Someone filed a patent partially based on my source code on CodeProject
-
Albert Holguin wrote:
but to actually use it in a patent
How would you feel about people who use your code to make money? Or on the job? All are valid uses of open source code, depending on the license (some have restrictions, such as maintaining any copyright notices or not using for commercial purposes). I'm not really sure what the CPOL states. But if you put code online with the intention of giving it away, I wouldn't get annoyed when somebody actually uses it.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
yeah but a patent is for protecting your intellectual property... if its not even yours, its unethical to do so
-
yeah but a patent is for protecting your intellectual property... if its not even yours, its unethical to do so
It would be weird if somebody just copy/pasted the code into a patent, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The code was just used to make another, larger bit of code.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
Albert Holguin wrote:
but to actually use it in a patent
How would you feel about people who use your code to make money? Or on the job? All are valid uses of open source code, depending on the license (some have restrictions, such as maintaining any copyright notices or not using for commercial purposes). I'm not really sure what the CPOL states. But if you put code online with the intention of giving it away, I wouldn't get annoyed when somebody actually uses it.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
Actually, I kinda happy to see my code to see my code used in open-source libraries, though I dun really get any monetary benefits out of it. I have not checked my other code whether they are used in open source libraries as well. I dun really mind to see my code used in some patent but they could use some courtesy of informing me.
-
I was writing a C++ library but forgot how to write something. I was googling my combination library for solution. I found out my combination code was used in some open-source libraries. Someone even filed a patent[^] partially based on my combination code. Note: the appendix A contains the source code for my Combinations in C++[^] article (search for "next_combination"). My name is removed from the squashed source code. LOAD-BALANCING AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING USING LEMPEL-ZIV COMPLEXITY TO SELECT OPTIMAL CLIENT-SETS [^]
One problem you may find is that US patents are based on first to register, not first to discover. You can have all the proof you want that you discovered something first. It doesn't matter - first to register the patent wins. You could try to argue that the work was stolen but you would need proof that the other guy did not invent it indepentently. The fact that it is in the public domain doesn't count. Most other countries have their patent laws the other way around.
-
I was writing a C++ library but forgot how to write something. I was googling my combination library for solution. I found out my combination code was used in some open-source libraries. Someone even filed a patent[^] partially based on my combination code. Note: the appendix A contains the source code for my Combinations in C++[^] article (search for "next_combination"). My name is removed from the squashed source code. LOAD-BALANCING AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING USING LEMPEL-ZIV COMPLEXITY TO SELECT OPTIMAL CLIENT-SETS [^]
If you think that you invented something, disclosed in your article, that this other person has patented then their patent will fail as your article will count as prior art in the public domain and they cannot patent that. If you think they have, wait for the examination process and submit an objection. So they cannot be patenting something you invented and disclosed in your article. It appears more likely that they used the code in your article as part of the implementation they reveal in the patent application. As you mention there are other examples on the web they could use, but they chose yours - you should probably be flattered. If this is the case, they haven't actually patented your code, but used it to illustrate how to implement their invention. I understood that the idea of CPOL articles was that the author wanted them to be used by others, commercially or otherwise. Authors do expect some sort of recognition, and the removal of copyright notices is rude and clearly unethical, but I'd be interested if anyone can shed light on whether it is actually illegal. When you submit a patent application you have to provide enough information to enable someone to reproduce the invention, so where software is concerned you provide code. I have no idea whether the authorship of CPOL code has to be disclosed, but it is an interesting question. Including anything substantial in a patent application without attribution would appear to be plagiarism of some form.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
modified on Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:48 PM
-
yeah but a patent is for protecting your intellectual property... if its not even yours, its unethical to do so
AFAIK what gets protected is the intellectual property in the claims; the rest is collateral, it is merely explaining the claims, not adding to the protected matter. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
-
The article is under the Code Project Open License... not sure if that matters, but I wouldn't go around suing people because they made use of my open source code.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
Nice sig, Asp :-D
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Albert Holguin wrote:
but to actually use it in a patent
How would you feel about people who use your code to make money? Or on the job? All are valid uses of open source code, depending on the license (some have restrictions, such as maintaining any copyright notices or not using for commercial purposes). I'm not really sure what the CPOL states. But if you put code online with the intention of giving it away, I wouldn't get annoyed when somebody actually uses it.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
AspDotNetDev wrote:
How would you feel about people who use your code to make money?
Depends on my "value" of the code. If it were very useful code, and had no recognition, I'd be a little ticked off.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Albert Holguin wrote:
but to actually use it in a patent
How would you feel about people who use your code to make money? Or on the job? All are valid uses of open source code, depending on the license (some have restrictions, such as maintaining any copyright notices or not using for commercial purposes). I'm not really sure what the CPOL states. But if you put code online with the intention of giving it away, I wouldn't get annoyed when somebody actually uses it.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
AspDotNetDev wrote:
not really sure what the CPOL states
CPOL[^] Sections 4 and 5a, d... Looks fairly clear about using other individual's work...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
not really sure what the CPOL states
CPOL[^] Sections 4 and 5a, d... Looks fairly clear about using other individual's work...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
Yep, so the person was free to have copied the code and make it part of a patent, but they should not have removed the copyright notice.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
Yep, so the person was free to have copied the code and make it part of a patent, but they should not have removed the copyright notice.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
Yes.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Albert Holguin wrote:
but to actually use it in a patent
How would you feel about people who use your code to make money? Or on the job? All are valid uses of open source code, depending on the license (some have restrictions, such as maintaining any copyright notices or not using for commercial purposes). I'm not really sure what the CPOL states. But if you put code online with the intention of giving it away, I wouldn't get annoyed when somebody actually uses it.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
other than potentially generating income for the patenter I would have though a patent acts to restrict the use of the content, this seems diametrically opposed to the open source nature of CP.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I was writing a C++ library but forgot how to write something. I was googling my combination library for solution. I found out my combination code was used in some open-source libraries. Someone even filed a patent[^] partially based on my combination code. Note: the appendix A contains the source code for my Combinations in C++[^] article (search for "next_combination"). My name is removed from the squashed source code. LOAD-BALANCING AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING USING LEMPEL-ZIV COMPLEXITY TO SELECT OPTIMAL CLIENT-SETS [^]
Most of the time law simply don't work. If you have the code under some kind of open source license then it can be even more complicated. Reading the Mark Wallace post (in which some of the statements of the CPOL) one can think that you are right and that you'll win any action you take. Do what you want, but don't expect too much. PS: Before starting any legal action talk to the company/person who has filed the patent and try to solve it. This should help you in any court. AND NEVER EVER accept any vague word from the other side... if they tell you in the court that you agreed that they would do it (i.e. in a future) then you are dead... establish specific dates ALWAYS. Good luck!
[www.tamelectromecanica.com] Robots, CNC and PLC machines for grinding and polishing.
modified on Friday, April 29, 2011 2:15 AM
-
other than potentially generating income for the patenter I would have though a patent acts to restrict the use of the content, this seems diametrically opposed to the open source nature of CP.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
The patent would protect the greater work, not the incorporated work. The article content could still be used by others.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
The patent would protect the greater work, not the incorporated work. The article content could still be used by others.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
AspDotNetDev wrote:
The article content could still be used by others.
I thought all those sw patents were all about protecting not just the entirety of the solution but parts of the solution. The user of the article code would need to then prove they got the code from the article not the patent source. Being a purveyor of corporate code (as in they own the IP) I disagree with sw patents on principle.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I was writing a C++ library but forgot how to write something. I was googling my combination library for solution. I found out my combination code was used in some open-source libraries. Someone even filed a patent[^] partially based on my combination code. Note: the appendix A contains the source code for my Combinations in C++[^] article (search for "next_combination"). My name is removed from the squashed source code. LOAD-BALANCING AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING USING LEMPEL-ZIV COMPLEXITY TO SELECT OPTIMAL CLIENT-SETS [^]
From the CPOL: License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Author hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: You may use the standard version of the Source Code or Executable Files in Your own applications. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications obtained from the Public Domain or from the Author. A Work modified in such a way shall still be considered the standard version and will be subject to this License. You may otherwise modify Your copy of this Work (excluding the Articles) in any way to create a Derivative Work, provided that You insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how, when and where You changed that file. And: Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions: You agree not to remove any of the original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices and associated disclaimers that may appear in the Source Code or Executable Files. You agree not to advertise or in any way imply that this Work is a product of Your own. All their arse are belong to you.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
From the CPOL: License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Author hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: You may use the standard version of the Source Code or Executable Files in Your own applications. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications obtained from the Public Domain or from the Author. A Work modified in such a way shall still be considered the standard version and will be subject to this License. You may otherwise modify Your copy of this Work (excluding the Articles) in any way to create a Derivative Work, provided that You insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how, when and where You changed that file. And: Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions: You agree not to remove any of the original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices and associated disclaimers that may appear in the Source Code or Executable Files. You agree not to advertise or in any way imply that this Work is a product of Your own. All their arse are belong to you.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark Wallace wrote:
provided that You insert a prominent notice in each changed file
I woder if the defendant's lawyer will argue that a webpage is not necessarily a file. :-D
Mark Wallace wrote:
You agree not to remove any of the original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices and associated disclaimers that may appear in the Source Code or Executable Files.
You agree not to advertise or in any way imply that this Work is a product of Your own.
Not sure how they'd defend against that.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
provided that You insert a prominent notice in each changed file
I woder if the defendant's lawyer will argue that a webpage is not necessarily a file. :-D
Mark Wallace wrote:
You agree not to remove any of the original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices and associated disclaimers that may appear in the Source Code or Executable Files.
You agree not to advertise or in any way imply that this Work is a product of Your own.
Not sure how they'd defend against that.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I woder if the defendant's lawyer will argue that a webpage is not necessarily a file.
So you bring in an expert to show that he's attempting to deceive the court, and his credibility is shot. Believe it or not, real courts don't work like they do on TV shows. Judges don't like people trying to deceive them or pull smart@rse tricks.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Mark Wallace wrote:
You agree not to remove any of the original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices and associated disclaimers that may appear in the Source Code or Executable Files.
You agree not to advertise or in any way imply that this Work is a product of Your own.Not sure how they'd defend against that.
I apologise in advance for bringing such jargonistic, technical, legal language into a developer playground like the CP lounge, but the legal term for their situation is "Pretty much ****ed".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I woder if the defendant's lawyer will argue that a webpage is not necessarily a file.
So you bring in an expert to show that he's attempting to deceive the court, and his credibility is shot. Believe it or not, real courts don't work like they do on TV shows. Judges don't like people trying to deceive them or pull smart@rse tricks.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Mark Wallace wrote:
You agree not to remove any of the original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices and associated disclaimers that may appear in the Source Code or Executable Files.
You agree not to advertise or in any way imply that this Work is a product of Your own.Not sure how they'd defend against that.
I apologise in advance for bringing such jargonistic, technical, legal language into a developer playground like the CP lounge, but the legal term for their situation is "Pretty much ****ed".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark Wallace wrote:
Believe it or not, real courts don't work like they do on TV shows. Judges don't like people trying to deceive them or pull smart@rse tricks.
I believe it. I've been to court before. I still remember the judge schooling the defendant for fudging figures he obviously shouldn't have. :-D
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
I was writing a C++ library but forgot how to write something. I was googling my combination library for solution. I found out my combination code was used in some open-source libraries. Someone even filed a patent[^] partially based on my combination code. Note: the appendix A contains the source code for my Combinations in C++[^] article (search for "next_combination"). My name is removed from the squashed source code. LOAD-BALANCING AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING USING LEMPEL-ZIV COMPLEXITY TO SELECT OPTIMAL CLIENT-SETS [^]
So, wait till the firm selling it makes lots of money then sue them. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost