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

Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

blog.opensource.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 197 posts

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#161

Post by sfifs »

btrettel wrote: post #21
coolhoody wrote: post #4

> “offers a number of ways to wirelessly share photos online such as through social media.” How was it possible to patent this in 2018? https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/50/f8/a8e7c12...

> How was it possible to patent this in 2018? Easy. I'm a former patent examiner and in my view, the root cause of most bad patents is obviously the lack of time patent examiners get. Most people here don't understand how patents are granted. Patent examiners don't get a lot of time. If I'm an examiner, and I can't find it in the time provided, and the application doesn't have some other issues (101, 112, etc.), the…

Why can't all patent applications be mandatorially opened for a public comments period for a period of say 3 months for anyone else to file any objections? The act of patent application provisionally would protect the idea till the patent is granted.

Then the examiner could look at both the application and the comments and decide whether to grant or reject the application.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#162

Post by kajaktum »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #79
kajaktum wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What isn't math tho? A lawnmower is just an assemblage of laws of physics. In this case, software is just an assemblage of laws of boolean algebra or something.

I’m really scratching my head over this one not gonna lie. Are you being serious or being somewhat provocative with an example designed to take the logic to an illogical extreme?

> Patents on software just shouldn't exist. At all.

> We already have established laws where you can't patent maths.

> An algorithm is just a function.

OP seems to suggest that software is "just math". Everything is "just math".

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#163

Post by zimpenfish »

lostdog wrote: post #152
btrettel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How was it possible to patent this in 2018? Easy. I'm a former patent examiner and in my view, the root cause of most bad patents is obviously the lack of time patent examiners get. Most people here don't understand how patents are granted. Patent examiners don't get a lot of time. If I'm an examiner, and I can't find it in the time provided, and the application doesn't have some other issues (101, 112, etc.), the…

> the root cause of most bad patents is obviously the lack of time patent examiners get. It takes about 30 seconds to realize that the above patent has zero novelty. I'm not going to disagree with the patent office being underfunded, but the fact is that whoever granted this patent had a complete lack of critical reasoning skills, and no amount of time was going to help that. I see this all the time with the patent o…

> It takes about 30 seconds to realize that the above patent has zero novelty.

But can you find good corroborating evidence in 30 seconds? I'm pretty sure the applicant's lawyers would have a field day with "Patent Officer X rejected this due to their own critical thinking", no?

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#164

Post by isaacfrond »

tl;dr; He is a retired attorney and a "firm believer in the patent system” so he filed for re-examination.

A random google search gives the costs mere mortals can expect for that (source: https://www.lventre.com/reexam.html)

> Ex parte reexaminations. Expect total costs to be $20,000 - $45,000.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#165

Post by GoblinSlayer »

jimmydddd wrote: post #67
AlbertCory wrote: post #45

The heading is somewhat misleading, in that one might read it as "the troll lost all rights to any patents, ever." If you (correctly) didn't read it that way, you can ignore the rest of this. What they actually lost is that patent. It was reexamined and all its claims were cancelled. Reexamination is a standard tactic against a patent infringement suit, and we did it all the time at Google. A reexamination is a mini-…

Re "irresponsible." Most business legal matters are about money. Settling can save the company money. It's just a business decision. Those who take it personally often end up spending more time and money than is needed.

When you pay ransom you attract more trolls. You feed them. Rather they exist solely because they are paid.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#166

Post by GoblinSlayer »

mplewis wrote: post #148
codedokode wrote: post #81

This seems like a loss. Gnome and other companies had to pay money (as I understand) for an invalid patent, a patent lawyer had to pay for re-examination and a patent troll lost nothing except for a patent that was invalid anyway. Are vaguely worded patents legal? For example, if someone in the age of black-and-white TV would patent an idea that "colors can be transmitted wirelessly or by wire, decoded or not decoded…

What would make a vaguely worded patent illegal?

When it doesn't describe an invention. E.g. a patent on "a device that does something".

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#167

Post by mcv »

PeterisP wrote: post #73
toolz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yahoo Photos launched in 2000 - even if it was filed in 2008 that's ridiculous

It's likely that Yahoo Photos in 2000 did not do it --== Wirelessly ==-- (imagine Spongebob rainbow meme https://imgflip.com/i/6e8qvo there) and thus wouldn't be prior art.

"Do a common thing, but wirelessly", is the same level of worthless patent as the old "do a thing, but on a computer/the internet" of the 1990s.

I get that the wireless tech itself is patented, but using it for existing applications should not be patentable.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#168

Post by mcv »

acomjean wrote: post #32
raverbashing wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the patent office will sign everything that stands still for a certain time, regardless of their merits

Why wouldn't they? They make their moneyy from Patent Fees. If they stopped granting Patents their revenue stream dries up. They have no incentive not to approve patents. I'm wondering why companies don't sue the Patent office when the patent used against them is invalidated (often some companies are still paying fees because they settled. )

> Why wouldn't they?

Because they shouldn't be about making money. They should be about encouraging innovation.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#169

Post by supermatt »

I often come across bogus patents when i come up with small business ideas, but the cost for reexamination is so high as to bar entry into some domains (from $13000).

Why are the costs so high to point out a mistake in the decision to grant a patent? Is the reexamination fee reimbursed should the patent be found invalid?

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#170

Post by PoignardAzur »

AlbertCory wrote: post #45

The heading is somewhat misleading, in that one might read it as "the troll lost all rights to any patents, ever." If you (correctly) didn't read it that way, you can ignore the rest of this. What they actually lost is that patent. It was reexamined and all its claims were cancelled. Reexamination is a standard tactic against a patent infringement suit, and we did it all the time at Google. A reexamination is a mini-…

> A troll will offer to settle for a small amount rather than risk getting their patent cancelled. I think it's fair to call it "irresponsible" if you pay them that ransom, but of course, it's cheaper for you that way.

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

But we've proved it again and again,

That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld

You never get rid of the Dane.

Post reply on HN