4 ms·

How much time do developers spend looking at patents? If I want to build something, I will figure out how it should go together and make it. Does a patent still

by bobsy 14y ago

How much time do developers spend looking at patents? If I want to build something, I will figure out how it should go together and make it. Does a patent still apply if a developer can prove they discovered how to do it separate from the person who originally patented it?

__chrismc 14y ago
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that it depends if the patent in question covers the idea/concept, or an implementation of that idea... with the usual caveat of different countries/different rules.
- stephencanon 14y ago
  (In theory) patents can only cover an implementation; you cannot get a patent on an idea or concept. In practice ...
jws 14y ago
The general recommendation for developers is to not look at patents ever. Infringing a patent you know about is more expensive than getting blind sided. Yes, the patent still applies. As John Carmac (Doom/Quake engine writer) said: The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.
- ryandvm 14y ago
  Horrifying doesn't mean it's not true.
- vitalique 14y ago
  But on what basis can a developer be accused of knowing something if he chooses to deliberately deny knowing it? Or, put it another way, is there a reliable method for a developer to prove that he knew nothing about the patent in question? Because, if there is such a method, I don't understand why not to look at patents. Also, if there is no such a method, then again - I can be accused of anything, so why not to go look at it anyway? The idea of patenting paths of reasoning is such a nonsense.
  - jws 14y ago
    If you are willing to lie under oath for unlawful personal gain, then the laws will guide your actions in a different manner.
    - vitalique 14y ago
      This is not exactly what I'm trying to understand. Is the oath enough (when we're talking about $368 million)? Will there be no investigation of what I said under oath anyway? What do you mean by 'am I willing to lie under oath'? If I'm infringing, but there is no certain (more or less) way of proving I knew about the damn patents, I am willing to lie. I am going to lie, and I'm not announcing it to the court, of course. The whole concept of oath seems to be very weak.
stephencanon 14y ago
Generally speaking, developers do not spend any time looking at patents. Patents still apply even if you discover the idea independently; however, if you are found to have infringed on a patent, and you are found to have done so knowingly, then it becomes "willful infringement" and the damages may be higher as a result. This sets up a perverse system in which patents are intended to provide limited protection in exchange for publishing your inventions to help spread knowledge, but those who would benefit most from that knowledge are strongly incentivized against looking at any patents, out of fear of the possibility of willful infringement.
tzs 14y ago
A couple replies have mentioned willful infringement, but I don't think they quite got it right. It's true that if you are found to be a willful infringer, damages can be increased. However, willfulness requires more than merely knowing about the patent and its claims. It requires reckless disregard for the patent. If you read a patent, and honestly decide that the claims don't cover what you are doing, then if you end up infringing it likely will not be willful.
- stephencanon 14y ago
  Right; it's not that knowing about the patent makes the infringement willful. It's that (as I understand it) a good defense against willful infringement is being able to say "I have never seen that patent".
- btilly 14y ago
  Your "...and honestly decide..." line assumes that courts get it right. Looking at the outcome of recent cases, this does not seem like a good assumption to make.
CamperBob2 14y ago
Does a patent still apply if a developer can prove they discovered how to do it separate from the person who originally patented it? Yes. Patents grant ownership of ideas, not implementations.

by bobsy 14y ago

__chrismc 14y ago

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that it depends if the patent in question covers the idea/concept, or an implementation of that idea... with the usual caveat of different countries/different rules.

stephencanon 14y ago
(In theory) patents can only cover an implementation; you cannot get a patent on an idea or concept. In practice ...

jws 14y ago

The general recommendation for developers is to not look at patents ever. Infringing a patent you know about is more expensive than getting blind sided. Yes, the patent still applies. As John Carmac (Doom/Quake engine writer) said: The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

ryandvm 14y ago
Horrifying doesn't mean it's not true.
vitalique 14y ago
But on what basis can a developer be accused of knowing something if he chooses to deliberately deny knowing it? Or, put it another way, is there a reliable method for a developer to prove that he knew nothing about the patent in question? Because, if there is such a method, I don't understand why not to look at patents. Also, if there is no such a method, then again - I can be accused of anything, so why not to go look at it anyway? The idea of patenting paths of reasoning is such a nonsense.
- jws 14y ago
  If you are willing to lie under oath for unlawful personal gain, then the laws will guide your actions in a different manner.
  - vitalique 14y ago
    This is not exactly what I'm trying to understand. Is the oath enough (when we're talking about $368 million)? Will there be no investigation of what I said under oath anyway? What do you mean by 'am I willing to lie under oath'? If I'm infringing, but there is no certain (more or less) way of proving I knew about the damn patents, I am willing to lie. I am going to lie, and I'm not announcing it to the court, of course. The whole concept of oath seems to be very weak.

stephencanon 14y ago

Generally speaking, developers do not spend any time looking at patents. Patents still apply even if you discover the idea independently; however, if you are found to have infringed on a patent, and you are found to have done so knowingly, then it becomes "willful infringement" and the damages may be higher as a result. This sets up a perverse system in which patents are intended to provide limited protection in exchange for publishing your inventions to help spread knowledge, but those who would benefit most from that knowledge are strongly incentivized against looking at any patents, out of fear of the possibility of willful infringement.

tzs 14y ago

A couple replies have mentioned willful infringement, but I don't think they quite got it right. It's true that if you are found to be a willful infringer, damages can be increased. However, willfulness requires more than merely knowing about the patent and its claims. It requires reckless disregard for the patent. If you read a patent, and honestly decide that the claims don't cover what you are doing, then if you end up infringing it likely will not be willful.

stephencanon 14y ago
Right; it's not that knowing about the patent makes the infringement willful. It's that (as I understand it) a good defense against willful infringement is being able to say "I have never seen that patent".
btilly 14y ago
Your "...and honestly decide..." line assumes that courts get it right. Looking at the outcome of recent cases, this does not seem like a good assumption to make.

CamperBob2 14y ago

Does a patent still apply if a developer can prove they discovered how to do it separate from the person who originally patented it? Yes. Patents grant ownership of ideas, not implementations.