71–80 of 217 posts
Another example why software patents don't really work. Because most thing software patents cover are not really inventions but ideas. Also the written code is already protected via copyright. That is the difference to a eg. wind mill, the blue prints are only protected by a patent, not by copyright. And it effects only the implementation.
What 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.
For example: https://jsfiddle.net/rectang/fwto2ejh/
The CC0 dedication is at the bottom; you have to scroll to it.
I chose to slightly modify the CC0 dedication for this to comport with the fact that you won't receive a copy of CC0 with the materials. I didn't like having to do that and wish that Creative Commons would provide an official accommodation. I'm reasonably confident that my change won't materially affect a future court case over my code though. :)
ETA: I strongly recommend that other people DO NOT change dedications. I'm reasonably educated on these topics for a layperson, but not a lawyer. I mentioned the change as a warning that my dedication should not be considered a CC-approved template.
The US used to have a great First-To-Invent patent system. It disappointingly switched to First-To-File in 2013 and these patents you are seeing are the result. With FTI Google could use the compression technique without filing because if someone else later filed Google could show that they had reduced it to practice first. However with FTF, any technology Google might potentially use in the future, they must file a…
What 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.
I explicitly put some code samples under CC0 because I want people to feel complete freedom to copy and paste the code without needing to maintain attribution or worry about licensing compatibility. For example: https://jsfiddle.net/rectang/fwto2ejh/ The CC0 dedication is at the bottom; you have to scroll to it. I chose to slightly modify the CC0 dedication for this to comport with the fact that you won't receive a c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You act like self-interest is black and white. Oracle persues profit at any expense, often via lawsuits. Google uses patents as a defense mechanism against other companies. Both are self-interest, but very different degrees.
Even if you have unwavering faith in a company's current leadership, when that leadership is not making money, they will be replaced by someone who is. So if the possibility to patent troll exists, eventually, it will.
Earlier 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about an “On the record” public domain dedication where dates, code, issues, wiki, etc are a matter of public record and establish legal grounds of prior art for countering patent issues like this?
I remember reading that IBM once did just that. I think they submitted something to the US Patent Office, but I cannot remember the reference. Might have been in the 360 days.
-- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Technical_Disclosure_Bulle...
intellectual 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A court ruling against someone patenting this would strongly discourage anyone else from trying.
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.