Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House approves major overhaul of patent system

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#41

Post by Vivtek »

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #35

On one hand I'm upset about the fact that I can invent something, not have the money to patent it, and have someone else get rights to the patent because they had the money for it. ============================= On the other hand, image this: - I created an invention. - I worked my ass off saving up $5-10 thousand dollars for patent and legal fees. - I spend hundreds of hours of my life searching for prior art on the…

If you don't have the money to patent it, then publish it - rendering it unpatentable due to your prior art. Nothing keeps you from being the expert in the field, but you're protected from somebody else patenting it and charging you a royalty.

The first-to-file provision essentially just makes it easier to decide who gets the patent if two people patent substantially the same thing. I don't think it's going to make much of a difference in the existing breakage of the patent system.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#42

Post by dctoedt »

patentnerd wrote: post #34
danbmil99 wrote: post #33

This is basically a cave-in to the EU/Japanese system, and IMNSHO it will increase not decrease the number of frivolous patents. What it really does is remove the option of protecting something as a secret. You have to either publish or patent (which is basically a state-sanctioned form of publishing with monopoly benefits). It completely changes the calculus of small inventors, who will now be forced to file multipl…

It is still possible to protect an invention as a trade secret. Of course, if someone later independently invents and files, they get the patent. The earlier user is immune from infringement of the patent under the "prior user defense", though.

> It is still possible to protect an invention as a trade secret. Of course, if someone later independently invents and files, they get the patent.

That's been true for decades under existing law.

> The earlier user is immune from infringement of the patent under the "prior user defense", though.

This will be a new feature of the law under the new legislation.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#43

Post by eykanal »

People keep posting links to mass media reports of this news. Are there any good blog reviews analyzing how this will actually affect software development? I don't trust the media to even have gotten all the facts right, let alone to give me an in-depth understanding of how this will turn out.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#45

Post by rayiner »

rexreed wrote: post #44

Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that business method patents weren't addressed? For us software folks, the business method patent issue is a lot more pertinent given that the majority of software patents hinge on this idea.

They are. There is a provision that says that financial services industries can challenge business method patents (or something to that effect).

Hopefully this is a little loophole that can be widened to allow broader attacks on business method patents.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#46

Post by rexreed »

rayiner wrote: post #45
rexreed wrote: post #44

Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that business method patents weren't addressed? For us software folks, the business method patent issue is a lot more pertinent given that the majority of software patents hinge on this idea.

They are. There is a provision that says that financial services industries can challenge business method patents (or something to that effect). Hopefully this is a little loophole that can be widened to allow broader attacks on business method patents.

Actually, you're right. I had first read the article as stating that the business method patents was written as an amendment that was defeated, but on rereading it seems that the business method patents part was included, and the amendment to remove it failed. Tricky context in reading this one.

"There was also strong opposition to a provision that allows financial institutions to challenge patents issued on business methods, such as ways to process checks. The opponents said the provision amounted to a bailout for banks, but Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the Judiciary intellectual property subcommittee said business method patents, a fairly recent phenomenon, were "a fundamental flaw in the system that is costing consumers millions each year."

"An amendment to remove the section concerning the business method patents was defeated 262-158."

So I guess it's in there? Confusing.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#47

Post by rayiner »

chamakits wrote: post #38

Can we stop pretending like patents are a good idea? As long as they exist, they'll need to be "fixed".

[Citation needed].

EDIT: Computer folks tend to see the world through a particular set of glasses. They see a world of inventors in their basement you can invent with little capital investment. That's fine and is great for innovation, but the whole world doesn't look like that. If you're in an industry where the process of invention is extremely costly, patents can often be the only way for smaller entities to participate. Say you have an idea for a new radio technology. It'll cost you millions of dollars to build a prototype (the associated parts and equipment are very expensive). And once you have it --- what do you do with it? Go into production and compete with AT&T and Verizon? Patents allow meaningful seperation of invention from productization, and that's something that hugely benefits smaller entities.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#48

Post by anamax »

true_religion wrote: post #23
anamax wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a patent holder wants to ensure protection for their work, they need to file first and extensively publicize their filing as such no one can claim spontaneous re-invention as is the case with many software products. In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents. HP can "extensively publicize" for almost nothing by piggybacking on other things that they do. Small companies and individuals can't.…

> In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents. All? No, they only get patents for those things that they invent. It cuts both ways, the bigger you are the more liable the newly empowered patent bureau is to say that you could have easily found the existing patented invention. On the other hand, since multiple parties can hold patents and subsequently re-licence them it will be easy for a a company…

>> In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents.

> All? No, they only get patents for those things that they invent.

As I pointed out, the "extensive publication" requirement is a significant obstacle for everyone else, so they won't get SW patents. Thus, all of the SW patents go to big companies.

> The something obnoxious like the famed "one click" patent

"obnoxious"? That's your objection to one click?

What's wrong with novelty/prior art and non-obvious?

In every other field, recognizing that there is a problem and patenting a broad-swath of mechanisms to solve it is considered good. Why is software different?

And yes, I'm familiar with James Bessen's work. I introduced his EE380 talk at Stanford.

Post reply on HN