←back to thread

34 points dmmalam | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source | bottom
1. btrettel ◴[] No.45092366[source]
The headline is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no patents have been granted yet. Intel filed patent applications. Failure to distinguish between applications and granted patents is far too common.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20250217157A1/en

See the sidebar on the right? Look at "Application US18/401,460 events". Note that the status is "Pending" and not "Active" or "Expired". Google isn't always accurate here as their data could be out of date, but they're accurate enough for me to not look further. You can check the other countries as well to see all are pending.

replies(2): >>45092993 #>>45095216 #
2. rs186 ◴[] No.45092993[source]
Just like articles that say "xx research group publishes new article discovering ..." when it is a preprint on arxiv (especially in "traditional" physical sciences). I mean, they kind of published it, but I would be very careful about reporting work that has not gone through peer review yet.
3. dkiebd ◴[] No.45095216[source]
Okay? This is not relevant. What matters here is that they have developed this technology. “Patents” in the title of the article is a way of saying that they have developed the technology.
replies(2): >>45095492 #>>45100862 #
4. btrettel ◴[] No.45095492[source]
I don't agree. I think most people would think that "patents" implies that a patent office has granted a patent.

For what it's worth, confusing patents and patent applications is a pet peeve of mine as a former patent examiner. I've seen people criticize the USPTO for apparently granting a patent on some nonsense, but when I look at it, the USPTO rejected the application. The problem is that people can't tell the difference between a patent application and patent. I saw an opportunity to clarify this issue and I took it.

replies(1): >>45114018 #
5. Doxin ◴[] No.45100862[source]
> What matters here is that they have developed this technology.

Having a pending patent, or even a granted patent, does not mean the technology described has been invented. There are many many patents on all sorts of infinite energy devices for example. It should go without saying that none of those work.

6. gnirre ◴[] No.45114018{3}[source]
” The headline is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no patents have been granted yet”

Thats not how you need to interpret ”patents” grammatically. You could read that as ”is in the process of patenting”

Is there a good verb for ”files patent applications for”?

You want to consider readability of the headline.