this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
76 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

75682 readers
3219 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
76
Should Salesforce's Tableau Be Granted a Patent On 'Visualizing Hierarchical Data'? (yro.slashdot.org)
submitted 3 days ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

America's Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has granted a patent to Tableau (Salesforce's visual analytics platform) — for a patent covering "Data Processing For Visualizing Hierarchical Data

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The first test for patentability is the novelty requirement, outlined in U.S. patent law under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This statute mandates that an invention must be new to be patented. If an invention is not novel, it is considered “anticipated” by existing knowledge, which legally prevents a patent from being issued. This assessment revolves around the concept of “prior art.”

https://legalclarity.org/can-you-patent-something-that-already-exists/

So, you want 35 U.S.C. § 102, which says:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(emphasis mine).

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

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.

What you posted states the opposite :) I agree with you, though---prior art means you can't patent it. The person I'm responding to believes otherwise.