Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 217 posts

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#91

Post by jhall1468 »

hashkb wrote: post #70
jhall1468 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> profit at any expense Redundant definition of profit?

Short-term and long-term profit are not driven by the same goals. In fact, they are often at odds. I get the joke, but it's not really redundant. "Profit at any expense" sounds like short-term profit to me.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#93

Post by monocasa »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #67
philipov wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is why patents should be abolished, in a nutshell.

Software patents for sure. Not sure about algorithmn ones. Say you invent this exact compression algorithmn and want to patent it but you can't and Google steals it when you wanted to license it so you can fund a company that builds better compression algorithmns or whatever. Google is going to rip out of your profits.

What distinction do you make between software and algorithm patents? And how do you separate algorithms and unpatentable math?

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#94

Post by evrydayhustling »

hedora wrote: post #66
evrydayhustling wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Having a patent doesn’t guarantee someone else will not patent the work as part of some other patent. Patent examiners miss things sometimes. Publicly disclosing the idea in a way that can be verified after the fact establishes prior art just like filing a patent does. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know there are services that inexpensively publish inventions and vouch for the publication date after the fact. Also note…

The problem is defending that disclosure as prior art when someone bigger claims a patent that improves or puts it into practice, which is exactly what this article is about. Even if you take a few steps to make patenting harder, if you invent something valuable it's eventually a game of chicken about preventing others from claiming the space.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#95

Post by jonathanyc »

blattimwind wrote: post #20
tehabe wrote: post #9

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.

Blue prints are absolutely covered by copyright.

I think that’s what they meant. See “only.”

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#97

Post by wereHamster »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #90
bingoboingo33 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only solution to put an end to the current patent system is to overload it. The equivalent of a DDos attack. Companies should file as many frivolous patent as they possibly can. Eventually, we'll have all the IP lawyers at 100% CPU and the world will be a much better place.

100% CPU -> 100% billable hours -> IP law is now an incredibly attractive profession -> more capacity for patents / lawsuits... and that's essentially how we got here.

Then we all stop at the same time, the market collapses and IP lawyers go extinct.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#98

Post by DannyBee »

"a view largely endorsed by a preliminary ruling in February by European patent authorities"

If one clicks through, you discover it says literally nothing of the sort, it just says they will include that email exchange as a possible prior art reference (along with a lot of other things).

It actually doesn't express any opinions at all, except on the priority claim, which is not related to this part.

It is literally a notification that says "we will consider these two additional things as possible prior art references"

This part is very shoddy reporting.

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#99

Post by DannyBee »

DennisP wrote: post #53

If he can prove he published it, then he should file his prior art with the patent office. In fact, if he notifies Google of his prior art then Google is obligated to tell the patent office about it.

He did, they include it as a reference, but haven't made any determination at all

Re: Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain

#100

Post by pbhjpbhj »

monocasa wrote: post #93
giancarlostoro wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software patents for sure. Not sure about algorithmn ones. Say you invent this exact compression algorithmn and want to patent it but you can't and Google steals it when you wanted to license it so you can fund a company that builds better compression algorithmns or whatever. Google is going to rip out of your profits.

What distinction do you make between software and algorithm patents? And how do you separate algorithms and unpatentable math?

The European notion of technical effect seems to work quite well.
Post reply on HN