Forwardcom and patents

[JoeDuarte]

Hi Agner -- After reading this article, I wonder if it might be a good idea for you to defensively patent critical features or innovations in ForwardCom, while still keeping it public domain: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... ic-domain/

Jarek Duda invented the Asymmetric Numeral System technique in the context of data compression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetri ... al_systems

And Google is trying to patent aspects and applications of it even though Duda put it in the public domain. I could see Intel and others trying to do similar things to you. Patents aren't terribly hard to write and file, and contrary to popular belief you don't really need lawyers to do it right.

[agner]

In my opinion, the patent system as it works today is rotten. The patent system is intended to stimulate invention and innovation, but today it is doing the opposite. Hi tech companies are filing scores of patents, not to protect their inventions but for having weapons to use in patent wars. For example, Intel and AMD both have enough patents on techniques that the other part uses so that there is no other solution than a cross-licencing agreement. I can use your patents and you can use mine. This allows them to keep newcomers out of the market. Several years ago, I was contacted by a patent troll company who had bought a bunch of patents that they hoped to use for extorting money from Intel, and they wanted me as an expert witness. I quickly found out that they didn't have a case.

It is not necessary to patent something to prevent others from patenting it. It is sufficient to publish it somewhere. Some companies are publishing their inventions in obscure places in order to hide their inventions from competitors, yet preventing others from patenting the same invention.

My strategy is not to patent my inventions but to publish them as early as possible in order to prevent others from patenting them. Actually, some patent offices will issue patents on almost anything, but the patent will be invalid if the same invention has been published before anywhere in the world.

If you, or any other reader of this forum, has any ideas for patentable applications or extensions of ForwardCom then you may publish them in this thread to prevent patent trolls from polluting the world with patents on the same ideas.

[JoeDuarte]

I agree that the patent system is rotten, especially for software.

It is not necessary to patent something to prevent others from patenting it. It is sufficient to publish it somewhere.

This is true in principle, but I think powerful corporations can sometimes abuse individual inventors. And it's not stopping Google from trying – they're trying to patent the ANS technology Duda invented. In fact, they might be arguing that they added an innovation to it (or several), and I think you can patent a spinoff of prior art, as long as there's an innovation you can point to.

So I think you may be underestimating the troubles you could face from the likes of Intel even though the system is supposed to prevent such hassles.

[marioxcc]

I wonder if it might be a good idea for you to defensively patent critical features or innovations in ForwardCom, while still keeping it public domain: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... ic-domain/

This is Google behaving as it always does: It does evil things while claiming they are doing something good and painting themselves as friends of the users. There is nothing “defensive” here; patents are always offensive: They merely give you the power to successfully sue somebody else over doing something. They never protect you from being sued. Like agner said, patenting for protection is not necessary. Ideas for which there is prior art can not be patented and this patent enforced by a third party unrelated to the invention. It is called “prior art” in legal jargon.

[JoeDuarte]

I wonder if it might be a good idea for you to defensively patent critical features or innovations in ForwardCom, while still keeping it public domain: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... ic-domain/

This is Google behaving as it always does: It does evil things while claiming they are doing something good and painting themselves as friends of the users. There is nothing “defensive” here; patents are always offensive: They merely give you the power to successfully sue somebody else over doing something. They never protect you from being sued. Like agner said, patenting for protection is not necessary. Ideas for which there is prior art can not be patented and this patent enforced by a third party unrelated to the invention. It is called “prior art” in legal jargon.

I'm familiar with the crucial "prior art" principle. I'm just that the patent has been and continues to be abused by large corporations and that what you think you've established as prior art in forums like these, tentative white papers, etc. might not survive a gang of highly paid patent attorneys from the likes of Intel, AMD, and ARM (or even Mill or Rex Computing if they argue that some of ForwardCom was their own prior art). Agner would be all but defenseless against an onslaught of corporate patent lawyers.