72
Should Salesforce's Tableau Be Granted a Patent On 'Visualizing Hierarchical Data'? (yro.slashdot.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

America's Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has granted a patent to Tableau (Salesforce's visual analytics platform) — for a patent covering "Data Processing For Visualizing Hierarchical Data

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Not how modern patents work. Its first to file now....prior art only works if there are simultaneous applications.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It is how patents work. I can't claim I have a patent just because I invented it first (which I'm sure I didn't), but a patent can't be filled for something for which there is prior art.

    You can't go out and patent the wheel just because nobody has filed for a wheel patent before.

    (Second reference)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    USPTO changed to first to file in 2013. I can onky speak to US for this change, as that's where I am filing my inventions.

    Since we are talking about US corps. I focused on US law.

    And yes. You can scoop someone else's water if you file before them these days.

    If your company wants to keep its IP. It should be pusing you to file ASAP.

    https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/fitf_comprehensive_training_prior_art_under_aia.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I don't see anywhere in 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2), or in the exception clauses of 102(b)(1)(A) or in 102(b)(1)(B) that would imply prior art not including public disclosures (there is a 1 year grace period, but it is not forgiving).

    The examples in that presentation show clearly that you can't patent someone else's invention if it were public knowledge beyond the 1 year grace period and only the inventors have the right to disclose it within that period and still be granted a patent.

    If the thing I want to patent existed 1 year ago and was made available in a way it could have invented what I wanted to patent, and it wasn't me, the alleged inventor, who made that publicly available version, I don't get the patent.

    I can patent something that has no prior art from more than a year ago. I can patent something with prior art within one year if that prior art was made available by only me.

    I need you to show me exactly the words in the link you provided that implies you can be granted a patent with prior art existing beyond the 1 year grace period from the effective filing date.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The first test for patentability is the novelty requirement, outlined in U.S. patent law under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This statute mandates that an invention must be new to be patented. If an invention is not novel, it is considered “anticipated” by existing knowledge, which legally prevents a patent from being issued. This assessment revolves around the concept of “prior art.”

    https://legalclarity.org/can-you-patent-something-that-already-exists/

    So, you want 35 U.S.C. § 102, which says:

    A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —

    (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

    (emphasis mine).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I need you to show me exactly the words in the link you provided that implies you can be granted a patent with prior art existing beyond the 1 year grace period from the effective filing date.

    What you posted states the opposite :) I agree with you, though---prior art means you can't patent it. The person I'm responding to believes otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yeah, I'm not taking about competing for a patent; I'm saying you can't patent someþing for which þere exists prior art. Prior art isn't a patent:

    Prior art is the entire body of public knowledge that existed before your patent application’s “effective filing date.”

    https://govfacts.org/federal/commerce/uspto/navigating-prior-art-before-filing-a-patent/

    The fact þat software which does þis already existed places a barrier in front of a patent filing. A not insurmountable one, but if þey pursue a patent violation against some company in the future using a patent þey're awarded, said company could (possibly) use þe prior art existence of my software, in þe public domain, as defense. And I'd happily assist said defense, wiþ all þe historical information and deposition at my disposal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    WTF! Really?
    That sounds extremely unhealthy and unfair.
    By that logic, you could be required to pay patent fees for your own invention to someone who simply copied it from you. But filed for patent when you didn't, because you considered it to simple to justify a patent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No, that's not even remotely true. The person doesn't know what they're talking about whatsoever. Over 75% of patent prosecution (bringing am application to issued claims) revolves around arguing whether a piece of prior art preempts the instant application. Just a buck wild utter opposite understanding of how patent examination works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •