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

Patents are about to become a bigger problem

ownlocal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Patents are about to become a bigger problem

#21

Post by monochromatic »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #12

On the plus side, it seems like only a small matter of time before this obviously broken system collapses under its own weight, and we're forced to do something slightly more sane instead. Once the ensuing tidal wave of patent applications is upon us, the USPTO will have no choice but to drastically lower their (already depressingly low) standards for patent acceptance due to lack of resources available to check them…

> Once the ensuing tidal wave of patent applications is upon us, the USPTO will have no choice but to drastically lower their (already depressingly low) standards for patent acceptance

Or, you know, the backlog could just get bigger.

Re: Patents are about to become a bigger problem

#22

Post by WiseWeasel »

monochromatic wrote: post #18
jeremymims wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author, I do appreciate that someone thinks I'm confused, but this sentence is hardly the point of my argument. My point is that large corporations are at an even larger advantage with this system and that it hurts entrepreneurs. What has already been a tilted playing field will become even more so. The key with "First to Invent" is that someone could demonstrate that they had invented something but not actual…

> For instance, if you came up with a novel software process, didn't patent it, and went about your business, it should theoretically be harder for another company to come along and patent your work. First to file doesn't change this. Prior art is still prior art. This is slightly simplified, but here's the gist. The only change is when Inventor A comes up with an idea first, Inventor B comes up with the same idea (i…

That's ridiculous! Inventor A should obviously always win, since he actually implemented his idea before B did. B could have seen A's idea and filed a patent on it.

Re: Patents are about to become a bigger problem

#23

Post by monochromatic »

suprasanna wrote: post #2

I don't see how this isn't a bigger issue or hasn't been brought to light. As I understand it, large corporations (or anyone with the money, really) can simply file patents for future products they predict will come to market and then sue startups and entrepreneurs when they create the actual product. Someone please tell me I'm misunderstanding this.

You aren't entitled to a patent unless your disclosure is specific and detailed enough to be enabling. If it's enabling (and novel, nonobvious, etc.), then why shouldn't you get a patent on it?

Re: Patents are about to become a bigger problem

#24

Post by monochromatic »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #22
monochromatic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, if you came up with a novel software process, didn't patent it, and went about your business, it should theoretically be harder for another company to come along and patent your work. First to file doesn't change this. Prior art is still prior art. This is slightly simplified, but here's the gist. The only change is when Inventor A comes up with an idea first, Inventor B comes up with the same idea (i…

That's ridiculous! Inventor A should obviously always win, since he actually implemented his idea before B did. B could have seen A's idea and filed a patent on it.

I'm not sure that's obvious. (And by the way, we're talking about conception of the idea, not actual implementation. You can patent something that you haven't yet prototyped.) Anyway, the entire rest of the world uses a first to file system, so bear that in mind when you say that first to invent is obviously correct.

Re: Patents are about to become a bigger problem

#26

Post by WiseWeasel »

cube13 wrote: post #20
jeremymims wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author, I do appreciate that someone thinks I'm confused, but this sentence is hardly the point of my argument. My point is that large corporations are at an even larger advantage with this system and that it hurts entrepreneurs. What has already been a tilted playing field will become even more so. The key with "First to Invent" is that someone could demonstrate that they had invented something but not actual…

>For instance, if you came up with a novel software process, didn't patent it, and went about your business, it should theoretically be harder for another company to come along and patent your work. Since our patent system is broken, it hasn't always (maybe usually) worked that way. With "First to File" all you need to do is be first to file. And at a mere $15k to $50k to file, this is an undue burden on startups who…

The problem also applies if one inventor invents something, then another individual gains access to it before the inventor distributes it publicly, and files a patent on it.

But in the more general case, I find it difficult to believe that the notion of Prior Art is unaffected by the elimination of first-to-invent. Under the new rules, if the PTO considers two patents determined to cover the same invention, they will accept the one filed first and decline the one filed later, even if the first-filed invention was invented at a later date. If a patent lawsuit can reverse this decision by finding prior art, then how can these be reconciled?

Maybe the idea is simply to shift the burden of determining the earliest invention date from the PTO before the patent is filed to the courts after the fact?

Re: Patents are about to become a bigger problem

#28

Post by kragen »

cube13 wrote: post #20
jeremymims wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author, I do appreciate that someone thinks I'm confused, but this sentence is hardly the point of my argument. My point is that large corporations are at an even larger advantage with this system and that it hurts entrepreneurs. What has already been a tilted playing field will become even more so. The key with "First to Invent" is that someone could demonstrate that they had invented something but not actual…

>For instance, if you came up with a novel software process, didn't patent it, and went about your business, it should theoretically be harder for another company to come along and patent your work. Since our patent system is broken, it hasn't always (maybe usually) worked that way. With "First to File" all you need to do is be first to file. And at a mere $15k to $50k to file, this is an undue burden on startups who…

It's arguable whether an algorithm implemented inside your program was published or secret.

Re: Patents are about to become a bigger problem

#29

Post by kragen »

monochromatic wrote: post #24
WiseWeasel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous! Inventor A should obviously always win, since he actually implemented his idea before B did. B could have seen A's idea and filed a patent on it.

I'm not sure that's obvious. (And by the way, we're talking about conception of the idea, not actual implementation. You can patent something that you haven't yet prototyped.) Anyway, the entire rest of the world uses a first to file system, so bear that in mind when you say that first to invent is obviously correct.

Don't you have to prototype it to "reduce it to practice"? I thought you couldn't patent ideas that hadn't been reduced to practice.

Re: Patents are about to become a bigger problem

#30

Post by monochromatic »

kragen wrote: post #29
monochromatic wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's obvious. (And by the way, we're talking about conception of the idea, not actual implementation. You can patent something that you haven't yet prototyped.) Anyway, the entire rest of the world uses a first to file system, so bear that in mind when you say that first to invent is obviously correct.

Don't you have to prototype it to "reduce it to practice"? I thought you couldn't patent ideas that hadn't been reduced to practice.

Filing a patent application is a constructive reduction to practice.
Post reply on HN