21–30 of 76 posts
Unless you have a war chest behind you getting a patent is a huge gamble especially when your invention becomes successful. When it does those with a war chest jump in and use the PTAB to invalid your patent. You can even hear judges on Shark Tank like Damon John say/ponder on the show is a patent worth getting as he notes the PTAB issue. Further, Google and it's ilk changed the game in their favor when they lined th…
When did it change to first to file?
I do research in computer science and in the last few years, lots of trivial and dumb patents in my field appeared out of nowhere. However, I can only assume that they really are trivial because they are written in a way to claim a lot without actually describing how any of it works. These patents have 0% information in them. What's more, they all read like a rewrite of papers that were published years ago (before th…
Patents are primarily about getting a limited time monopoly. Publicly disclosing the invention is just a direct consequence and not a virtue of the patent system. So please stop marketing it like that. In many cases it is completely irrelevant because the invention is sold and can be reverse engineered. Also: > Encouraging people to share information so that others can use it to make further advances is the whole poi…
> Patents are primarily about getting a limited time monopoly. Nope. Patents have always been about encouraging public disclosure of secrets. This has been the case since they were invented by the Venetians in order to break trade guilds and their literal on-pain-of-death secret maintenance. The idea was to offer the secret-holder a deal: if you reveal your secret, you get a significant but temporary government-enfor…
I like that formulation. But in that case we shouldn't be granting patents on things that can be immediately (or even within 5 years) reverse engineered from working examples.
I do research in computer science and in the last few years, lots of trivial and dumb patents in my field appeared out of nowhere. However, I can only assume that they really are trivial because they are written in a way to claim a lot without actually describing how any of it works. These patents have 0% information in them. What's more, they all read like a rewrite of papers that were published years ago (before th…
Patents are primarily about getting a limited time monopoly. Publicly disclosing the invention is just a direct consequence and not a virtue of the patent system. So please stop marketing it like that. In many cases it is completely irrelevant because the invention is sold and can be reverse engineered. Also: > Encouraging people to share information so that others can use it to make further advances is the whole poi…
> Patents are primarily about getting a limited time monopoly. Nope. Patents have always been about encouraging public disclosure of secrets. This has been the case since they were invented by the Venetians in order to break trade guilds and their literal on-pain-of-death secret maintenance. The idea was to offer the secret-holder a deal: if you reveal your secret, you get a significant but temporary government-enfor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Patents are primarily about getting a limited time monopoly. Nope. Patents have always been about encouraging public disclosure of secrets. This has been the case since they were invented by the Venetians in order to break trade guilds and their literal on-pain-of-death secret maintenance. The idea was to offer the secret-holder a deal: if you reveal your secret, you get a significant but temporary government-enfor…
Patents have always been about encouraging public disclosure of secrets. ... The monopoly is the tool of patent law. But the purpose of patent law is disclosure of information. I like that formulation. But in that case we shouldn't be granting patents on things that can be immediately (or even within 5 years) reverse engineered from working examples.
I do research in computer science and in the last few years, lots of trivial and dumb patents in my field appeared out of nowhere. However, I can only assume that they really are trivial because they are written in a way to claim a lot without actually describing how any of it works. These patents have 0% information in them. What's more, they all read like a rewrite of papers that were published years ago (before th…
I do think the EFF's concern about claims and documentation already debunked/invalid being hidden behind seal is pretty serious and I think judges approving it are doing the public no service.
Someone, somewhere must have written the "SELECT shell_company_id ..." query that ensures the correct company is put on the litigation letter.
If you ever find yourself in that situation, stop and think for a second about what you are doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the real big driving motivation is actually just to make sure the patent isn’t too narrow. If you are sinking time and money into patenting everything, it makes business sense to make it as broad as you think you can. On the flip side, patents exist probably in part exactly because trade secrets are incredibly hard to keep. People are pretty good at reverse engineering things. (Note: I am not trying to conv…
It's typically considered the best approach to cast a broad net, then narrow down until a patent is granted. That being said, in the US, patents are given on a first to invent basis, so if you are awarded a patent that is overly vague, it's pretty likely it won't hold up if challenged. I find myself questioning the value of a patent office that awards patents that are vague enough that they wouldn't hold up in a disp…
A trade secret can be kept secret indefinitely and can potentially be lost if the company loses interest or is shut down. Patents help encourage publishing advances in technology so that they eventually advance the public domain. If they weren't interested in that then they probably wouldn't make patents expire.