Difference between revisions of "Publishing information is made dangerous"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
For example, in 2004, a paper was published on "''Precise detection of memory leaks''".<ref>http://camanis.blogspot.com/2009/08/someone-wants-to-patent-three-year-old.html</ref> In 2007, a patent application was filed at the [[USPTO]] for a follow-on invention.<ref>http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080294853%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080294853&RS=DN/20080294853</ref> The 2007 application cited the 2004 paper as being part of the state-of-the-art which is extended by the patent application. The authors of the 2004 paper have no connection to the authors of the 2007 patent application. Ironically, one of the authors of the 2004 paper is a prominent member of anti-swpat group [[FFII]]. | For example, in 2004, a paper was published on "''Precise detection of memory leaks''".<ref>http://camanis.blogspot.com/2009/08/someone-wants-to-patent-three-year-old.html</ref> In 2007, a patent application was filed at the [[USPTO]] for a follow-on invention.<ref>http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080294853%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080294853&RS=DN/20080294853</ref> The 2007 application cited the 2004 paper as being part of the state-of-the-art which is extended by the patent application. The authors of the 2004 paper have no connection to the authors of the 2007 patent application. Ironically, one of the authors of the 2004 paper is a prominent member of anti-swpat group [[FFII]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [This is a specific case of how follow-on inventions are used to take from the commons. One "solution" would be to make all inventions automatically patentable so that the commons inventors (or authors) would have leverage over those wanting to lock the information up.] | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
Revision as of 23:37, 15 October 2010
When companies can patent software ideas, publishing information is made dangerous because it highlights a domain where research is being done and thus where patent litigation might become profitable.
For example, in 2004, a paper was published on "Precise detection of memory leaks".[1] In 2007, a patent application was filed at the USPTO for a follow-on invention.[2] The 2007 application cited the 2004 paper as being part of the state-of-the-art which is extended by the patent application. The authors of the 2004 paper have no connection to the authors of the 2007 patent application. Ironically, one of the authors of the 2004 paper is a prominent member of anti-swpat group FFII.
[This is a specific case of how follow-on inventions are used to take from the commons. One "solution" would be to make all inventions automatically patentable so that the commons inventors (or authors) would have leverage over those wanting to lock the information up.]
Related pages on ESP Wiki
External links
- A study showing that trolls do patent around published ideas (published patents) in the USA, by David Martin
