5 ms·
> Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea. But doesn't the fact that the code has already been releas
by wtetzner 8y ago
> Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea.
But doesn't the fact that the code has already been released mean it's prior art?
- laumars 8y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I think the US patent office doesn't check for prior art (that was one of the cut backs several years ago) so instead prior art is now something that has to be challenged in court.
- DennisP 8y agoOr challenged before the patent is issued. The USPTO encourages this; fees for notifying them of prior art are much lower before issuance.
- mbrumlow 8y agoWait a fee is imposed? I get why I think but if your posting of prior art proves to be true then you should have your fee refunded.
- DennisP 8y agoI'd have to check but if I remember right, before issuance there's no fee for less than 20 items of prior art, and just a flat $200 fee for more. After issuance I think the fee is $35,000.
- throwaway2048 8y agoso you have to pay them $35,000 to show a patent they issued is bullshit. Outrageous.
- monochromatic 8y agoThat is completely wrong.
- laumars 8y ago> That is completely wrong. That maybe true but without any more detail your comment is still unhelpful.
- monochromatic 8y agoAll right. The patent office does search for prior art.
- laumars 8y agoFair enough. When the Apple / Samsung countersues were all happening I thought I read on one news site that the US patent office had stopped checking for prior art. Which certainly did seem to be the case at that time too. But I cannot find that original article yet now finding other sources that agree with your statement so it seems they do check. Thank you for the correction :)
- rhino369 8y agoYou are wrong, but code repositories aren't checked because that is a needle in a haystack situation.