Patents 

Tech War I was horrible, buddy, and don't you patronize your superiors who were at the time in the trenches.

​@@gio3061let vets decide buddy stop being offended on our behalf.

@kurtisgibson2929 i feel like you need to read the first part of his comment, veeery slowly.

@@kurtisgibson2929also I looked at your profile arent you 12?

@@MrNman333 you right

Talking about James Watt's patent on the separate condenser, for anyone interested. Had to look it up myself.

Actually does the opposite

@@FELiPES101how

​@@FELiPES101the thing he's referencing is real history dog

@@FELiPES101explain how patents actually forward mankind instead of fill the pockets of the greedy

Way to advertise you are a shitty programmer and engineer…. This is why none of us have ever used your software right?😊

I see you are also Tester 😂

This is jokes

Actually patents are pretty easy to read. Much easier to read than reading documentation. It is always plain text with a lot of diagrams.

I'm a mf'er autistic person with hyperfocus on manuals and docs. Not only I read and collect docs but also I read and write docs about docs 😅

Could you elaborate on what he did

You're such an idiot. A patent explains exactly how the invention works. There's nothing to "reverse engineer" from a patent. And it doesn't matter if you've read a patent or not, you can still infringe on a patent. The primary difference is how much money you can be sued for if you knowingly infringed or not.

Yes could you uhh, elaborate on the patents he was able to spin off and retire handsomely with uhh, for uh *pulls out pen and paper* curiosity's sake.

​@@dogboy0912you made me chuckle my guy. Thanks for the laugh lol.

All a patent is, is a formal document saying “I thought of this first!” That’s is literally all parents….. Guess you haven’t heard of anything about who should actually be credited with harnessing electricity? 🤡 Or the fact that Davinci actually “designed that first” for A LOT of items in the modern world….technically the patent owner of the helicopter but he didn’t fill out the nonexistent (at the time) “I did it first!” Papers!

I'll just use 2's then

is -0 still free to use?

Unary arithmetic let's go

Nah, instead patent using the characters 0 and 1 to represent base-2 number systems

😂😂😂

make one

If the patent holder can't prove you knowingly infringed on their patent it reduces how much they can sue you for. Ignorance is just cheaper in this case

⁠@@bobshowrockswtf this is just wrong. Of course they can sue for infringement whether or not you looked at any patents. All that matters in IP infringement is does the work in question look similar enough to the reference work

@@danchen8647 it's a good thing you're not a lawyer with that level of reading comprehension. I never said that they can't sue.

​@@danchen8647 did you just read the first couple of words, or every 4th word or something? How does this even happen?

😂😂😂

Seriously wats patent

​​@@Bill22886A patent in simple words is when a person or a company claims exclusive rights to produce and replicate any machinery or software et cetera. Basically a trademark for your designs rather than name or brand image. You know how Disney and Pokemon sue everything that looks remotely like their trademarks or designs? FYI the reason patents can be bad for development is that a lot of simple contraptions can be claimed. Imagine if the matchstick was patented (thank god it isnt, it very much couldve been)

@@Bill22886In short, They have legally kept a secret that will never go to public. maybe im wrong but that the best and simple term i can say.

@@Bill22886 serious? its a piece of paper saying you created SOMETHING that's being used and in some case will NEVER be used and if someone else creates it, they can sue for patent infringement. just like on youtube. i make a video explaining what this guy is explaining and just upload his video and name is something different without crediting him or changing it in any way, it's copyright infringement. think of it as owning something you created/designed that you bought a piece of paper saying if someone else uses it, you can get big money from it. and the other person can possibly get prison time along with massive fines and litigation fees in court... in other words, don't look at patents. because if you do and build something that already has a patent then they can claim you got the idea from them and then take it from you. and make profit from it, even if its better. or worse. even if the item in the patent is NEVER USED they can and will still sue.

And it's a rare, rare day when anyone who cheats to get ahead, or even knows how, actually does or even can do anything about it. As nice as it would be to shut the door on unfairness, it's way too rampant for any one person to do anything about usually, and you'll never get a consensus out of any kind of committee to actually make positive change. People don't care about fixing our broken systems, just about exploiting them or the people living under them. Software engineers care more about patching the tiniest most insignificant bugs and loopholes in the smallest games than most people in power of enacting change for an entire country do. It's so painful to think we live in a "if you can't beat em, join em" world, but that's what it's come to. Maybe we'll see real positive change someday. But it'll need to come from the top down, and when everyone at the top is cheating to get even further ahead, and everyone's in cahoots with each other, it makes you wonder if it'll ever happen.

It's always been that way and that's always sucked. But now you understand this fact, go and use it to your advantage.

@@ahegpbtrftcotuDude, you clearly have no clue about how the Kennedy’s became one of the most powerful families in America thanks to JFK Jr.’s father’s dirty role in Prohibition. Learn some history 😂

@@superuser8636 ...Yeah, I don't know anything about the Kennedys or Prohibition because American history isn't that relevant to me. Nice ethnocentric assumptions you've got there though! 👍 😐

@@ahegpbtrftcotuyou have no idea the whole world is run by the same 33 club :D those guys who eat their own kids for lunch. because they are not human.

They will be sued for sueing legally actually, because sueing legally is illegal and open to be sue-able.

Ou should run for president man.

"just check my internet history"

You don't want to patent food recipes which you intend to keep secret in perpetuity because patenting is publishing the recipe. Instead food and drink companies prevent their recipes from getting revealed by the government by invoking trade secrets, which is a different form of intellectual property from patents, copyright, or trademarks

your honor, honestly, you weren‘t even there so don‘t judge me.

@@redjoker365I’m pretty sure recipes are non-copyrightable because of a concept call idea-expression dichotomy. Could be wrong.

I've seen people argue that "no, twitter is in fact not bloated. It needs to be the way it is" and I'm like "My dude, have you not looked at it?"

@@Anteksanteri The fact that a gaming PC turns into a snail if Twitter is kept open in a tab for too long should be telling enough.

@@CottidaeSEA You mean X?

@@ihazdaforks Yes. Twitter was used in what I was replying to, so I used it for consistence.

​@@CottidaeSEAIf only the man would have called it TwitterX

Worked in the area, too and confirm that - does not matter if you looked at them or not. If you violate them you get sued - "Not knowing" is not an excuse. And you can get sued even when not violating patents but someone may try anyways... So I would suggest that you let people check patents and get good at that... "Software patents are insanse" - could not agree more. Generally trivial things that are common sense since 1810...

America the state where everyone can sue literally anything. I didnt know you can get sued for just looking while working.

Is it not an America thing where the penalty changes based off your knowledge. Where an unknown patent infringement you just need to pay 1x profit you made and 1x the profit the other company "lost" vs a known patent infringement yoy lay 3x profit you made and 3x the profit the other company "lost"?

Yeah. Patents don't care if you are aware or not. Just makes the lawyers job a little harder.

​@@jamesemery3206 This is an interesting concept. I've never heard of it before. Do you have a source for this, please?

the fuck is that even patentable?

@@SuperPupperDoggo I know. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea. But it was quite ridiculous.

@@SuperPupperDoggo It's proprietary, but that doesn't mean it's patentable. Their case would flop in court, but if it's easier for company B to just change it, most (especially small ones) would rather do that than spend $$$ going to court. You are allowed to reverse engineer protocols, this has been adjudicated 6 ways from Sunday in courts in the context of emulation.

Unfortunately FOSS chads can still be sued for patent infringement.

It's actually even more important to be patient aware in this case, as they can see your code.

so u should look at them to know what to do? this is mad backwards in business@@ObiwanNekody

feels a little worse having to deal w/ gpl linkage bs. like a virus or infection

FOSS ain't safe from trolls -_-;

🍑💨

Just here to say this is exactly what he reminded me of.

Perfect life advice! ❤

One nice lawyer quip I remember is, "Everything you do is illegal."

what looking parents means?

@@joaopaulogomesbernardino746Never look at your parents or your career is over

Lol​@@aleksandartomic9048

@@aleksandartomic9048 be born, very first thing don't look back.

​@@joaopaulogomesbernardino746 patents are rules to use a software.

more like all patents should become free for use after 10 years

​@@OatmealTheCrazyprobably more like25 years..by then you have more than recouped and made plenty of money at that point ..and would help make more innovations without fear of being sued into oblivion

That’s in the US. Software is not patentable in EU.

Alice v. C.L.S. 😂 It's supposed to be

@@Kevinjimtheone I understand, but because of the fact that everyone and everything is interconnected nowadays, the US patents end up affecting other parts of the globe, even if they themselves don't have such laws.

Says you. But the competition's lawyers will claim differently.

patent are not law. only the law protecting them is a law.

Means literaly every single form or type of invented stuff should be open source and so on.

So you didn’t read the patent… “Patents mean nothing because a bank got some for machine learning” might be one of the biggest brain dead takes in this thread… Wolf of Wall Street dude. Banks, finance and tech have been together for a while 🤡🤡

@MoveAlongPeasant Patents. There were like 30 of them.

​@@hextech687I'm confused as to what you don't understand about a bank needing a patent for something like that.

I could totally understand a bank patenting some machine learning technique that, idk, makes it faster to detect or train on incoming transactions/streaming data or something. Seems plausible enough.

These days the lawyers will patent stuff without even consulting developers.

That's pretty much what happened with nintendo and another compa y back in the SNES days iirc

I'm no software engineer but didn't monolith patent their nemesis system, and didn't rockstar patent their traffic system ahead of gta 6. I'm going by memory here but the news reporting on those stories made it seem like it was a very common practice to patent such systems.

Patents on software have not been allowed in the US since the AIA was passed in 2011.

@@michaelbaker2718 so is the nemesis system not considered software??

Yes. Never look at patents

@@ThePrimeTimeagen is that yes to all?

​@@ThePrimeTimeagenyou being intentionally vague for attention at this point right

The unfun part about patents is you can infringe on them whether you were aware or not. The only reason not to look at them ever is that you can claim, in your defense when you get sued, that it was obvious and therefore not worthy of a patent.

Don’t really matter patent trolls will troll every big company that ever implemented any simple concept like web authentication. If you’re big enough you’re a target.

Ah yes but one can argue in a court of law that it was an obvious solution, which will work provided they cant prove you did otherwise.

Most patents for software are crap, but some, such as compression algorithms or encryption algorithms make sense as patents.

It comes with experience. You learn what certain licenses allow and what they don't, what's sticky territory in terms of IP violations and what isn't, etc. What the guy says though is mainly BS. Ignorance of a patent doesn't give you a right to violate it - if you violate it you violate it, plain and simple. What I think his thought process comes from is that if you look up patents you may get an idea from them, and if you implement something based on a patented idea, you may be in violation of the patent. But there's nothing wrong with looking at them, that's fine.

@@MrSlowestD16 Wtf I don't wanna learn from being sued 😭

@@VivekYadav-ds8oz Welcome to real life, lol. That's how shit works. In a criminal context, if you break a law, you can get charged. In a civil one, if you break a law, somebody can sue you. But 99% of the time you get a cease and desist first, so an IP lawsuit like that generally doesn't come out of left field. You sorta have to willfully ignore the C&D.

TENGEN is the company in question, and they succeeded -- that's why there are black-case TENGEN games. They then tried to sue Nintendo for creating a monopoly, Nintendo counter-sued for reverse engineering the chip. Nintendo won.

@@Invariel to be completely fair, it was for patent infringement, which was the case because they did *not* reverse engineering the chip, but cheated and used their patent

@@stevenn1940 Okay, fair. It's been a long while since I read up on it. Definitely the NES, definitely TENGEN, definitely released bootleg carts at full price (without the Nintendo Seal of Quality IIRC), and definitely lost in court.

@@Invariel all correct lol. I forgot which console and company, but I did remember the reason they lost was because they stole the design of the lockout chip, not reverse engineering it. Iirc the gaming historian did the most comprehensive video on it, you should 100% give it a watch

@@stevenn1940 I just might. :) My semi-faulty memory comes from reading "Game Over: How Nintendo Conquered The World" a long while back. Fantastic book.

This isn't quite right. Actual knowledge plus infringement leads to wilful infringement, which leads to treble damages. You can be infringing without actual knowledge of the patent. Let's say you had no provable knowledge of the patent and the damage award is $500k. With wilful infringement, that award can be increased to $1.5M. 35 USC 284

@@briandawley7808 the fact of reading patent would not be sufficient to prove willful infringement, although it might be used in a case but that will be detail and as I said up to a legal battle but the fact of infringement is not changing whether you read it or not. So before claiming someone is wrong check you facts

@DergaZuul There's two issues at play here: 1) infringement in fact, 2) wilful vs. not wilful. Your argument makes it sound like a long as the patent is published (which, 100% of them are), then that knowledge is imputed to everyone and actual knowledge is irrelevant. That's the part I'm saying is incorrect. Evidence of actual knowledge of the patent, such as reading it, if a product is marked with the patent number, being served a case and desist, etc. all have an impact on wilfulness. That all said, actual knowledge of the patent does not impact infringement in fact. I think that's the part you're focused on. That's why I said it wasn't quite right because there is the wilfullness aspect that wasn't accounted for.

@@briandawley7808 ok I get it but it wasn’t what I was talking about. The fact of infringement is the only thing I was talking about, willfulness is separate thing. Indeed there will be bunch of details which are important for lawyers, basically baseline fact is established by patent being published so any further details might change severity such is willfulness and etc (wasn’t talking about that don’t care about that don’t appreciate it being brought up for no reason)

@@DergaZuul Look, what you said is, "What is public is assumed to be known by everyone." And in this context, when determining patent infringement, that is incorrect.

The right to sue someone means nothing. Doesn't mean they'll win.

You don't hear people complaining about it all the time when it works as intended.

the problem is that it DOESN'T WORK AS INTENDED AND NEVER HAS @@FNZ-wx2nz

I am ANTI-IP and i believe all copyright and patent law should be abolished worldwide, not just in those countries that don't enforce western copyright

@@George70220 But sadly it usually does, if we're talking about Apple, Google, MS, etc... The justice system is just a facade to keep the appearance of a democracy governed by law, but in reality, money is the only thing that decides who wins and who doesn't.

but patent are not law. you may be forced to stop to use what you created, but if you didn't copied, just accidentally re-invented, you didn't comite crime.

you can still be sued for patent infringement, but if there’s no records of you knowing of that patent’s existence you can argue in court that the solution was obvious (if it is actually obvious, of course) Otherwise, you lose that right

yes and no intent is important when it comes to law if there is proof that you perused patents and then created something that was patented you can get hit MUCH harder

You can get a patent for literally anything you created with 100% no copy or stealing shit. Yes even a melodie not a sample or loop no a melodie. So yes is you createt that lets go do it

@@was2keta3ab37 Code isn't patentable. Likewise, music isn't patentable. You must be thinking of copyright.

Companies are savage some times....

It's 100% BS, lol. Like, unfiltered raw BS. You have a duty to not violate patents, whether you've read the patent or not. You can't simply say "I didn't know" just like you can't say the same when you violate a law.

Patents on software have not been allowed in the US since the AIA was passed in 2011.

If you see someone has a patent on a gray scrollbar and your company does that you're actively infringing on it. If you don't know then the patent holders have to find you instead.

​@@FourOneNineOneFourOne america problem

@@FourOneNineOneFourOne oh so it’s illegal for you to do that knowingly; however, if you didn’t know that, you would most probably get some kind of a warning instead of a lawsuit, which you would’ve gotten if you did that, again, knowingly

You're not a programmer, are you?

patents need to be non-obvious to be valid. however, this quality is not objectively measurable, so a lot of obvious patents slip through. If there are records of you reading such a patent, and you get sued, there’s nothing you can do. But if you had no knowledge of the patent, you can attempt to show that the method/solution is obvious and then it doesn’t count as infringement

patents are not law.

Feel free to search to your heart's content, this guy's advice is terrible. Just don't take any patented ideas and use them for your own shit or you may be culpable.