Hacker News Reader

Comment by unavoidable | Hacker News Reader

Come on guys. Like all patents, the owner must be disclosed to the USPTO. A quick Google search turns up Flixor as the original owner, and "Big Tent Entertainment, LLC" as the current owner of some of the recent patents in this family. A further search of their website indicates it licenses various media technology to companies including "Concept One, Nintendo, Fifth Sun, Parragon Publishing, Harry Abrams, Kids Station, Merch Source and more".

View on HN

That's one reason for the question! Why would a patent owner want to prevent someone from divulging public information.

Another question being is the owner of record merely a front, and for what purpose?

Likely, this is a standard term in their inventor assignment contract. When bsenftner signed it, the patent applications were probably not public yet (there is an 18 month period between filing and publication in which the application remains "secret"), and during that period it makes sense to have a non-disclosure term.

As for the current owner being a front... if it is, it's not a very good one (real patent troll companies are much better at it, using shell corporations in various jurisdictions, each tied to a single or a small number of patent families).

Not true. The applicant must be disclosed during the application process, but the owner can be legally change without notifying the PTO or updating ownership records. Assignments can be registered, but you don't have to register assignments. So Big Tent could theoretically sell the patents to another party and never register the sale with the PTO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com