8 ms·
Bradley Kuhn: I Think I Just Got Patented
- jacquesm 17y agoThat's why we really need to make a stand against software patents. Waiting until you are personally inconvenienced is the patent equivalent of going through the sequence that ends on 'and when they came for me there was nobody left to stand up for me'. Software patents are bad, period. The very few cases where there was merit to a software patent are outweighed massively by the downsides.
- FahnRobier 17y agoIANAL, but it looks like he might have a case for prior art, if he published his methods prior to patent being issued. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inventing/prior-art/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inventing/prior-art/ Still, this puts the burden of proof on the person claiming prior art. I'd like to see a reform of patent law that would make the infringing patent holder responsible for the legal fees for proving the prior art, if it's valid. That would: 1. Force the potential infringer to do a more rigorous search prior to filing the patent. 2. Gives the person with prior art a little more leverage in negotiations. Am I misguided?
- eru 17y agoDoes the author live in the US? As far as I know e.g. European patent law does require not only prior art but also prior publication.
- gridspy 17y agoWho is going to publish something that they consider obvious?
- eru 17y agoAn example: Page numbers are considered obvious nowadays, but they are still in a lot of published works.
- gridspy 17y agoCan you name a recent published work wherein the subject is page numbering?
- eru 17y agoDoes this matter? Any book will serve as published prior art against a patent on page numbering. It does not have to be the main subject.
- gridspy 17y agoMy point is that there are many small problems which we solve as engineers every day that are too trivial to publish in a paper. It is all well and good until some moron (genius?) comes along and patents these simple ideas.
- fatdog789 17y agoPublication is a fancy way of saying dissemination. A blog post, a source-control commit to a public repository, a public presentation, all qualify as "publication".
- icey 17y agoSo, let's pretend that Bob the developer has some magic piece of software that does something that nobody else has figured out how to do yet (my verbiage may be incorrect, let's assume that this meets the criteria for a patentable work). Bob hasn't released this software to the world yet, because he's working on other parts of a larger system. In this scenario, should Bob consider filing a patent in order to protect his invention (assuming it would get discovered eventually), or is there some way for him to file a record of what his method does so that he doesn't have to worry about someone coming to patent what he's doing out from under him? (I'm not at all versed in patent law, so I apologize if the answers to this are obvious)
- aaronblohowiak 17y agoThere's nothing you can do to prevent someone coming after you. You can only protect yourself if you plan to have the means to actually fight the case. This is one of those areas where an accusation and intent to pursue a fight from a "big dog" can be bad enough to crush the "little guy".
- icey 17y agoSorry, my point was whether or not Bob should go file for a patent himself. I get why people call software patents evil, but they seem kind of necessary to protect against bigger companies (at least until the patent system is 'fixed').
- DougBTX 17y agoSure, go for the patent. The problem is litigating the twenty or so patents any large company can pull out of the bag, which, if you squint at the blurry lines, might overlap with what you are working on. Basically, yes, having a patent yourself would be a great help, but it doesn't solve the problem when people are getting patents on what amounts to standard practice.
- aaronblohowiak 17y agoYea, in this case I am suggesting that he shouldn't go file for a patent himself. It is expensive, a distraction, and offers no meaningful protection against deep-pockets.