COcodetrotter·Feb 22, 2019
Your link is broken due to the brackets you put around it.
Unbroken: https://github.com/google/opencasebook/blob/master/patents.m...
In Patent Exhaustion and Open Sourcegoogle
opencasebook
Ruby2019–2019
google / opencasebook · Archived
opencasebook
Open Source Casebook
2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
83GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Open Source Casebook
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by hour2 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2019-02-22 04:14:27 UTC to 2019-02-22 08:14:54 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 04:00 | 2019-02-22 04:00:00 UTC | 2019-02-22 05:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Feb 22, 05:00 | 2019-02-22 05:00:00 UTC | 2019-02-22 06:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 22, 06:00 | 2019-02-22 06:00:00 UTC | 2019-02-22 07:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 22, 07:00 | 2019-02-22 07:00:00 UTC | 2019-02-22 08:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 22, 08:00 | 2019-02-22 08:00:00 UTC | 2019-02-22 09:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
2 sourcesHi, I'm the author of this talk. A couple quick notes:
First, the source materials I relied on are available at <https://github.com/google/opencasebook/blob/master/patents.m.... If you are interested, please read them.
Second, about Bowman v. Monsanto. The logic of Bowman is a pretty serious challenge to what I presented above. It might invalidate certain parts of my argument. Specifically, the question is whether it is even theoretically possible to exhaust the exclusive right to "make" a patented item.
I haven't yet been able to go back and do further research. But what I would be looking for is a case where someone sold an item - like a software application - with a license that says, "make as many copies as you want for internal use." If the buyer then transferred the software, would the new buyer get the right to make copies? I'm not
Read the rest
sure. But if so, that would be evidence that a sale could exhaust the right to make.
Third, I thought this was a fun rabbit hole - and, as I said in my talk, a "surprising" result. The surprising bit is important. It is entirely possible - and even likely - that a court could agree with all the precedents I cited, and "distinguish" them to come to a contrary, non-surprising result.
In short, I think exhaustion is more important than people may be considering, but don't take this analysis to the bank.