Google seem to be attempting to patent an invention put into the public domain.
-
This is horrible behaviour by Google, I begin to understand why they dropped "Don't be Evil" from their branding. [Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain | Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/)
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
This is horrible behaviour by Google, I begin to understand why they dropped "Don't be Evil" from their branding. [Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain | Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/)
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
I wonder if it is simply a move to insure they are not sued in the same manner they were by Oracle. Or, they could just be evil. :rolleyes: If it is an effort to patent public domain item it is in fact evil. Determining the difference could be almost (or entirely impossible) since to know you'd have to get to the heart of intent. Interesting story.
-
This is horrible behaviour by Google, I begin to understand why they dropped "Don't be Evil" from their branding. [Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain | Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/)
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
This highlights the worse way the patent system is broken, but which few talk about; works and derivative works are patentable but ONLY if they are not obvious to practitioners of the craft. This is a case where the derivative work is blatantly obvious. (A second problem is that a patent should describe and actual invention. That is, a practitioner of the craft should be able to use the patent to recreate the thing that was patented. I've read a lot of patents and most are ideas. Software patents are the worst. I can't count the number of patents I've read where there is little to no connection between the contents of the patent and what is being claimed to be patented.)
-
This is horrible behaviour by Google, I begin to understand why they dropped "Don't be Evil" from their branding. [Inventor says Google is patenting work he put in the public domain | Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/)
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
The simple soultion would be for the inventor to point out the military applications of his invention. ;)
We won't sit down. We won't shut up. We won't go quietly away. YouTube, VidMe and My Mu[sic], Films and Windows Programs, etc. and FB
Then Google won?t be able to patent it, but the NSA or another Acronyms-Division will claim it directly and make it theirs.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
This highlights the worse way the patent system is broken, but which few talk about; works and derivative works are patentable but ONLY if they are not obvious to practitioners of the craft. This is a case where the derivative work is blatantly obvious. (A second problem is that a patent should describe and actual invention. That is, a practitioner of the craft should be able to use the patent to recreate the thing that was patented. I've read a lot of patents and most are ideas. Software patents are the worst. I can't count the number of patents I've read where there is little to no connection between the contents of the patent and what is being claimed to be patented.)
I agree with you 100%! When I was doing research for my app C'YaPass (C'YaPass: Forget All Your Passwords | Get C'YaPass[^]) and the novel way that I create a SHA-256 hash password from a drawn figure on a grid salted with string key, I read so many patents my eyes glazed over. Anyway, I found patents that were great ideas but the people who sit around patenting things have never implemented. Implementation is worth so much more than scribbling down ideas. I probably found a patent that would've negated my idea but the people who wrote the patent wrote it 20-odd years ago and never implemented it. Believe me, implementing is far more difficult because you are up against the real world and the way things work or do not work. The patent system is definitely broke because you could ingeniously implement something that you thought up independently only to find that some patent troll had written down an idea close to it years ago. Terrible. I open-sourced all my code so it is a moot point for me.
