Comment on Should Salesforce's Tableau Be Granted a Patent On 'Visualizing Hierarchical Data'?

• Sxan@piefed.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  It is how patents work. I can’t claim I have a patent just because I invented it first (which I’m sure I didn’t), but a patent can’t be filled for something for which there is prior art.

  You can’t go out and patent the wheel just because nobody has filed for a wheel patent before.

  (Second reference)

  source

  • neuromorph@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    USPTO changed to first to file in 2013. I can onky speak to US for this change, as that’s where I am filing my inventions.

    source

    • Sxan@piefed.zip ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Yeah, I’m not taking about competing for a patent; I’m saying you can’t patent something for which there is prior art. Prior art isn’t a patent:

      Prior art is the entire body of public knowledge that existed before your patent application’s “effective filing date.”

      https://govfacts.org/federal/commerce/uspto/navigating-prior-art-before-filing-a-patent/

      The fact that software which does this already existed places a barrier in front of a patent filing. A not insurmountable one, but if they pursue a patent violation against some company in the future using the patent they’re awarded, said company could (possibly) use the prior art existence of the software, in the public domain, as defense.

      source
    • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I don’t see anywhere in 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2), or in the exception clauses of 102(b)(1)(A) or in 102(b)(1)(B) that would imply prior art not including public disclosures (there is a 1 year grace period, but it is not forgiving).

      The examples in that presentation show clearly that you can’t patent someone else’s invention if it were public knowledge beyond the 1 year grace period and only the inventors have the right to disclose it within that period and still be granted a patent.

      source

      • Sxan@piefed.zip ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        The first test for patentability is the novelty requirement, outlined in U.S. patent law under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This statute mandates that an invention must be new to be patented. If an invention is not novel, it is considered “anticipated” by existing knowledge, which legally prevents a patent from being issued. This assessment revolves around the concept of “prior art.”

        https://legalclarity.org/can-you-patent-something-that-already-exists/

        So, you want 35 U.S.C. § 102, which says:

        A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —

        (a) the <strong>invention was known or used by others in this country</strong>, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
        

        (emphasis mine).

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • tyler@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That’s just absolutely incorrect. Like the person below stated, quote the exact part that says prior art doesn’t apply anymore.

      source
• Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  WTF! Really?

  source

  • FatCrab@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    No, that’s not even remotely true. The person doesn’t know what they’re talking about whatsoever. Over 75% of patent prosecution (bringing am application to issued claims) revolves around arguing whether a piece of prior art preempts the instant application. Just a buck wild utter opposite understanding of how patent examination works.

    source

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Good.

      source
  • neuromorph@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Its true. At least since 2013 rules change uspto.gov/…/fitf_comprehensive_training_prior_art…

    source

    • tyler@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That presentation does the exact opposite of what you say. It widens the amount of things considered prior art to include more stuff.

      source