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

Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

ipde.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 360 posts

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#171

Post by AlbertCory »

I'm a patent agent and I worked in Google's Patent Litigation department. This is a slight hyperbole, but only slight: I can bust any software patent. I found the prior art that prevented Google Maps from being shut down in Germany:

https://www.themarysue.com/google-maps-facing-german-ban/

@btrettel is right that examiners need more time, but that would mean the PTO would have to hire a lot more of them. A better solution is just to change patentable subject matter to (effectively) exclude computer software. Congress will have to do this since the courts and PTO are unwilling or unable.

As for @blobbers below: patents are not a shield against trolls. They're only a shield against your competitors who actually build things. Trolls don't want your patents; they only want your money.

Lastly, as for the tools: I was told, 10-12 years ago, that when it was suggested that examiners use Google as well as their mandated tools, the union objected that this would be more work and they'd have to be paid more. Perhaps this is no longer true, and I know that the conscientious ones always did.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#172

Post by btrettel »

joshspankit wrote: post #99
btrettel wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem is searching for prior art. There are AI search tools but they usually aren't good in my experience. It's rare that an AI search tool will return prior art that can be used in a rejection. Usually the prior art these tools find is related but not good enough. But sometimes (perhaps through random chance), a solid reference can be found. I found a 102 reference (the strongest kind) a few weeks ago for…

Whether that’s true of current AI or not, it’s temporary. Finding prior art is inherently a “graphy” problem and current AI is getting better at graphy problems by the day (probably even by the hour). I have zero doubt that AI could solve this problem, but am unsure whether it will be allowed to.

I think AI searches could be much better even without an improvement in the technology. Probably the best AI patent search tool would be written by a ML engineer who has spent time examining a wide variety of patents. The current tools seem to be written by people who have only a cursory understanding of how patent search works, and that limits the usefulness.

For example, the current AI search tools don't seem to look at patent drawings at all. This is despite the fact that in many technologies, the drawings are the easiest way to determine similarity of the technologies. The words used vary a lot, but the drawings are frequently quite similar. Existing technology could be used to make a big improvement here, I think, but the problem is that people writing AI search tools seem to go for the easiest approach and only look at the text.

It does get more complicated than that. When I examine applications with flow or electrical circuits, frequently I'll run into circuits which are equivalent in some sense but arranged differently. An AI patent search tool should be able to handle this problem.

(Again, like my other comments here, this is just my opinion, not that of the USPTO or US government.)

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#173

Post by jl2718 »

Thought: Intellectual property should have nothing to do with payments to register your ideas with the government. Essentially, IP cases should revolve around whether an idea was “stolen”, which is different than coming up with the same thing at a later date. The original intent of the patent system was to promote publication. There are plenty of other ways to publicize work now.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#174

Post by [deleted] »

silvestrov wrote: post #169
btrettel wrote: post #60

Current USPTO patent examiner here. The most effective way to eliminate bad patents would be to give examiners more time, say double the time across the board to start. If an examiner can't find prior art in the little time they're given, and they have no other reasons to reject the application, they'll have to grant it. The amount of time was (basically) set in the 1970s based on data from the 1960s. There have been…

I think a much more efficient method would be to make the rule that if a citizen finds prior art more than 5 years older than the filing of the patent, then the patent holder must pay $1000 to the citizen and the patent will be invalidated. If the patent holder does not pay within 6 months, then all the patent holders patents since then will be invalidated. It has to function without involving the courts as they will…

[deleted]

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#175

Post by nonrandomstring »

abduhl wrote: post #147
nonrandomstring wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry I can do nothing more to help with your misunderstanding of my good faith post. Please do the necessary research with regard to the history and purpose of designs and patents law.

So you have no examples or explanations for what “traditions” you’re talking about where ideas are not inventions or vice versa.

> So you have no examples or explanations for what “traditions”

I have plenty. Now, I do not wish to be rude Abduhl, but I find your "question" a little disingenuous, and your expectation that I act as your personal tutor on well documented matters a tad entitled. This isn't my full-time job, and I come here mainly to look for interesting and unusual viewpoints. Have you done even the most cursory research into the history of patents as I indicated? Do you need some reference material or links to get started?

How about reading some lecture notes and essays (some of the finest on the formation of copyright, patent and trademarks) on the site of Havard law professor Lawrence Lessig [1]

[1] https://www.lessig.org/

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#176

Post by btrettel »

xxpor wrote: post #92
btrettel wrote: post #60

Current USPTO patent examiner here. The most effective way to eliminate bad patents would be to give examiners more time, say double the time across the board to start. If an examiner can't find prior art in the little time they're given, and they have no other reasons to reject the application, they'll have to grant it. The amount of time was (basically) set in the 1970s based on data from the 1960s. There have been…

How much time do you get today? I'm hesitant to support extra time because it can already take 5+ years from file to grant today.

This question is hard to answer as the time given varies depending on the patent classification and seniority. For the application which I'll post an office action for this afternoon, I will be credited 22.6 hours. (I can't claim this is representative of what I'm working on as a whole. Looks to be a bit high for my current docket, but I don't know if my current docket is representative either.) I'm a new examiner and that's the most time anyone will get for one of these applications. A more senior "primary examiner" would only get about 11.6 hours according to my estimate. In that amount of time, try searching for and writing a 10-30+ page report on any non-trivial technology that you have only some familiarity with...

For the same application, the next action I take will get significantly less hours. I get about 4 hours to reply to an amendment (if it's rejected and it usually is). That includes searching and writing it up. I think examiners typically exceed that time and have to go under time for other tasks in order to reply to amendments.

(Again, like my other comments here, this is just my opinion, not that of the USPTO or US government.)

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#177

Post by uranium »

btrettel wrote: post #60

Current USPTO patent examiner here. The most effective way to eliminate bad patents would be to give examiners more time, say double the time across the board to start. If an examiner can't find prior art in the little time they're given, and they have no other reasons to reject the application, they'll have to grant it. The amount of time was (basically) set in the 1970s based on data from the 1960s. There have been…

Commented; thanks for the pointer.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#178

Post by mountainriver »

AlbertCory wrote: post #171

I'm a patent agent and I worked in Google's Patent Litigation department. This is a slight hyperbole, but only slight: I can bust any software patent. I found the prior art that prevented Google Maps from being shut down in Germany: https://www.themarysue.com/google-maps-facing-german-ban/ @btrettel is right that examiners need more time, but that would mean the PTO would have to hire a lot more of them. A better sol…

Exactly, patents on software are just insane and anticompetitive. I can’t really think of a single good reason to have them.

This is tech, it’s a race, everyone playing already knows that. All parents do is slow innovation or in some cases stop it entirely

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#179

Post by cycomanic »

I find the framing of the conversation around problems with the patent system to largely be about patent trolls quite disingenuous.

This might sound controversial, but patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent (note not invention). If say IBM violates your patent an individual or even a moderate startup or company has absolutely no chance of defending it, because IBM will either drown you in litigation cost or if you also do business find 10 other patents in their portfolio that you violate and force you to cross licence.

By framing the issues to be about patent trolls means that the big companies just want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep out newcomers without any risk to their own business.

That doesn't mean I am pro patent trolls, but I just am not convinced that the patent system fullfills any value. Patents are written so broad that they are essentially meaningless.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#180

Post by kelseyfrog »

toss1 wrote: post #163
kelseyfrog wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me understand how cost scaling doesn't fix the problem of "players with money can simply massively burden the minor players, often to bankruptcy." If it becomes more costly for players with more money to burden minor players, then would they not burden minor players less?

For the small players, you aren't reducing the costs This includes but is not limited to 1) the costs of the courts. 2) the costs of the attorneys to defend, 3) the costs of the technology and executives to mount a proper defense, 4) the opportunity cost to the small defending company which COULD OTHERWISE be focusing it's resources on something productive like a new product or support (vs defending a bogus lawsuit).…

Is there a way for you to interact with me without being insulting? I'm trying to learn something and it's getting in the way.

If the problem isn't about increasing costs for large players, then what about decreasing those for small players?

Post reply on HN