Ask HN: Patents

#1

Post by jmtame » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 4:20 AM UTC

I'm developing a product, saw that someone building something similar has a "patent pending" on their web application. How much of a web application can be covered by a patent? For example, all of the web e-mail clients have pretty much the same basic functionality of an inbox, folders, sending and receiving, address book, etc.

What's the limit with patents and at what point should you worry about infringing? As long as it's not identical? Or should it not even come close to resembling it?

The scope is basically a fairly simple web application, calendar software would be a good example. How close can it be before it's considered patent infringement?

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#2

Post by noonespecial » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 4:30 AM UTC

Patent Pending does not equal patent issued.

That said, the patent system is so far gone when it comes to software that you can patent anything. Everyone has. If you write "Hello World", you are infringing. A web form with a button? infringing. The power switch on the computer... ok, you get the idea.

Just do your thing. In software there's no such thing as infringing because the answer to "can I make a computer do X?" is always yes if you work hard enough at it. All of the paths to X will be different.

If you are successful enough for someone to actually sue you for infringement, take this as a compliment. You will also likely have the resources to mount a defense as well.

Worrying about all of that now is just premature optimization. If you succeed, you will be sued. That's just the business climate of today's market. Cross that bridge when you come to it.

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#3

Post by chaostheory » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 5:06 AM UTC

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not giving you advice, and you should talk to a lawyer.

Just remember one really important thing: letting people know that you have knowingly infringed on a specific patent increases the damages awarded to the patent holder. Never talk specifics unless you're talking to your own lawyer.

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#4

Post by akd » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 5:13 AM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #3

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not giving you advice, and you should talk to a lawyer. Just remember one really important thing: letting people know that you have knowingly infringed on a specific patent increases the damages awarded to the patent holder. Never talk specifics unless you're talking to your own lawyer.

Yes! You must never have anything in writing that proves you knew about the patent. Make sure of this.

But don't worry about patents now. That's for lawyers to worry about.

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#5

Post by micks56 » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 5:25 AM UTC

The short answer to how close you can be is you don't know till you end up in court. Now, for the longer explanation.

The Supreme Court of the US has ruled that patents can be obtained for "anything under the sun." Exceptions carved out by the same court are for laws of nature, maths, and abstract ideas.

So you can't patent F=ma, but things in web e-mail clients could be patented.

There is no way to tell if you are infringing without actually reading the patent claims. So until the patents are granted, you don't have anything to analyze.

Also, their patented claims do not have to be identical to what you are doing. If it is obvious to someone skilled in the art that what you are doing is a modification of what your competitor is doing, then that could also be infringement. This is why you see the language "in one embodiment" in patents. The drafters are not limiting themselves to the claimed implementation, but are trying to do a land grab that people skilled in the art would do after reading this application.

In legalese this is called the doctrine of equivalents. The United States section on the wikipedia page for doctrine of equivalents is currently accurate. You will see the standard there.

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#6

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 5:52 AM UTC

Patents are largely bullshit. The only thing looking at patents can do for a you as a programmer is to give you a nasty case of brain cloud. A few years ago, I spent a lot of time a few years ago looking at "Internet TV" related patents. Any area that might be hot is patent trolled to death, and this was certainly true for video over the internet. Best thing to do is to ignore it until people start becoming interested in you.

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#7

Post by hooande » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 6:09 AM UTC

Patents cost a LOT of money to enforce. The odds of you being sued are very low. People will be able to issue you a cease and desist order on the cheap, but the odds of it ever going before a judge are equally low. Business methods patents are notoriously hard to enforce as well.

Many big companies collect patents to have as assets. They rarely actually enforce them because it costs too much money (even for them). While your product might dance around infringing on this patent or that, the odds of anyone actually doing anything against you are very low.

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#8

Post by sonink » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 7:17 AM UTC

Just make something useful.

Forget about patents. Patent pending refers to a provisional application and is not legally enforceable. Essentially, anyone can get a 'patent pending' on anything.

Patents are important only if you have enough money to either sue someone or if you have tons of money to interest someone to sue you. Assuming none of the above is true, and as someone commented above, cross this bridge when you come to it.

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#9

Post by goelp » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 8:24 AM UTC

A thing to note is that patents have a life of 20 years or lesser, so in some cases patents would have become void. Probably it is less likely to apply to internet technologies since lot of the internet development took place in the last 20 years.

Re: Ask HN: Patents

#10

Post by vaksel » Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 9:45 AM UTC

Not a lawyer, but I wouldn't worry about it.

a) software patents are pretty useless nowadays, it takes so long to get it, that by the time you have it, your patentable technology is a $39.99 script people can buy.

b) Its not your problem to adhere to all issued patents, until someone starts suing you. I mean look at ANY site on the web, they are probably in violation of 200 patents. Chances are the "Add Comment" button has already been patented. So has the hyperlink I used to view your story. So has the term "flag"

c) Most of these "patents" are bullshit.

d) There is no guarantee that these guys will even get their patent approved.

e) You don't even know what they are trying to patent. For all you know, their patent has nothing to do with their technology, it could just be a patent for something stupid like "a way to display a hyperlink in a lime green bold times new roman font".

So personally I'd just go ahead and do whatever it is you want to do, because chances are there is prior art that you can cite to make anything they come up with invalid.