Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rich <rich@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.software.firefox,comp.misc
Subject: Re: 30 Years Of Netscape
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 22:39:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <vge6rc$1nnvi$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vgb7m9$13ba2$1@dont-email.me> <haGdnemuj7Bb77f6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <vge40o$1nfmk$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 23:39:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="feb61258d3e6861f0f7c4289afe3c16e";
	logging-data="1826802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qydELGwyxviy2AQ+TA48p"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.1-20211226 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.139 (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/dLOGZRgA12fHYwUMGCpuC/VZzQ=
Bytes: 2739

In comp.misc Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:32:21 -0500, bad sector wrote:
> 
>> On 11/4/24 14:35, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> 
>>> One important thing Netscape did before going completely defunct 
>>> was to open-source the browser.
>> 
>> THAT was a class act!  I did something vaguely similar when I took 
>> out a provisional patent and then let it lapse for the express 
>> purpose of thus hard-wiring the idea into public domain to prevent 
>> anyone from ever being able to take out a patent on the same idea.
> 
> Patents in the public interest ... now THAT I can applaud!

Officially, that is (at least in the US) the official, Constitution 
derived, reason for the patent system in the first place.  In exchange 
for a limited length monopoly, the public gets disclosure of the 
invention and the ability to use it once the limited length monopoly 
runs out.

Of course, a 20 year monopoly lets bad actors be bad for 20 years....

> But then, simply publishing the idea would, in theory, count as 
> “prior art”, wouldn’t it?  Though in practice it is very hard to get 
> patents invalidated anyway, at least in the US system (also *cough* 
> East Texas *cough*).

Yes, it does not matter the manner of publication, just the fact that 
it was published.

But, bad sector's method has the added benefit of the fact that the one 
"database" that is most easily accessible to the examiner's working in 
the patent office is the actual database of prior patents.  So 
inserting his idea into the existing patent database itself meant the 
document had the best chance that it would be found, and possibly used, 
to block someone else.