The opposite is true, in fact - a patent is a monopoly on the patented technology, no matter where alternative implementations come from. You might be thinking of “clean room” techniques which protect against claims of copyright infringement.
> You might be thinking of “clean room” techniques which protect against claims of copyright infringement.
Ah yes, that's what I was thinking of -- thanks. Specifically a scene from an episode of Halt and Catch Fire (I won't describe it due to spoilers).
That's a real bummer for patents though and makes me wonder how something like Amazon's 1-click checkout was able to be patented. I wonder how "save billing details for future use" can be considered a novel idea.
For a long time, software patenting law was famously lax. You could basically patent anything software-related if you knew the right legalese. The situation has apparently gotten better after a 2014 SCOTUS ruling, but in the '90s and '00s it was pretty dire.
I believe those scenes were an amalgamation of Tim Paterson’s clean room implementation of DOS from the CP/M manuals [0] and Compaq’s IBM compatible BIOS implementation[1].
They are a some of my favorites, and are fun to watch.
> Standards organizations, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to their patents and pending patent applications that cover a standard that the organization is developing.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_patent
Please not that this is less of a "You have to offer licenses or else" and more of a "Hey please do that."
