Alternate headline: “EA did a good thing in latest attempt to get off naughty list”

  • echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    this is opening up patents, so yes, in a world like ours having something be patented, but royalty free and anyone can use is much better than the alternative. which is either one company owning it and licencing it. or a patent troll getting it and making it even worse.

    the sarcasm in this case, is not warranted. this is a good thing.

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then a patent troll steals it and makes things worse for everyone.

        Patenting something then immediately opening it up is by far the best option.

        • Poayjay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s literally not a thing. Once something is publicly disclosed it can’t be patented (unless it is by the discloser during the one year grace period). You can’t take someone else’s invention and patent it. If someone does you can invalidate their patent without even a lawyer. If you want something you invent to be free for everyone the best thing you can do is get it out into the world and not patent it.

          • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re not supposed to. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

            Nobody wants to spend the court costs to get a patent troll stripped of their bad patent. And for a patent troll you’re going to need a lawyer, they’re going to fight tooth and nail to keep it since that’s their source of income.

            • Poayjay@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Once again, this is not true. They do what is called a prior art search as part of issuing a patent. They look worldwide for anything that could be considered your invention before your filing date before issuing a patent. Even after a patent is issued, if prior art is presented to the patent office they can rescind the patent. It’s a form and like $100. You don’t need a lawyer to bring prior art to the patent office’s attention. The legal battle will be between the patent office and the patent troll if they are trying to contest the prior art.

          • Perroboc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh boy are you wrong. Check out the patents to polio vaccines, or Volvos three point seatbelt.

      • GorgeousDumpsterFire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        …leaving the idea unclaimed for someone else to patent instead? Strange take.

        The patent system is far from perfect, but patents themselves are necessary. EA had an idea, they had the right to patent it. They had the right to keep the patent closed, instead they opted to open it.

          • GorgeousDumpsterFire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If the idea already existed EA wouldn’t have been issued the patent. That’s part of the process of obtaining the patent.

            Point is moot because the patent was issued.

            • Something Burger 🍔
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My point is if they created something without patenting it, it is no longer possible for anyone to patent it.