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

SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

sparkfun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#111

Post by arvindamirtaa »

AlbertCory wrote: post #80

The patent is indeed expired (there's a website that will tell you that date, but I forget its URL), but they can still sue for infringement that took place before the expiration date. If the total damages are small (as it appears), then you are probably costing them more than the suit is worth. So I'd expect them to offer to settle for a token amount, to avoid having an official loss on the record. But IANAL and thi…

> offer to settle

They can do that. But there isn't much leverage for them if they do that. They'll be giving their hand away and at that point SparkFun has almost no reason to pay a single dollar.

Disclaimer : IANAL

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#112

Post by mlyle »

robomartin wrote: post #106
AlbertCory wrote: post #45

Me: software engr, retired; also patent agent who worked in Google Patent Litigation. A rookie mistake is reading the TEXT of a patent. A pro looks only at the claims. The text is only there to "support" the claims, which boils down to using the same words. Cynical, I know. Claims unfortunately look like gibberish if you're unschooled, but "construing" them is an early step in a trial, and often if you get a bad clai…

> A rookie mistake is reading the TEXT of a patent. A pro looks only at the claims. The text is only there to "support" the claims That's how I have always looked at patents...until I ran into an attorney who insisted that you have to read both and that the text is just as important. The context was in reviewing patents for prior art. This confused the hell out of me because very often the text is where you see someo…

The text is the authority on what the phrases in the claims mean. So, you can be surprised when the text sets out a much broader meaning of a term than is used in common parlance.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#113

Post by Ekaros »

sharemywin wrote: post #13
ohazi wrote: post #6

> > The cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system. [...] > Dynamic ram? Can I poke fun at them for not knowing what RAM is? Yes I can. > The above paragraph succinctly describes malloc(), which is perhaps one of the most fundamental advancements in modern computing. The problem is that Al didn’t invent it. Memory management (the ability to take RAM…

I remember when I toured a research nuclear reactor and I was talking with the nuclear phd student and I said something about an alpha particle and the protons and neutrons. And they were trying to say alpha particles aren't made up of protons and neutrons. Made me realize than that even an expert in the field might not know something that I would have thought was common knowledge.

I would think that not thinking alpha particle as "made up" from protons and neutrons helpful abstraction in thinking about fission. Yes, they are, but we can't really form them or deform them at will. Specially when you already deal with free neutrons.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#114

Post by [deleted] »

ww520 wrote: post #58

(Note that none of the following is legal advice.) One tip on reading patent - ignore most of the diagrams and description, and go straight to the claims. The claims are the only valid part of the patent. In this case, all the static/dynamic RAM, signals, memory cache, and malloc stuffs are irrelevant and misdirection. This patent has only 1 claim [1]. The claim has a series of elements making a number of conditions…

[deleted]

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#116

Post by croo »

The comments are about the contradictions between the patent and the blog post and the technical discussion are great. I would point out another angle.

I had a loud and irritating neighbour who patronized me (everyone) and I had hard time coping until I gave the guy a stupid nickname. When I was able to laugh the whole ordeal went away and no longer stressed me. This blog post is the same: it helps SparkFun shifting the seriousness of the threat into something laughable so it can be handled in a calm manner as it should be and to not loose another night of sleep over it. How exact or rational are the snarky remarks about the pattern doesn't really matter.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#118

Post by chris_wot »

URSpider94 wrote: post #82
simondotau wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a reasonable world, benefit of the doubt shouldn't be given to the patent holder when there is genuine confusion. It should be incumbent upon the filer to describe their invention in a way that is clear to experts in that relevant field. Sadly I suspect the world we live in isn't so reasonable.

The patent holder didn't receive their patent by accident. It was reviewed by an examiner in the patent office. Patent examiners are skilled technical researchers who are trained to comprehend the matter they are examining. Once a patent has been granted, indeed, there is benefit of the doubt that the patent is valid. However - when it comes to whether the patent applies to a given invention, that's a matter of debat…

Patent examiners seem to grant all sorts of crap that is prior art. I have very little faith in them.

Edit: removed example, it was wrong.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#119

Post by Ballas »

civilized wrote: post #86

Why not just abolish patents? Who or what would oppose this?

Well patents were designed so that you give away your "recipe" in exchange for a limited time monopoly. Clearly that is still a valid use case, but it seems that with patent trolls, patents are getting misused.

Software patents should 100% be abolished - for the same reason that mathematical formulas are not patentable.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#120

Post by gyc »

AlbertCory wrote: post #76
a1371 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you learn to read the claims?

I took the Kayten course [1] to review for the Patent Bar exam. It was three days, and then I spent a couple months reviewing all the old exam questions. [1] https://passingpatentbarwithprg.tumblr.com/post/9992218513/w...

Note that the patent bar exam tests you on knowledge of rules and regulations of the patent office and of the Patent Cooperation Treaty that many countries have signed on to. So you won't necessarily learn to draft a patent or how to read a patent just by studying materials for the patent bar exam.
Post reply on HN