7 ms·

> Is Signal fighting it? Why should they? This doesn’t affect them.

• nickthemagicman 7y ago
  I interpreted it to mean: if Signal is using the technology, and the technology is patented, then Signal will be affected?
  • analog31 7y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but making something and selling or publishing it constitutes a public disclosure, and invalidates anybody's attempt (including your own) to patent it after the fact. Somebody can't come along and patent your product. Now if you're working on an invention in your basement, and haven't disclosed it yet, someone else can take the same idea to the patent office.
    • elmo2you 7y ago
      True, at least in theory. While not all that much relevant in this particularly case (or at least not likely), I've heard from several patent lawyers (granted, this is still hearsay) that it is a rather common practice for big companies to patent any potentially relevant new technologies from smaller players (often when still under development), only to bully these potential competitors. Considering the high price of patent lawyers, this is sadly a rather effective method for protecting a dominant market position, but it's also very destructive to innovation as a whole (because apparently many of these patents are subsequently never used to actually produce anything). It's a rather cynical abuse of the system, and one that goes directly against its stated goal: to promote innovation. However, it could also be argued, from the (early) history of patents and how they have been used throughout time, that this has always been a charade, and it really was always more about controlling innovation and technological progress, rather than actually stimulating it.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]