Inventor Says Google Is Patenting His Public Domain Work (arstechnica.com)

Rob Riggs writes: Jarek Duda, the inventor of a compression technique called asymmetric numeral systems (ANS), dedicated the invention to the public domain. Since 2014, Facebook, Apple, and Google have all created software based on his breakthrough. Google is now trying to patent a video encoding scheme using the compression technique. The inventor is fighting Google in the European courts and has won a preliminary ruling. The fight's not over and Google is also seeking a patent with the USPTO. A Google spokesperson says Duda came up with a theoretical concept that isn't directly patentable, "while Google's lawyers are seeking to patent a specific application of that theory that reflects additional work by Google's engineers," reports Ars Technica. "But Duda says he suggested the exact technique Google is trying to patent in a 2014 email exchange with Google engineers."

Comments

Dumb smart people

[fluffernutter]

There's a lesson here. If you have a good idea, don't fucking tell Google about it! Don't put it on your android phone, don't discuss it in email, don't type more than you have to in the search bar.

Re:Dumb smart people

[tlhIngan]

That's ridiculous. You had up to a year to file before Obama changed that if you were the inventor. Now, Obama changed the rules to first to file so that has destroyed the concept of the small guy using patents to protect their work.

The only difference between first to invent and first to file is when two people try to patent the same thing. In first to invent, the patent office has to examine all the documentation behind it and figure out who rightfully invented it first. In first to file, it's simple - whoever gets their application to the patent office first wins.

The "1 year disclosure" is a separate issue - in the US, you could disclose your idea to the public up to a year before filing your patent. That's it. Obviously, under first to file, this is no longer workable (since someone could see your idea and patent it first).

Be aware the US was the only country in the world with first to invent and 1 year disclosure. Every other country in the world was first to file, and no disclosure.

The implications are bigger - first, no disclosure means the first time someone speaks out in public about the idea, the idea is no longer patentable. By spilling the beans prior to filing the patent, you've invalidated your right to the patent (after all, what's to keep someone else from filing a patent somewhere else and stealing it from you?).

First to file makes no attempt to figure out who invented something first - so the little guy no longer has to prove he got this idea while hanging a clock, slipping and bonking his head on the toilet. BTW, it was rumored that Bell got the patent for the telephone by beating whomever else it was by about 15 minutes to the patent office.

This way, disclosure trumps patenting worldwide. The fact this guy's algorithm is public means you cannot patent it at all. What can be patented is a novel modification to it, though I'm not sure what Google did to it to make it work with video.

Re:It's called Prior Art

[lordlod]

If he invented the machine screw, Google is claiming a patent for a machine screw used to hold together a bookcase.

There is no transformative act, simply a straightforward application in an expected field.

Re: It's called Prior Art

[gl4ss]

care to explain the extensions to the patent then?

is it like "oh but we coded this up in a programming language and used it to encode a stream that has video inside it and thats a novel invention" ?

Duration, Importance and Protection

[ath1901]

Let's see if we can find a pattern here:

1. Creating a general algorithm that can be applied to many different problems - No protection since math is neither patentable nor copyrightable.
2. Apply the algorithm to a specific problem - Patentable. 25 years of protection.
3. Writing a shitty almost off-topic post on slashdot in a thread about the algorithm - Copyright. Life + 70 years!

So, the less important the creative work is to society is, the more protection it gets.

Re:It's called Prior Art

[Attila Dimedici]

We will soon be able to know if this was Google's intention because, if it is, they will not send their lawyers to defend their patent submission. However, the opposite appears to be the case: Google appears to be fighting the European finding that their patent is invalid.

Further, if Google was doing as you suggest I would think they would take a better PR stance...something along the lines of, "We believe that Duda's algorithm was non-patentable, but we have developed an extension to that which is patentable. However, we will be perfectly content if the USPTO or courts rule that we are mistaken."