Alphabet adds patent claim to Uber intellectual property theft lawsuit

Re:Alphabet adds patent claim to Uber intellectual property ... by MereInterest on Friday March 10, 2017 @11:40PM (#13844265)

>It's not as if a patent will contain the full implementation details

Forgive me for my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what a patent is intended for? An inventor discloses how the invention works, and is given a monopoly in exchange. If the patent doesn't give the details of how something works, then why should society pay the inventor for it by granting a monopoly over it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alphabet adds patent claim to Uber intellectual property ... by jacquesm on Friday March 10, 2017 @11:43PM (#13844277)

Have a look at your typical modern patent application (a granted one) and see if you can rebuild the apparatus based on what is disclosed.

Yes, in theory all the (critical) details are there but in practice this only works in simpler, for instance mostly mechanical patents.

Patents that are broader, for instance to patent some principle may give an illustration and enough info that if you're skilled in the art that you may re-implement it but you're definitely not going to get working schematics and blueprints to work off.

The situation is a bit better than with most scientific papers but not that much better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alphabet adds patent claim to Uber intellectual property ... by lstyls on Saturday March 11, 2017 @12:29AM (#13844381)

As an existence proof: the infamous apple "rounded corners" patent[0] that was granted in 2012 is based entirely on design merits. There is nothing in the patent about details of manufacture from what I can tell. IANAL.

[0]: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1701443/USD670286S1.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Alphabet adds patent claim to Uber intellectual property ... by mcbits on Saturday March 11, 2017 @01:30AM (#13844524)

That's a design patent, an entirely different class of patents.

[ Parent | on HN ]