Comment

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

Sort:hotnew top

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 ⁨14⁩ ⁨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 ⁨14⁩ ⁨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
    dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    I need you to show me exactly the words in the link you provided that implies you can be granted a patent with prior art existing beyond the 1 year grace period from the effective filing date.
    
    What you posted states the opposite :) I agree with you, though—prior art means you can’t patent it. The person I’m responding to believes otherwise.
    
    source
- 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