SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll • Hacker News Board

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#151

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

Traster wrote: post #148

kens wrote: post #68

I like SparkFun and I don't like patent trolls, but I have to say that SparkFun's mockery of the patent doesn't make sense. It is pretty clear that this patent was written by an engineer describing their actual system in great detail followed by one fairly narrow claim. I've seen many patents that are mostly written by lawyers, and I don't see any influence of lawyers in this patent. SparkFun's criticism is kind of p…

>SparkFun's criticism is kind of painful to read. The diagram that SparkFun claims is SPI is not SPI. The discussion that SparkFun claims is malloc is entirely unrelated to malloc. Yeah this is where my spidey sense started tingling. He mocks "Dynamic RAM" but I don't understand the joke, there is dynamic and static RAM and presumably this patent is talking about loading the configuration at run-time as opposed to us…

[deleted]

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#152

Post by josaka » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #149

kens wrote: post #68

I like SparkFun and I don't like patent trolls, but I have to say that SparkFun's mockery of the patent doesn't make sense. It is pretty clear that this patent was written by an engineer describing their actual system in great detail followed by one fairly narrow claim. I've seen many patents that are mostly written by lawyers, and I don't see any influence of lawyers in this patent. SparkFun's criticism is kind of p…

Yeah. This was painful. > Al is claiming that they have patent number 6289434 which they quickly start referring to as patent ‘434. Can I tell you how humorous it is that an attorney feels it necessary to shorten a 7-digit number to a 4-character abbreviation? Thanks Al. That really saves me some time. The 3 digit “abbreviation” is a common thing in patent law. It’s because, when in court, they refer to them by those…

20 years is a good first approximation for patent term. Patents expire 20 years from the first non-provisional priority date in the US, plus whatever term extension is granted by the USPTO to compensate you for USPTO delays, less any term lost for a terminal disclaimer.

It's fair game to sue on an expired patent, because in some cases, you can collect for past damages that accrued up to six years in the past. That's probably why the complaint focused on an older product, potentially sold during the patent term.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#153

Post by mirker » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

Nevermark wrote: post #150

tsimionescu wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are obviously wrong here. Even the wording of the lawsuit is extremely clear: "The cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system." - that is, they only use S/D RAM for holding the state of the system, no other kind of memory. I have no idea how you can misread this to think it refers to requesting memory dynamically - they explicitly say "static…

Requesting memory “dynamically” has nothing to do with “dynamic’ in ‘dynamic memory”. Requesting dynamically means that RAM is allocated while a program is running, not at compile or simply launch time. That is a software consideration. Dynamic RAM means memory that requires refreshes to maintain the information it stores. A completely unrelated hardware concern. The word dynamic simply means something that happens i…

I’d just like to add that “Dynamic Programming” is one example of word fluff. “Dynamic” is somewhat of an ambiguous marketing buzzword, unfortunately.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#154

Post by patentatt » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

ajnin wrote: post #91

Don't patents examiners receive bonuses based on the number of patent applications they process? And isn't accepting a patent basically checking a box, while rejecting one requires an argumented memoir and a lengthy back and forth discussion with the applicant and an appeal process? The patent system is skewed by design towards accepting patents too easily. I don't believe that patents are entirely harmful, but I thi…

They do receive bonuses for doing more work, not necessarily for granting a patent. And you’re dead wrong on the second part, it’s way way way way easier to write a rejection than issue a patent because there’s a good chance the applicant will file a continuation and you’ll get more counts for the same work for an application that you already know well and have done the legwork on. So no, examiners are not incentivized to grant bullshit parents in any way shape or form.

Source: former examiner, current patent attorney who works with examiners regularly.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#155

Post by colanderman » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

barbegal wrote: post #128

kens wrote: post #68

I like SparkFun and I don't like patent trolls, but I have to say that SparkFun's mockery of the patent doesn't make sense. It is pretty clear that this patent was written by an engineer describing their actual system in great detail followed by one fairly narrow claim. I've seen many patents that are mostly written by lawyers, and I don't see any influence of lawyers in this patent. SparkFun's criticism is kind of p…

I agree, the patent is slightly odd in that it only makes a single claim on the media processing units. I think any multi-core processor would fit the claim of the patent. It seems that in this case the engineer was told to file the patent but they didn't have enough money to get the lawyers to produce some proper claims to protect the unique elements of this design.

Agreed. Most patents include a sequence of progressively narrower claims building on one another, including permutations of subsets of the new mechanisms claimed, with the expectation that the broadest is likely invalid, the narrowest is definitely novel, and the courts can determine where the boundary falls between the others.

That this patent does none of this I agree suggests a lawyer did not get paid enough, or the patent was intended to publish the ideas (i.e. stop the "big players" from copying an idea and patenting it).

As-is, depending on how you squint and read it, the single claim either is too specific for anything but a clone of the product it's describing to infringe, or so generic it's just describing prior art.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#156

Post by smaudet » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #103

I've said it before, but if you support the patent system, but say patent trolls should be abolished you are essentially saying that patents are only for big corporations to protect their turf from new incomers. One argument is often patent trolls don't make anything themselves. So someone who makes a truly groundbreaking invention but for some reason (e.g. it requires huge capital) does not want to create a company…

Hmm, I mostly agree that patents should be abolished, at least for software systems...

But I'd like to examine this concept as patent trolls as heroes for the little guy - are there any actual examples of this, at least in the domain this usually is found (software)?

The only example I can think of is the inventor, who does indeed come up with concepts which he may only journal - ironically it used to be there was provision for this, having prior art on the subject invalidates the patent, even if only in concept. The difference being that this precludes the inventor from being sued for having invented, versus the first to file as it is now, which is what creates the whole pyramid of perverse incentives in my view.

Patent trolls typically have done no work or have no prior art, subsisting solely on "purchasing" invented arts - i.e. they have done no previous work.

As you say, this mainly creates a system where the 'little guy' just loses out, or people who have done nothing seek to swindle. You can have a system which protects concepts only if you also allow in the system that it is a system only to be used in an actual defensive situation, such as an inventor with an idea being protected from a large company trying to sue for so called copying (under copyright law)

Of course you would need to create a second classification at present, i.e. if you actually create a widget then you can only claim a limited right to exactly thay widget and nothing else - just the hint if non specificity would mean that the 'patent' was invalid. And a broader class of patent which would be claimed only in defense, i.e. public or private prior art.

What is broken seems to be the implementation (heh) not the concept of patents.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#157

Post by silexia » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

Patent trolls are pure evil.

The solution is to dismantle the system scummy patent attorneys built and use to steal from good companies.

The entire patent system only serves to prevent competition through a government enforced monopoly. Why is there only one big aircraft manufacturer (Boeing) left in the US? Patents. Why is there only one major DB maker (Oracle)? Patents. Get rid of patents and you will greatly increased innovation and competition and the consumer will win.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#158

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

gyc wrote: post #120

AlbertCory wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True. Like anything, you only learn the REAL practice of it by doing it. In my case, I found a lawyer who made a practice of taking novices & training them (then they'd eventually go on to higher-paying jobs).

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#159

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 3:40 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #112

robomartin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ah, if only you'd seen some of the claim construction briefs and opinions I've seen. The text is not the ONLY authority, and if it contradicts common practice then the lawyers can argue about it.

For example, in chemical cases, you cannot have your own definition of "methylated." There are standard definitions of terms. Regrettably, in software not so much.

Re: SparkFun Hooks a Patent Troll

#160

Post by rrss » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 3:41 PM UTC

patentatt wrote: post #154

ajnin wrote: post #91

Don't patents examiners receive bonuses based on the number of patent applications they process? And isn't accepting a patent basically checking a box, while rejecting one requires an argumented memoir and a lengthy back and forth discussion with the applicant and an appeal process? The patent system is skewed by design towards accepting patents too easily. I don't believe that patents are entirely harmful, but I thi…

They do receive bonuses for doing more work, not necessarily for granting a patent. And you’re dead wrong on the second part, it’s way way way way easier to write a rejection than issue a patent because there’s a good chance the applicant will file a continuation and you’ll get more counts for the same work for an application that you already know well and have done the legwork on. So no, examiners are not incentiviz…

There's sort of a lot of literature that suggests that the USPTO does have a number of incentives to grant invalid patents. Even if they are all mistaken, this suggests to me that the issue is not as clear-cut as you say.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1756-2171.12...

> This means that the fastest way for an examiner to obtain two counts is to dispose of an application through a first-action allowance.

I think this is what you are saying.

> Disposing of an application through an abandonment or RCE usually requires working through a series of responses and amendments by the applicant and issuing a second office action, none of which earns the examiner any counts.18 As a result, it is more time consuming to earn the second count through a rejection than through a grant. As others have noted, the count system thus essentially rewards examiners for granting patents (Merges, 1999; Jaffe and Lerner, 2004; Lemley and Shapiro, 2005)

But this disagrees on whether the examiners get points for the rest of the work on the same application.

https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/publications/2017-decreasing-...

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Frakes_Michael_IPSC_paper...

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0895330054048650

> legal scholars who have studied the patent prosecution process have pointed to structural problems that encourage the PTO to grant patents of doubtful quality, including high examiner turnover and an incentive system that rewards examiners for allowing but not for rejecting applications (Merges, 1999; Thomas, 2001). As a result, the overwhelming majority of patent applications in the United States, perhaps 85 percent, ultimately result in an issued patent—far more than in Europe and Japan (Quillen, Webster and Eichman, 2003; NAS, 2004).