When Patents Attack • Hacker News Board

Re: When Patents Attack

#121

Post by Symmetry » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 3:23 PM UTC

mckoss wrote: post #62

moultano wrote: post #61

Throwing an idea out there: Software patents should last no more than 1 year. If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.

I think a better solution is a mandatory licensing process. The threat of absolute exclusion is too damaging to the industry. AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.

That patent office really doesn't have enough resources to do their job. Congress determines their budget and the fees they charge, and actually hasn't even seen fit to allow them to keep all the money they collect in fees.

In the 1980s (IIRC) this has previously resulted in long delays before patents were issued, but then Congress ordered to USPTO to clear its backlog, which means they now _have_ to grant most patents quickly, because if they don't the applicant will just make a few small changes and send the patent in again, but if they grant the patent its out of their hair.

Re: When Patents Attack

#122

Post by Symmetry » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 3:38 PM UTC

vinced wrote: post #69

The solution is very simple. Create a simple how to patent template website, then have every developer apply for patents on any business and software process that they can dream of. Within two years you'll choke the entire system into change. Make it impossible for anyone to do anything. 1st idea, the collection, aggregation, and transmittal of electronic messaging data during a waste evacuation process. (i.e. checki…

To the extent that the system is choked it means that the Patent Office grants patents without having the time to look at them, not that a backlog develops. You might notice that this has already happened.

Re: When Patents Attack

#123

Post by MartinCron » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 3:58 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #118

MartinCron wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if the patent office would just do their job and not grant bogus patents based on obvious inventions or inventions with prior art, that would probably be enough. Software patents aren't the problem, bad software patents are the problem.

The job of the patent office is impossible in the field of software patents. It is not realistic to expect anyone to judge novelty and non-obviousness in a field this wide and active. Imagine trying to evaluate mechanical engineering patent applications if millions of people carried machine shops around in their backpacks. The only solution is to end software patents. Obama could do this today by directing the patent…

The non-obviousness part absolutely requires more domain expertise than I expect a lot of patent clerks bring, but checking for prior art seems like something that could be found via search or crowdsourcing.

Imagine if there were a public review step to granting patents, where the broader community could provide examples of prior art and debate the non-obviousness of it.

Re: When Patents Attack

#124

Post by MartinCron » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 4:02 PM UTC

Kliment wrote: post #92

MartinCron wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it meets the non-obvious and no-prior-art tests, I don't see a problem with the concept. Something like mouse gestures feel like a patentable innovation worthy of a temporary government-enforced monopoly.

Sure, but not for a decade or more. The timescale of patents is simply incompatible with the timescale of software.

I totally agree on that front. Five years seems like a reasonable upper limit to how long software patents should last.

Re: When Patents Attack

#125

Post by MartinCron » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 4:04 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #24

lukejduncan wrote: post #18

Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi... They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive." Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong. And who, or what, do they think they a…

> We at Intellectual Ventures fundamentally disagree with [the notion that patents have a negative impact on innovation], which flies in the face of centuries of evidence. I know of a rather serious source that says patents are a net evil, baked up by… centuries of evidence: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely v…

Never mind the fact that there simply cannot be centuries of evidence about software patents.

Re: When Patents Attack

#126

Post by MartinCron » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 4:30 PM UTC

adorton wrote: post #48

One of the best TAL episodes in recent memory. The story mentions that modern patents (specifically software patents) lack the novelty that the patent system was originally designed to encourage. Did patent laws change at some point in history to allow this to happen?

One of the best TAL episodes in recent memory.

Absolutely. While listening to it, one of my thoughts was "I can't wait to read the discussion of this over on HN".

I'm going to use this opportunity to remind people to donate to their local public radio station, TAL/WBEZ Chicago, or both.

Re: When Patents Attack

#127

Post by arvinjoar » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 7:29 PM UTC

I wonder why people waste their time and money on defending themselves in court, why don't they hire Tony Soprano to fix their problem instead? It would be a pretty appropriate response.

Re: When Patents Attack

#128

Post by joejohnson » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 7:50 PM UTC

danshapiro wrote: post #73

Did anyone else click the "someone patented toast" link and actually read the claims? It's for toasting bread at 2,500-4,500 degrees, with specialized infrared ovens.

"specialized infrared ovens" That's cute. Toasters, you mean? Toasters work by heating a coil to somewhere in that range (2.5k - 4.5k degrees), and then the radiation from the coils toasts the bread.

Re: When Patents Attack

#129

Post by loup-vaillant » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 9:48 PM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #125

loup-vaillant wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We at Intellectual Ventures fundamentally disagree with [the notion that patents have a negative impact on innovation], which flies in the face of centuries of evidence. I know of a rather serious source that says patents are a net evil, baked up by… centuries of evidence: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely v…

Never mind the fact that there simply cannot be centuries of evidence about software patents .

But we were talking about patents in general. And those are quite old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History -> "Patents in the modern sense originated in 1474"

And of course, the Watt's steam engines patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt#Patents

Re: When Patents Attack

#130

Post by MartinCron » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 10:02 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #129

MartinCron wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind the fact that there simply cannot be centuries of evidence about software patents .

But we were talking about patents in general . And those are quite old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History -> "Patents in the modern sense originated in 1474" And of course, the Watt's steam engines patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt#Patents

And I'm calling out that the article was about software pattents being possibly bad and the response was simply, "no, patents are good" without any real substance.