Re:The patent on SIFT expired yesterday
by laumars on Monday March 09, 2020 @05:39AM
(#22524129)
Unfortunately prior art doesn't stop someone else from patenting your work. It just offers an avenue for someone to invalidate that patent. Worse still, the process of doing so is often riskier for small businesses than if they just agree to pay a licence fee.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The patent on SIFT expired yesterday
by quietbritishjim on Monday March 09, 2020 @07:23AM
(#22524509)
But your argument applies equally to publishing your work as a patent as it does to publishing by some other means such as a journal article. So your comment doesn't address the parent comment at all.
Only in America and even there that's only true in theory. In practice it is a lot easier to invalidate a patent with an earlier patent than it is to argue prior art with a publication (this is, of course, depending on how the patents are written).
Patents can also be used "defensively" in ways that prior art cannot. So it's not always just about prevention.
Personally I think whole system could use an overall. Not just in America either.
Re:The patent on SIFT expired yesterday
by ChrisLomont on Monday March 09, 2020 @08:15AM
(#22524740)
Patent clerks search prior patents far more thoroughly than they do the entire literature of mankind. Having a prior patent is stronger protection from having someone else patent than is simply publishing somewhere.