Alternate headline: “EA did a good thing in latest attempt to get off naughty list”
A yes, patents is what will help accessibility.
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.
deleted by creator
The better alternative would be to not patent it in the first place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh boy are you wrong. Check out the patents to polio vaccines, or Volvos three point seatbelt.
What? There was no polio vaccine patent. The inventor literally did exactly what I suggested. He made his work freely available so that it could not be patented. Volvo made a business decision to make their patent freely usable and we are still talking about it. Their brand has been permanently associated with safety because of it.
Exactly! They tried to patent it, but it didn’t meet the requirements (https://www.ipeg.com/jonas-salk-inventor-of-the-polio-vaccine-could-you-patent-the-sun).
Notice how they tried to patent it “to prevent companies from making unlicensed, low-quality versions of the vaccine. There is no sign that the foundation intended to profit from a patent on the polio vaccine.”
EDIT: and on the other hand, you get things like insulin, where the patent was sold for $1 (https://www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18293950/why-is-insulin-so-expensive)
…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.
You can’t patent something that already exists.
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.
My point is if they created something without patenting it, it is no longer possible for anyone to patent it.
these things often do not exist yet, hence the patent
Doesn’t “opening up patents” means that anyone can use the ideas behind the patent without charge? Which means that it’s actually not locked anymore, so yes it does help?
Maybe they do it because of an increasing risk of getting challenged in court and causing a patent law re-evaluation, which would hurt them for other patents. I don’t think EA does something because of good will.
