Comment

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

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

Sort:hotnew top

Sxan@piefed.zip ⁨17⁩ ⁨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 ⁨14⁩ ⁨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