Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?

from the prior-art? dept

It's funny how often we hear patent system supporters tell us that if you haven't actually gotten a patent for your invention, it's perfectly reasonable for someone else to go and patent it instead. The idea of presenting an idea for the public domain or for open source purposes seems foreign to them. Recently, I've seen two examples of questionable patent applications that appeared to take content that was put out publicly, and tried to turn them into patents. The first, found via Dave Farber's IP list is a patent which an open source developer suggests almost identically matches code that he committed to an open source project. The guy who wrote that post has since backed down a bit on his original claims that the patent was clearly "copied" from his open source commits, but still notes that the patent application in question is ridiculous.

Then there's a similar story, found via Slashdot of a guy who coded an open source library for Windows in 2001 (inspired by a Bruce Perens project from 12 years earlier) and just discovered that IBM appears to have patented the same technology -- even mentioning this guy's own blog post in the references section.

Whether or not these two patents are examples of various companies trying to patent open source technologies as they're being developed, it does highlight yet another problem with the patent system as it is set up today. Even if there does appear to be clear prior art, it's not as if the Patent Office seems willing, capable or interested in actually understanding how these patents are simply copying what's already being done elsewhere.

Filed Under: open source, patents, software


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    kyle clements (profile), 1 Dec 2010 @ 10:49pm

    Re: USPTO is looking at prior art

    "That's probably more of an issue than the prior art. At what point does an "improvement" become obvious?"

    Maybe that's why Gillette skipped over a 4-blade design.
    Schick got a patent on 4-blades, so Gillette had to do the unexpected...jump straight to 5.

    I am so patenting a 6 blade design...mwahahaha!

    I've discovered one mind-bogglingly simple little thing that is not patented. It's kind of cool, and I'm not going to patent it.
    What worries me is the idea that someone else might come along, scoop up the idea, and prevent me from using it.

    Someone should invent a crowd-sourced patent prior-art tool, where people can submit evidence and have bad patents easily revoked.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.