this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
284 points (90.8% liked)

Android

27856 readers
36 users here now

DROID DOES

Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules


1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.


2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.


3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.


4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.


5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.


6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.


7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.


8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.


Community Resources:


We are Android girls*,

In our Lemmy.world.

The back is plastic,

It's fantastic.

*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.


Our Partner Communities:

!android@lemmy.ml


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 520@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My understanding is that patents are to protect novel new ideas. If something’s already bean described in fiction, what innovation is protected by the patent?

The implementation in the real world. Fiction does not tend to go into how these machines work beyond that which is needed for the narrative. You won't get enough information from such a book or TV show to be able to build something similar yourself, which is usually what you need for a patent.

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not saying that devices described by fiction are patentable based on the description in the fiction. But, those descriptions could be used to prove that the 'invention' is too obvious to be patentable. Page 7 of this document from the USPTO going over what 'prior art' is suggests that fiction can be used as prior art.

[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fiction can only be used as prior art when what you see (or read about) is all there is to it, such as rounded corners.

It makes sense for fiction to be used as prior art in something like the rounded corners case, as the prop in question basically was an implementation of that patent in real life. Even though it isn't housing any real electronics, the plastic casing itself still exists, and simply putting some electronics inside doesn't make it a sparkly new invention.

It works less well when there are details in the implementation that aren't covered in said fiction or hand waved away with The Force or something. The sliding doors in Star Trek would be an example, as although the doors are seen to slide, you can still patent a mechanism that makes this effect possible.

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I apologize, I don't think we're disagreeing. Fiction can, but often doesn't, describe something in sufficient detail to be cited as "prior art" during a patent application or dispute. It comes down to how broad the claims are in the patent.

If someone were to try and patent "sliding doors", a patent examiner could point at Star Trek and say "Sliding doors are already described in published material, your invention is not original".

If someone were to try and patent "Mechanism X, used for making sliding doors slide", that might be patentable because Star Trek (and other published material) didn't describe Mechanism X.

[–] 520@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I would agree that we are... agreeing. Just with different wording lol