Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

The article says "patent pending", so they'll have to come up with a different one :(

As an aside, the IEEE is in favor of software patents, which is why I'm currently boycotting them and not a member.

To be fair, the IEEE primarily represents researchers (in industry and academia) who spend many years developing unique algorithms that, if any software is deserving of a patent, would be the most deserving. I don't think anyone's in favor of the existence of "swipe to unlock" type software patents.

The owners of the "swipe to unlock" patent certainly are in favor of its existence. Everyone always wants the law to specifically protect them, not those other guys.

Well, just because they've filed for a patent, doesn't mean that it will be granted.

SNORT HAHAHAHA... ok, sorry.

But seriously, even if a patent has been applied for, does that automatically mean everyone else has to stop using it? I don't think that's how it works just based on how easily a process like that could be abused. In reality they should have a few years before it becomes a legit patent right? A lot of things can change in that amount of time.

Not a lawyer, but based on the following resources, one can say...

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni...

A patent generally does not protect until it has been issued. However:

http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/warren01.aspx

35 U.S.C. § 154(d) provides "provisional patent rights", namely a "reasonable royalty" after the patent is published (usually 12-18 mos after application) but before it is issued (from 1-30? years). But you do have to have "actual notice" that you are infringing to be infringing, which probably means a notice from the patent applier. (Though if they can prove you watched a YouTube video demonstrating the patent and which said it was patent pending, that'd probably work too.)

So: someone can notify you that you're infringing on a patent in progress, and you have to guess whether or not it will get granted and in what form. Though the answer is unlikely to be "denied", it's quite possible for the claims to mutate tremendously. If you keep going and it gets granted, you've a lawsuit on your hands with liability from date of notice, not date of grant. Fun!

Feel free then, to infringe on any patent that has been described by the applicant but not yet been published by the USPTO. After that, you've got until they catch you (though that's a dangerous game: you're only a friendly jury away from trouble, as the law on "notice" seems not entirely settled.)

What a great system, eh?

I've just scanned your post, it appears largely correct. However you're generally allowed to use the teaching of a patent for personal - non-commercial - use, for research and such.

Though in US law it seems non-commercial/experimental isn't a complete mitigation as it is elsewhere.

Patents have not prevented open source implementations of heavily patented audio and video formats. You just need developers and users who are willing to disregard the patents.

Can you really patent the implementation of PID algorithm? There isn't really anything novel about the fact that it is on quadracopter platform as opposed to any other control system other than it seems to be well executed, fast, and effective.

As long as you don't use it commercially you're able to [personally] exploit the teachings of a patent document. It's part of the patent deal.

Edit: a brief check on the current US situation shows it's been eroded dramatically and that, like the copyright contract, the patent contract has become a far weaker deal for the public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com