’s use AND establishes a public record to refute what Google is trying to do. Additionally, communications by email could be via GitHub issues and open to all to see.
The MIT License requires copies of the software to give attribution to the copyright holder, as well as the licence text. Though it is a very permissive licence, this does pose some barrier to using the software. Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for, but would not mind using software that is in the public domain. Releasing software to the public domain ensures that as many…
> Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for
why would that be? They certainly already need to put in a license page/dialog/display somewhere, so it makes so little difference adding an extra piece of text there.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their main goal is to not get sued. As long as no one else is granted the patent they probably won't be too unhappy. As a large tech firm just not patenting anything doesn't seem practical given the current patent law even if you don't plan on suing people for them. Once you get a patent another company can't get a patent for the same thing (and if they do it's easy to invalidate) and also the more patents you have t…
> Their main goal is to not get sued. So there's no practical way to demonstrate prior art without filing a patent?
Your question suggests their goal is to win when sued. That can be expensive. The goal is not to be sued in the first place.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we are going to have to rely on the goodwill of Google not to sue others if they are awarded the patent? How about being a good corporate citizen like the others and not trying to patent it in the first place?
Corporations do not act with goodwill, and those that do are often not successful corporations for long, as others take advantage of them. Remember that every time you see a corporation seemingly acting selflessly, either you don't realize how it benefits them, or its just a public relations play. But corporations always act in self-interest.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. Sounds like a win win scenario for Google. If the courts decide Google can't patent it, it probably means nobody else can either.
How is this a win-win scenario for Google? They’re attempting to do something that is strictly against the interest of the inventor and abusing the patent system in order to achieve a commerical advantage at the cost of the rest of humanity. This is totally evil in my view.
> at the cost of the rest of humanity
This is the main reason why I'm on the fence regarding nuclear non-proliferation. We're approaching the point where nuking the 'plex from orbit will be humanity's last option, the only way to be sure.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#36intellectual property shouldn't exist.
Intellectual property done right puts bread on the table of many researchers and engineers and is arguably a protection agains't direct Chinese theft. That being said, Google is really turning into a monster at this point with all their patents on random algorithms.
>protection agains't direct Chinese theft.
Man........... A detailed patent with blueprints is like a call for action for an average broke and desperate factory owner
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#37That was discussed on HN almost a year ago, with me being slapped either for my use of colourful rhetorics, ... or possibly divulging on their correspondence.
Basically things were like that: Google's side said something to the effect of "you are free to sue us, if you can" and a colourful comment on his income level. And after leaving a mail address of their attorney, they went incommunicado.
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their main goal is to not get sued. So there's no practical way to demonstrate prior art without filing a patent?
Your question suggests their goal is to win when sued. That can be expensive. The goal is not to be sued in the first place.
[deleted]
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#39What is the relative advantage of putting something into the public domain versus releasing under an Apache 2 or MIT license? The latter doesn’t restrict anyone’s use AND establishes a public record to refute what Google is trying to do. Additionally, communications by email could be via GitHub issues and open to all to see.
The MIT License requires copies of the software to give attribution to the copyright holder, as well as the licence text. Though it is a very permissive licence, this does pose some barrier to using the software. Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for, but would not mind using software that is in the public domain. Releasing software to the public domain ensures that as many…
Licensing is not that simple. From the Creative Commons CC0 page.
"Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain."[1]
As an aside, I have no sympathy for companies that would refuse to use software licensed under MIT because they need to provide attribution.
[1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc...
Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
enedil is correct. To expand on that: MIT and Apache2 grant a licence to copyrightable expression. But the literal code is not what is patented, the idea is. Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea. MIT doesn't say anything about patents. Apache2 additionally grants a licence to any patents which the author has which cover the work, and also tries to prevent s…
> the author should have patented the idea, then freely licensed it This is the brutal truth of how crappy our current patent mechanisms are. The definition of what constitutes a patentable extension to practice of ideas that are well known or explicitly in the public domain is very weak. So, until something is patented and actively protected by bulldog lawyers, there is a risk of someone else trying to umbrella it i…
> This is the brutal truth of how crappy our current patent mechanisms are.
Being granted a patent by the USPTO doesn't guarantee that the patent is actually valid. It's technically possible for them to grant identical patents to two separate people by mistake, and then the courts have to determine which one is valid.