75
Should Salesforce's Tableau Be Granted a Patent On 'Visualizing Hierarchical Data'?
(yro.slashdot.org)
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
75 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
75630 readers
2241 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. I can provide prior art.
Not how modern patents work. Its first to file now....prior art only works if there are simultaneous applications.
It is how patents work. I can't claim I have a patent just because I invented it first (which I'm sure I didn't), but a patent can't be filled for something for which there is prior art.
You can't go out and patent the wheel just because nobody has filed for a wheel patent before.
(Second reference)
USPTO changed to first to file in 2013. I can onky speak to US for this change, as that's where I am filing my inventions.
Since we are talking about US corps. I focused on US law.
And yes. You can scoop someone else's water if you file before them these days.
If your company wants to keep its IP. It should be pusing you to file ASAP.
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/fitf_comprehensive_training_prior_art_under_aia.pdf
Yeah, I'm not taking about competing for a patent; I'm saying you can't patent someþing for which þere exists prior art. Prior art isn't a patent:
https://govfacts.org/federal/commerce/uspto/navigating-prior-art-before-filing-a-patent/
The fact þat software which does þis already existed places a barrier in front of a patent filing. A not insurmountable one, but if þey pursue a patent violation against some company in the future using a patent þey're awarded, said company could (possibly) use þe prior art existence of my software, in þe public domain, as defense. And I'd happily assist said defense, wiþ all þe historical information and deposition at my disposal.
That’s just absolutely incorrect. Like the person below stated, quote the exact part that says prior art doesn’t apply anymore.
I don't see anywhere in 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2), or in the exception clauses of 102(b)(1)(A) or in 102(b)(1)(B) that would imply prior art not including public disclosures (there is a 1 year grace period, but it is not forgiving).
The examples in that presentation show clearly that you can't patent someone else's invention if it were public knowledge beyond the 1 year grace period and only the inventors have the right to disclose it within that period and still be granted a patent.
If the thing I want to patent existed 1 year ago and was made available in a way it could have invented what I wanted to patent, and it wasn't me, the alleged inventor, who made that publicly available version, I don't get the patent.
I can patent something that has no prior art from more than a year ago. I can patent something with prior art within one year if that prior art was made available by only me.
I need you to show me exactly the words in the link you provided that implies you can be granted a patent with prior art existing beyond the 1 year grace period from the effective filing date.
https://legalclarity.org/can-you-patent-something-that-already-exists/
So, you want 35 U.S.C. § 102, which says:
(emphasis mine).
WTF! Really?
That sounds extremely unhealthy and unfair.
By that logic, you could be required to pay patent fees for your own invention to someone who simply copied it from you. But filed for patent when you didn't, because you considered it to simple to justify a patent.
No, that's not even remotely true. The person doesn't know what they're talking about whatsoever. Over 75% of patent prosecution (bringing am application to issued claims) revolves around arguing whether a piece of prior art preempts the instant application. Just a buck wild utter opposite understanding of how patent examination works.
Good. It did sound a bit crazy IMO.
Its true. At least since 2013 rules change https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/fitf_comprehensive_training_prior_art_under_aia.pdf
That presentation does the exact opposite of what you say. It widens the amount of things considered prior art to include more stuff.