Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лис 2023
- Recorded live on twitch, GET IN
/ theprimeagen
Become a backend engineer. Its my favorite site
boot.dev/?promo=PRIMEYT
This is also the best way to support me is to support yourself becoming a better backend engineer.
MY MAIN YT CHANNEL: Has well edited engineering videos
/ theprimeagen
Discord
/ discord
Have something for me to read or react to?: / theprimeagenreact
Kinesis Advantage 360: bit.ly/Prime-Kinesis
Hey I am sponsored by Turso, an edge database. I think they are pretty neet. Give them a try for free and if you want you can get a decent amount off (the free tier is the best (better than planetscale or any other))
turso.tech/deeznuts - Наука та технологія
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
This is absolutely true.
I remember during an internship in a big bay area company, my manager recounted how their competitors would sue over the most nebulous patent infringements to cause months of delays while devs rearranged code around and cleared it. It got so bad, they literally signed a 5 year long ceasefire. He told me the whole story like he was a world war 1 vet.
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
A patent delayed the industrial revolution by 20 years
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
Programmers don't even read documentation, forget about complex patents reading😂
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 😅
I'm gonna patent 0s, you guys can use 1s just fine.
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
😂😂😂
My old man worked at an aerospace company, his colleague got so good at reverse engineering patents he was able to spin off his own company and retire handsomely. He would especially use failed patents, and figure out why it didn’t work. It’s odd hearing how broken patents are for software. It’s basically “hey I thought of that first!”
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!
Being unaware of patents does not grant you any kind of protection against them. Looking at patents will, however, eat away at your hopes and dreams, as you will come to realize that it is impossible to make anything without infringing on a multitude of patents.
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?
"the fucks a patient" - me getting served
😂😂😂
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.
Most software is so unbelievably simple to reverse engineer.
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
Society is at a state "Rules are made by winners and winners are made by breaking rules" and this is fuxking sad. Literally "do what you're told not to do and succeed, or die doing nothing at all"
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.
I actually work in this space... They can still sue regardless of you looking at the patent or not. It's just going to be a lot worse for/easier fir them to prove that you deliberately infringe (or make it seem that way to the jury) if you say "Yes, I read through this patent while working at my company."
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?
I had a project once that might be best referred to as "software necromancy" that involved resurrecting an entire proprietary compiler toolchain from twenty years ago to compile firmware for a particular Texas Instruments DSP.
The patent text of the patents for this product was actually extremely helpful in figuring out what the hell this piece of the product was even supposed to do.
Me, walking into Microsoft, 437 printed patents under my arm and a lawyer on the phone in my other hand:
Software patents should be illegal
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.
Your honor, I've never looked at a patent. The idea for boka-bola is 100% my own
"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.
We once had a company claim the way they ordered their bits in a udp packet was proprietary. Not the data they sent. Just the order the sent it in. We had to change it.
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.
you are creating me the necessity to look at them now
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.
Feels good being a FOSS chad
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 -_-;
"Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever..."
Michael Scott.
🍑💨
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."
As a patent attorney, I tell this to my clients' engineers all the time. I say, if you know anything about what your competitors are doing, please let me know, but DO NOT take this as an invitation to go try to learn what they are doing.
The validity of a patent has zero to do with looking at them. Your history looking at them means nothing.
“Did you look at patents before starting your company?”
“No”
“He got us there, Mike”
"Never ever ever look at these things" "but they do be insane though" makes me wanna look at one now.
im going to patent the idea of suing people. so anyone that tries to sue will be sued for suing illegally
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.
"Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence against a violation."
Patent filings: 😅🙄😏
I remember hearing a bank (I think BOA) received a shit ton of patents for machine learning, I knew immeadiatley that they don't matter.
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.
French software engineers: is this a software patent joke that I'm too french jurisdiction to understand?
I agree with one of the comments on here, could someone elaborate? Is the act of looking at patents make the knowledge of that patent patent infringement? Can they sue you if you use that design pattern but not know of their patent?
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.
The lawyers don't care if you looked at the patent. It's still infringement even if you never did.
Patent should be outlawed they do so much harm
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.
Lol I first thought you said “patterns” instead of “patents” and was dying in confronting thoughts 😂
It's not that they have the right to sue, they can do that anyway. It's that they can seek treble damages for wilful infringement. Your company will owe triple the amount of damages.
Patents on software are wildly rare though. I imagine, if someone was working on something that falls into that category and was sniffing around USPTO docs and came across something similar, they probably knew what they were doing.
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??
Make a full video about that please
Patents in general are the worst. They shouldn't exists. No matter the consequences, any patent, which prevents anyone from developing any type of technology or what ever kind of stuff, should be illegal.
Means literaly every single form or type of invented stuff should be open source and so on.
You still infringe if you’ve never seen it.
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.
Patents are published for a reason. There is no impact on infringement whether you read it or not. What is public assumed to be known by everyone. Other intricacies on how to act in certain case is up to your lawyer not a UA-cam video.
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.
Is there any good resource on Software law that an engineer should know?
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.
i just patented a simple for loop. y'all owe me some money.
I am the inventor on a software design patent. The lawyers wrote it up in such a way that I don't even understand ot.
It's wrong: it is your duty to check for patents. If you choose not to, it doesn't change the fact that you can be cited anyway for patent infringement.
About other comments: you don't "reverse engineer" patents. You find a way to kill every single claim (for example removing a part that was cited in a claim) or you find the same principle at work on the market before the patent was submitted. The latter is the easiest in case of software.
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
This reminds me of the NES or SNES case. There was a company that didn't want to sell their games through nintendo, but nintendo included a chip that essentially checked if it was a legit cartridge or not.
Iirc they tried to reverse engineer it and failed, and ended up copying it from the patent (which they had to obtain illegitimately iirc)
The court ruling said basically (and iirc) that if they had actually reversed engineered it, then it would have been fine, but because they had to use the patent as a blueprint to get around it, they were liable
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.
Prime. with much respect. What we should be talking is about rights. Patents, there a many of them that should be release already. Free to the public. For how long lies will continue? Information is not not something you hide. Information that people should have the right to have. They don't honor that. Also, C++ and all the OOP thing is almost there to permit code obfuscation easier.
I worked as an examiner for the patent office and I was repeatedly reminded that becuase I worked there I would never ever be allowed to work in software anywhere anytime for any company and I best not start my own either. Software Companies see me as a walking liability. I’ve been asked in interviews if I worked for the patent office before many times. I focus on pharmaceuticals and drug production which are hard and expensive to make and easy to avoid patten infringement so I do not face this problem in my industry.
Patents for software are so stupid, you could put 100 software engineers in 1 room. Give them the same problem and you will get loads and loads of similar solutions. Saying you can patent that makes no sense to me tbh
Most patents for software are crap, but some, such as compression algorithms or encryption algorithms make sense as patents.
Imagine a world where you cannot share knowledge between experts to further human progress and build better tools.
Imagine a world where you are viciously rebuked and expelled from a system for knowing too many things about your expertise.
Bird box villian was patents
When you look at it and they have if statements patented.
Can i get a patent for my FactoryBuilderStrategy pattern in java?
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.
Isn't that completely false‽ A parent applies whether you know about it or not. It applies even if you rediscover its principle independently. That's what a patent does.
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
I'd argue that companies are nice sometimes, because most of them have no issue in destroying someone's life for a mistake on their part or because it's quicker/cheaper
When plagiarism is so widespread thst simply doing a plagiarism check constitutes plagiarism itself.
That's bullshit. Engineers are even asked to check patents along with consulting. It absolutely doesn't matter if you look at patents or not. A competitor never sees your code only the result and if they want to sue they do - this is reality. If you infringe, you infringe. Doesn't matter if you looked at a patent or not. Serious tech companies check patent regularly to find ways to workaround any potential case.
Takeaway: links to patents become the new Rick Roll
Great great great advice. It give you perfect plausible deniability. Years ago I was involved with a case where one software company was trying to sue another software company started by a couple of guys that used to work for them. It was a long miserable process and cost the parties involved hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. You would be surprised at how many companies want to own the rights to things like, 'if statements'.
I saw an engineer open a patent book and his face melted. I had my eyes closed so I didn't really see it happening.
I call BS.
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.
This advice is similar to don’t ever read a book because you might learn something. Reading a patent is not grounds for infringement
I thought he was saying "patterns" and was like welp im fuked.
This is not true - A they wouldn’t have this information until after they sued you for patent infringement, B patent infringement is “doing the same thing” as a patent so if you’re infringing a patent already, the fact you googled a patent is irrelevant
People who patent software, like they figured out some unique and novel way to do something are scum.
They know they're not doing anything anyone else couldn't have come up with. Probably other people have been using "their unique method" before they came up with it.
I've seen this happen before. And people get legal threats and have to shut down companies because they used the most obvious way to solve a problem.
Patents on software have not been allowed in the US since the AIA was passed in 2011.
This is unbelievably stupid advice. Whether or not you looked at a patent has zero impact on whether the patent holder can sue you. Only by looking at a patent can you ensure that you are not infringing the patent. In other words, you MUST look at patents!
I remember when I used to work in SAP, my team mates were working on patent for locking a UI5 table cell.😅
That's like saying if you don't read the law you can't be punished. It doesn't matter if you see patents or not, they exist.
US patents are broken that's why! Patent trollfarms, patents just used for blocking competitors, Patent traders...
Patents works in other countries you know, as they should, you have to sell a product to have the right!
could someone elaborate please
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
What is insane is that software is just math and so having patent in software is the same thing as having patent on math. Imagine having to pay a royalty whenever using the pythagoras theorem.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Literally.
Just because you didnt do your due diligence doesnt abstain anyone from guilt.
This is the stupidest advice I've possibly ever heard.
"Dont ever learn the law, then you can do anything without reprecussions".
Absolute 🤡💩
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
Ah, horrors created exclusively for US developers, God bless 😅
It’s like solving a regular math problem, once you patent your solution for a problem which most people can solve it in the same way without reading your solution, everyone else’s gonna start patent their solutions to other math problems.
Bet imma convert it to an audio and listen to it
wrong. patent infringement doesn't require knowingly infringing.
I thought the single most inportant peice of advice you ever shared was to believe in ourselves... And to learn VIM motions
All patents are insane when you no longer even have to prove they work.
Reminds me of Chapelles bit "I'm sorry officer I didnt know i couldnt do that"
I don't believe this for even one second. I just looked at some patents; we'll see when the police shows up.
Software engineers working at the patent office: 😂😅😢
Absolutely True! I worked for a company that got sued over a ridiculous patent -(essentially taking existing technologies and combining them a certain way, in a certain order) I had to go give a deposition for that crap.
I will buy a billboard across twitter's office that shows a slideshow of all software patents ever, with easy-to-understand summaries and boob pictures in between slides
BTW, this advice doesn't apply in France where software patents are literally illegal
This guy works for Apple
This is some pure BS. The fact that you didn't know patent existed makes absolutely no difference at all with respect to patent infringement. "Ignorantia legis non excusat" - the fact that you didn't know something was illegal does not absolve you of the crime.
An old employer sent me paperwork for a patent they were filing with my name on it. I refuse to even read the paperwork. 😂
idk what a software patent document would even look like
Ignorance is bliss
You know.. Ther is one famous guy, that everyone knows, that looked at patents for a living. Nobody has ever questioned his morality.
I was never tempted to do that but now I’m
thank god in our coutry software cant be patented
Anyway when it comes to software which is distributed online it's not always clear which countriy's law applies in the first place
@@vitaliiivanov9514 I ment especially local companies that produce software for local purposes only. Like accounting software and cash registers. They sell pretty bad quality software that is not cheap nor "well supported". That would be hell if'd they start to issue patents for it. :D
I don't look at software patents just like expired engineering ones so I'm set
Sometimes? Crap? No, companies are pieces of *shit, all* the time.
Intelectual property, patents of any kind, are a destruction of human ingenuity and intellectuality.
Based on recent cases, they can just do that anyway if your product is remotely close.
I just use MIT licensed code for infringement and GPL licensed code for tools
You're assuming the company someone starts wont be equally as shitty and just try and dodge the patent
never work at patent management software companies
What is patent
This is not how patents work. You don't need to look at a patent to infringe it. A patent owner can sue (and would likely win) If you create a product that infringes the patent regardless of whether you "saw" the patent or not. That's irrelevant.
I think he talks about being able to claim it as an accident in court.
If you look up a patent for something, then come up with a method of achieving this something on your own -- patent holder files a lawsuit, subpoenas your internet history as something that might hold evidence and finds you looking up their patent. How would that look like in court?
Windows source code for older versions was leaked a lot of times. It would be extremely useful for those who make emulators, but they are not touching it with a ten foot pole. If Microsoft takes them to court, then arguing that they didn't use their copyrighted materials when they are on their PC/browsing history becomes extremely hard
You're partially right, they can still sue for infringement. But wilful infringement leads to treble damages, so knowledge of the patent is still relevant.
I don't look at patents, I don't even look at patterns, I just create my own code. No one will tell me how to do this.
I'm still convinced the only reason patents exist is so that the government can get to the people who invent free energy devices before they go public
This advice is literally not applicable to 95% of software engineers and it's nowhere near "the single most important"
I don’t look at the patents, the patants look at me
Patent law is actually insane. Someone officially holds a U.S. Patent for the *CONCEPT* of a toaster. Not the design or mechanism, they have a patent for the concept of something that toasts your bread. Obviously, they are a Patent Troll (which is a real term) and just hold it in hopes of being able to sue. I don’t believe they have yet, and there’s a chance their case would get thrown out, but legally they have grounds to sue.