this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025

76 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

75645 readers

3350 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

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

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

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago

No, because all intellectual property should be abolished and proponents of the copyright regime should be hunted down with crossbows.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No. I can provide prior art.

[+] neuromorph@lemmy.world -13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Not how modern patents work. Its first to file now....prior art only works if there are simultaneous applications.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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)

[+] neuromorph@lemmy.world -11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

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

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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:

Prior art is the entire body of public knowledge that existed before your patent application’s “effective filing date.”

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.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago

That’s just absolutely incorrect. Like the person below stated, quote the exact part that says prior art doesn’t apply anymore.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] FatCrab@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Good. It did sound a bit crazy IMO.

[–] FatCrab@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

Complains about an issued patent but nowhere actually includes the claims of the issue patent in the text of the article. Jfc, what garbage. If you look up the issued claims, they are pretty narrow and easy to design around. This article is bait.