
Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find? - bjonathan
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101129/01154212032/are-companies-scanning-open-source-commit-logs-patenting-what-they-find.shtml
======
bryanlarsen
The techdirt author obviously didn't bother to read the comments on the
slashdot article outlining the second claim.

The IBM patent lists the coder's software as prior art. If they were stealing
the idea, they obviously wouldn't do that. They're patenting enhancements that
aren't in the coder's software, although the difficulty of reading patents
makes that difficult to distinguish.

------
tkeller
"It's funny how often we hear patent system supporters tell us that if you
haven't actually gotten a patent for your invention, it's perfectly reasonable
for someone else to go and patent it instead."

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say this, ever.

------
brlewis
This is particularly troubling in the US, where the company could file for a
patent after seeing the commit, but claim to have "invented" the idea before.
IANAL, but I think the burden of proof would be on anyone who challenged the
patent.

~~~
kristiandupont
I was going to argue why I think you are wrong but I am also not a lawer so
instead, I will point out that IANAL comments in legal threads generally
provide more noise than signal. Maybe we should strive to avoid them?

~~~
brlewis
A reply from a lawyer would be ideal, but since the rest of us are affected by
the legal system, I do think some attempts to understand it are worthwhile.

Here's a link to argue against me, but does it apply after the patent is
granted, or only before? There's presumption of validity after.
[http://patents101.com/2009/03/date-of-invention-first-to-
inv...](http://patents101.com/2009/03/date-of-invention-first-to-invent)

------
nphase
Can one patent the method of reading open source code and patenting what's
been found?

~~~
praptak
That's it. I'm patenting patent-related recursive jokes. If I see one more of
these on HN, I'm taking the poster to the Supreme Court.

~~~
Natsu
The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction for a few very rare types of
cases (which are outlined in the US Constitution) and discretionary
jurisdiction for everything else, so they have no obligation to grant a writ
of certiorari and hear your case.

You have to start with one of the lower federal courts, instead.

~~~
praptak
I refer you to this comment on reddit:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/edxyk/submitted_a...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/edxyk/submitted_a_negative_yelpcom_review_and_now_im/c17eaqu)

(and its responses, if you think I'm serious :) )

------
tumult
The state of software patents continues to deteriorate without any hope of
reform in sight. I'm starting to suspect the situation will only improve once
it has become bad enough that major players in the game begin to _ignore_
litigation involving software patents. Perhaps defendants will not show up for
court en masse, causing the current corrupt system to starve itself out of its
patent attorneys, 'IP holding firms,' and the judges and districts willing to
pander to them. What kind of trouble for the system would be caused by a large
number of parties failing to appear?

~~~
eli
Not quite sure I follow. If you don't show up for your court date, a default
judgement can be entered against you and the bad guys win.

------
nlavezzo
Oh well... It's clear the USPTO isn't doing any reasonable homework in
approving patents, but this issue in particular isn't that troubling because
there is clearly prior art. Sounds like these companies are just wasting their
money on something that will never actually be useful.

~~~
brlewis
The vast information required to do "reasonable homework" on software patents
makes me hesitant to blame the USPTO. I blame the rest of the system for not
making it clear that such patents are nonstatutory.

