5 ms·
Might be considered a public disclosure for purposes of patenting the feature.
by monochromatic 10y ago
Might be considered a public disclosure for purposes of patenting the feature.
- cududa 10y agoThis is accurate. A leak still constitutes a public disclosure (I use to help track down leaked builds of Windows)
- slipstream- 10y ago"help track down leaked builds of Windows" If you're talking about public leaks (rather than just private leaks to a few individuals), surely they're not that hard to find? I wonder if you mean the leakers? (for the record, I'm a moderator of a forum which discusses said "leaked builds of Windows"; and I help try to find and preserve those that leaked long enough ago such that they have almost disappeared)
- aaronsnoswell 10y agoThis is fascinating to me - do you know of any documented cases where a leak prevented someone filing for claim(s)?
- abraae 10y agoI hope that's not true. Surely if the "leak" is the result of an employee acting unlawfully, i.e. maliciously leaking their employer's intellectual property in contravention of their employment agreement, then the leak does not constitute a disclosure. If it did, then IP-based organisations would have an absurd level of exposure to the bad actions of any employee, and would have to impose equally absurd security measures - cavity searches at the exits, anyone? - on every employee with access to IP.
- syshum 10y agoThe solution that is ending software patents which should not be a thing in the first place
- monochromatic 10y agoK.