41–50 of 148 posts
Is it just me (it's not) or are 80% of these fairly trivial? Patents don't make sense when you think about it.
I thought the same. It's interesting that this kind of comment gets downvoted without explanation. Is there some kind of culture on HN that implicitly forbids us to voice criticism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, I'm glad you like it :) I've kept it really simple - the patentsview.org API spits out JSON, which I'm feeding into the (awesome!) DataTables jQuery-plugin. The site is hosted on GitHub Pages. I'm planning a HN-style voting system so that interesting patents trickle to the top.
2017, when "really simple" is a jQuery plugin. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the feedback :)! The patent in question was granted on 1996-12-31, which means it should have expired on 2016-12-31. The status on Google Patents says "Expired - Fee Related" so I'm guessing they didn't pay a required fee somewhere down the line?
Unlike copyrights, patents don't have an invariable lifetime: they have to be renewed, usually for an increasing fee. In the US, the schedule of maintenance fees is: (A) Three years and 6 months after grant, $980. (B) Seven years and 6 months after grant, $2,480. (C) Eleven years and 6 months after grant, $4,110. This allows patents that are not being profitably exploited to lapse early.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not the only point of the patent system: you seem to think that any good patents could have been kept as trade secrets. But that's not the case. Sometimes there would be no way to use a patent as a trade secret, because, for example, it's simply given to the consumer and they can see how it works, easily. So another important point is to allow people to research and innovate and make it to market under a stat…
I think what jandrese meant is that's the whole point of the modern patent system with fixed expirations. This is as opposed to the earlier system of letters patent, which had the advantages you cite but no requirement of invention or fixed term; Elizabeth I of England, for example, famously issued a patent for salt.
>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Although this perhaps confuses things by mixing copyright into it.
By the way I think in this day and age, patents should be for 5-7 years. Not twenty and certainly not longer. innovation has sped up.
but anyway the whole idea is that to promote the progress of useful arts - so the incentive has to be just big enough to cause that promotion...
One suggestion - can you put the page selector at the top of the list as well (and maybe add an option to allow more than 10 items on the list)? That was just a small thing I noticed...
Word of warning, privacy services like Privacy Badger and Decentraleyes block the data tables cdn your using so your users using those services see no data at all
But I still think patents are at least stimulating to read and apply for. It's proof of invention, which I still think is pretty cool and useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates generally to devices for assisting infirm or injured individuals to move from a standing position to a sitting position and from a sitting position to a standing position. More particularly, the instant invention is directed to a toilet seat which is configured to assist infirm individuals in lowering themselves to and raising themselves from the sitting posit…
Sounds like a toilet version of a riser chair such as [0], which I could see being really useful for people. [0] - http://stairlift-suppliers.co.uk/mobility-aids/riser-recline... (no association with them whatsoever, just first site I found)
Then he spent $$$$ on getting the patent - this isn't cheap - my brother-in-law went thru this, and getting a lawyer and such, having it drawn up, written properly...it cost him $25k easily...
...and then this inventor probably shopped it around to the various mobility equipment companies. All of them likely said "no". It wouldn't surprise me to find that one or more of them came out with (or imported) a similar "invention"! That happened with my brother-in-law's invention...
Regardless, now these device manufacturers - if they haven't already - are possibly all scrambling to be the first to market with such an "invention", and hailing it as a welcome and needed innovation for the elderly and infirm. They'll make a ton of money off of it.
None of it will go to the inventor, and 20 years have passed where more than one person could have used this, and probably died in the meantime wishing for something like this every time they went to the restroom.
Don't say this is a fanciful flight - it happens; it happened with my brother-in-law. Toyota infringed on it, but he didn't have the money to fight it. He did manage to get Bell from importing an infringing device (settled out of court). Ultimately, what he gained barely covered what he spent over the years. This is how the patent game is played in some regard: If the "little guy" patents it, he doesn't get anything, unless he manages to market and produce it himself. Large players or other companies aren't interested, they can just "wait" - or go ahead and infringe and the original inventor can't do anything. Unless that inventor is another large company.
It's a very frustrating system for the lone guy working in his garage; it's no wonder that many of these guys just release things as open-source hardware, or in some other similar fashion. They know that if they don't, it will never get produced. If they try to produce it, Chinese manufacturers will copy it and sell it in no time. If they patent it, they'll spend a ton of money, and gain nothing - or large companies will just outsource it and import it, or infringe in other ways - or just sit on it, and wait for the patent to run out.
I wish it were different - but that's our patent system - it doesn't reward the small guy any longer.
On a different note - something that I wish could be automated would be a tool or something to help properly write patents. If you read enough of them, you realize that they have a very special, very convoluted "language" and "syntax" - specifically designed (?) to detail the invention and construction thereof of the invention, while detailing how it is fundamentally different from similar devices, how it improves upon them, and how each part works and interacts with other parts.
It seems like something that could be automated - or at least computer assisted? As it stands, to get these written requires experts in the field, patent attorneys, copy writers, etc - it isn't something an ordinary person can easily do without a ton of study (and they will likely get it wrong, causing the patent to be rejected, or worse - to pass with a ton of holes in it that can be exploited). As such, it is part of the process that makes getting a patent very expensive (the government fees and such are small potatoes - that isn't what makes getting a patent expensive, but rather the need for technical patent copy writers and drafting specialists for drawings).