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

Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 219 posts

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#71

Post by indymike »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #22
jpollock wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When looking at the proposed rules, I think this is the problematic bit (search for "standing"): "The changes under consideration would make clear that the Board would discretionarily deny any petition for IPR or PGR filed by an entity that: (1) is a for-profit entity; (2) has not been sued on the challenged patent or has not been threatened with infringement of the challenged patent in a manner sufficient to give ri…

Why does the EFF have a problem with a rule about for-profit entities? Aren't they a non-profit?

The rule is trying to prevent commercial entities from having access to the IPR process. The EFF sees this as a threat to civil liberties in the digital world... From the EFF's About Us page:

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world."

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#72

Post by monocasa »

JamesBarney wrote: post #39
judge2020 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to believe that all patents are at best ineffective, and at worse harmful in a globalized world, because it's not like airpods clones off aliexpress are actually being stopped at the port all too often.

I don't think this true of all patents. Patents for drugs are obviously necessary in the current environment. But software patents are definitely bogus.

It's funny, the people I know in biotech say the opposite, that biotech patents are bogus but they don't think they'd be able to get rid of the system because of how much traditional tech relies on them. Their minds are blown when I tell them how much of an issue they are for us in traditional tech too.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#73

Post by freejazz »

dannyobrien wrote: post #47
pclmulqdq wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading the proposed rule changes, I'm not so sure it's bad, and I'm also not sure it hits the EFF in any meaningful way (unless the EFF is hopelessly corrupt, which I guess is a possibility). The biggest thing at issue is that it protects small entities from spurious IPRs ( ie IPRs from parties not being sued) from for-profit companies while litigation is ongoing, which seems kind of reasonable. IPRs are expen…

The alternative explanation is that EFF, having experienced incredible and well-funded push-back in its attempts to invalidate dumb patents, believes that this rule has been engineered to limit even further the ability of third-parties to challenge unnecessary patents. I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is th…

>The alternative explanation is that EFF, having experienced incredible and well-funded push-back in its attempts to invalidate dumb patents, believes that this rule has been engineered to limit even further the ability of third-parties to challenge unnecessary patents.

Your entire perspective presupposes that you are correct. I'm surprised people fall for the EFF's shtick so easily - it's so heavily worded in a pointed fashion, that any other kind of writing of this style, is regularly rejected in places like this because of how biased it is. Oh wait... you used work for the EFF!

What's unreasonable about fighting patents in district court? EFF is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Pretending that it's all big bad companies AND patent trolls. but both of those entities are on the opposite sides of each other. The reality is that what the EFF is advocating for will absolutely benefit the big bad companies that the EFF attempts to disavow any commonality with it.

Of course the EFF describes anyone opposed to it as a patent troll, but that's totally unfair imo and pretty much an outright lie. any inventor that isn't one of the big tech co's stands to benefit from this proposed rule change.

And your point about the patents that the EFF fights is completely besides the point, because the EFF isn't the only entity involved in patents, so who cares whether the EFF has challenged valid patents or otherwise, that's exactly what district court is for...

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#74

Post by d--b »

linuxhansl wrote: post #68

I have a challenge out to all my friends: "Show me one, just one, software patent that is not obvious to someone skilled the field, and I will stop my annoying diatribes about how bad software patents are." To this day I have yet to see to a useful software patent.

Patents become obvious the second they're out. This is exactly why they exist. But coming up with the stuff in the first place is what's hard.

I worked in video coding back in the day, I can assure you that there are stuff in the HEVC codec that are pretty far from obvious.

AlphaGo is pretty high up there too if you ask me.

Whether patenting software is useful or not is a different debate...

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#75

Post by freejazz »

chabad360 wrote: post #28
pclmulqdq wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading the proposed rule changes, I'm not so sure it's bad, and I'm also not sure it hits the EFF in any meaningful way (unless the EFF is hopelessly corrupt, which I guess is a possibility). The biggest thing at issue is that it protects small entities from spurious IPRs ( ie IPRs from parties not being sued) from for-profit companies while litigation is ongoing, which seems kind of reasonable. IPRs are expen…

The bigger issue is that it allows NPEs to protect themselves from this process (by declaring themselves as "small" and "inventor-owned"), making it kinda useless.

that's only true for NPE's that are enforcing patents that are owned by the inventor, and isn't the case for most of what people would call patent trolls. The EFF represents that the majority of patent trolls (which is something that EFF pretends to be the only party that brings patent lawsuits... lol, completely disingenuous on their part) are the kind where there is one person that invented a ton of patents and is enforcing them, but that's not the case. EFF doesn't even pretend to navigate this distinction.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#76

Post by jordanpg »

linuxhansl wrote: post #68

I have a challenge out to all my friends: "Show me one, just one, software patent that is not obvious to someone skilled the field, and I will stop my annoying diatribes about how bad software patents are." To this day I have yet to see to a useful software patent.

> software patent that is not obvious to someone skilled the field

Small but significant correction: software patent that was not obvious to someone skilled in the field AS OF THE FILING DATE (or priority date).

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#77

Post by freejazz »

dathinab wrote: post #35
pclmulqdq wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are okay with the EFF getting a very large donation from an organization involved in litigation with the purpose of harassing the plaintiff and draining their resources? That doesn't sound like "not corrupt in spirit." That sounds like "greenwashed extortion racket."

See and that is why such a law is a problem because people just twist your words in ways which turn them into something you 100% did not say (or did) and then you can't try to take down a abusive patent.

This is exactly what the EFF does. Their statements is so pointed, it's hard to take seriously.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#78

Post by wongarsu »

lend000 wrote: post #50
robertlagrant wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bad example though, because everyone knows who Apple are. There's no point inventing anything as a new company if an existing one can just copy it and outspend your marketing.

You need to have enforceable NDA's, keep things as trade secrets, and have a well built organization that simply continuously out-innovates AND out-executes the competition. I think patents are okay, but the maximum duration should be 5 years and there needs to be some proof of utilization of the patent to sue for damages. 20 year patents are ridiculous, and it seems like even in the 1800's that should have been cons…

It should probably depend on the product type. I get 20 year parents for medicine where research is expressive and time-to-market is long. But for most fields 5-10 years is plenty to make back your R&D investment and make a profit. And after your patent expires you still have the first-mover advantage

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#79

Post by Animats »

The effect of the anti-patent push has been to pivot the VC and startup industry from technology to buying market share. When patents were strong, you came up with an idea, got it working, got a patent, and then went to a VC for funding to deploy. Now, you come up with an idea, hype it, and go to a VC for funding to hype it more.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#80

Post by HPsquared »

BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #13

so which is it? "patents" being used by trolls? or American Corporations protecting their investments? I remember when I realized why software patents are not going away any time soon; it was the same thought that I had when I tried to consider the quantity (amount) of dollars represented as 'valuable assets' in IBM's finances; assets which are just software patents.

You can also go a level deeper and consider what the dollars themselves are, and why those will not go away either.
Post reply on HN