71–80 of 510 posts
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 !
Yeah, like wtf? >they offered to add me as an inventor on the patent application if it meant the applications could stand. I said no
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the author is a she.
True, but I didn't see that she identified herself, or her gender, in the article. So what's a commenter to do? That's an honest question. Mangle to use "they"? Use some genderless pronoun that'll piss off x% of readers?
Mangle? "They" is perfectly fine to use in this situation, it's not mangling at all.
Something very similar happened to me. When I was at university studying CS I was running a Arduino fansite and a fansite for a videogame - both of whom made most of their money from affiliate revenue (a couple hundred bucks per month). I thought it would be cool to work at Reddit (was close to graduating), and I had read blog posts from here and various other sites and IRC about how hiring managers liked projects. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you read Google's visitor agreement. You give up some IP rights by signing that. I guess the "don't be evil" thing is already well down the toilet. What's that all about? A new form of tribute when you're called upon to kiss Google's ring?
I'm pretty sure all companies do similar.
> More importantly, sharing work publicly keeps the project can alive and inspires others to continue developing! Which a patent does too, just with a license or 20 years later. It keeps people from reinventing the wheel and gives the disclosure rights even if they didn't have the infrastructure to create or monetize on their own. This isn't one of those nefarious software patents where the whole thing would be obsol…
> [a] patent [keeps thhe project alive] too > perfect for a 20 year exclusivity period 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)? And somehow having to go through that legal loophole will keep the art of creating LED books alive? You seriously believe that? Does the patent have complex details whi…
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 about making ideas that other people can build from, it wasn't about LED books in general. They want ideas to be available for others to build from but don't want others to patent it, ignoring that attempting to patent it yourself also fixes this, no matter how you actually use the patent or failed/abandoned application.
(Although, I'll concede that patenting is an expensive bet that not everyone would have the money or risk tolerance for.)
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
>> Why would she do something like $badthing?
Am I the only one wondering why anyone would think a person's resume should be any kind of predictor of good or bad behaviour?
On a certain level, it makes sense. Google wants to patent it to cover their bases and make sure no one else does the same thing and blocks them . It's a rational move in a shitty game.
Did you sign Google's visitor agreement? Did you read Google's visitor agreement. You give up some IP rights by signing that. This is a case where it matters. When I visited Google, I refused to sign. They just give you a badge that said you didn't sign.
Curious if you remember the wording/page number on the visitor agreement? It'll help people to be on the lookout when they visit Google.