How To Kill Patent Trolls • Hacker News Board

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#11

Post by vibrunazo » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:12 PM UTC

pwg wrote: post #9

seanc wrote: post #5

If only defending a patent suit was as simple as finding the prior art. Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court, knowing full well you can't afford to do it.

> Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court If you (the defendant) has found good prior art (either by this method or some other method), you can also file for a re-examination with the USPTO using that new prior art. Still somewhat expensive, but significantly less expensive than going to court, and if the patent is found invalid it is just as dead.

But does invalidating a patent usually work well a intended? We see so many obviously ridiculous patents, that one might think that if they are so sloppy to approve patents on the first place, that they'll be just as sloppy in a re examination.

Or is the re examination all that much rigorous and accurate?

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#12

Post by vibrunazo » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:19 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #10

Well, priorart.org is available for purchase. All it really needs is a wiki and a bug tracker on there... [edit]...oops, available by broker. :(

Ilike that idea. While offering money for the crowd is a nice idea. The confidentiality agreement may have been startling their progress. Maybe they would find more prior art if users were expected to contribute out of live for a bogus patent free world.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#13

Post by ktizo » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:24 PM UTC

vibrunazo wrote: post #12

ktizo wrote: post #10

Well, priorart.org is available for purchase. All it really needs is a wiki and a bug tracker on there... [edit]...oops, available by broker. :(

Ilike that idea. While offering money for the crowd is a nice idea. The confidentiality agreement may have been startling their progress. Maybe they would find more prior art if users were expected to contribute out of live for a bogus patent free world.

Was thinking that you treat a patent as a bug, then submit it through the bug tracker and the result ends up on the wiki.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#14

Post by wisty » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:37 PM UTC

vibrunazo wrote: post #11

pwg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court If you (the defendant) has found good prior art (either by this method or some other method), you can also file for a re-examination with the USPTO using that new prior art. Still somewhat expensive, but significantly less expensive than going to court, and if the patent is found invalid it is just as dead.

But does invalidating a patent usually work well a intended? We see so many obviously ridiculous patents, that one might think that if they are so sloppy to approve patents on the first place, that they'll be just as sloppy in a re examination. Or is the re examination all that much rigorous and accurate?

There's something like a million pending patents backing up the system. I think their attitude is "screw it, just approve everything, and let the courts sort it out". If you call for a re-examination, they might think twice, because they'll look bad if the courts suggest they screwed up.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#15

Post by ktizo » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:50 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #14

vibrunazo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does invalidating a patent usually work well a intended? We see so many obviously ridiculous patents, that one might think that if they are so sloppy to approve patents on the first place, that they'll be just as sloppy in a re examination. Or is the re examination all that much rigorous and accurate?

There's something like a million pending patents backing up the system. I think their attitude is "screw it, just approve everything, and let the courts sort it out". If you call for a re-examination, they might think twice, because they'll look bad if the courts suggest they screwed up.

Could you automate a patent troll using a variation on the SCIgen software and effectively ddos the entire patent office with nonsensical gibberish?

Am I bad for thinking of such things? ;)

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#16

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:56 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #15

wisty wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something like a million pending patents backing up the system. I think their attitude is "screw it, just approve everything, and let the courts sort it out". If you call for a re-examination, they might think twice, because they'll look bad if the courts suggest they screwed up.

Could you automate a patent troll using a variation on the SCIgen software and effectively ddos the entire patent office with nonsensical gibberish? Am I bad for thinking of such things? ;)

[deleted]

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#17

Post by nu23 » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #15

wisty wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something like a million pending patents backing up the system. I think their attitude is "screw it, just approve everything, and let the courts sort it out". If you call for a re-examination, they might think twice, because they'll look bad if the courts suggest they screwed up.

Could you automate a patent troll using a variation on the SCIgen software and effectively ddos the entire patent office with nonsensical gibberish? Am I bad for thinking of such things? ;)

I guess the problem is you need to pay a significant amount of money to file a claim. Interestingly, some have advocated the same method for preventing spam in email by requiring you to pay a very small amount every time you send one.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#18

Post by roc » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 6:03 PM UTC

vibrunazo wrote: post #11

pwg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court If you (the defendant) has found good prior art (either by this method or some other method), you can also file for a re-examination with the USPTO using that new prior art. Still somewhat expensive, but significantly less expensive than going to court, and if the patent is found invalid it is just as dead.

But does invalidating a patent usually work well a intended? We see so many obviously ridiculous patents, that one might think that if they are so sloppy to approve patents on the first place, that they'll be just as sloppy in a re examination. Or is the re examination all that much rigorous and accurate?

> "We see so many obviously ridiculous patents"

Many -- if not most -- of the patents that the community is quick to decry as "obviously ridiculous" only appear so if you misunderstand how patents work. [1]

The US Patent Office has granted millions of patents and reviewed millions more applications in the fairly brief life of computer/systems/process patents. The few dozen legitimately bad patents hardly justify an accusation of sloppiness.

We would all be positively blessed if every bureaucratic system had such a low failure rate.

That all said: Yes, the system obviously needs work. But the performance of patent examiners isn't that primary a concern to anyone who's taken a good look at the system and it's problems.

[1] All that matters are the claims. The descriptions are irrelevant to the meat of what, specifically was being patented. The community has a long history of loudly complaining about descriptions that define an absurdly general invention, when the claims, in fact, indicate a narrowly defined patent of at least arguable value.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#19

Post by ktizo » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 6:11 PM UTC

roc wrote: post #18

vibrunazo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does invalidating a patent usually work well a intended? We see so many obviously ridiculous patents, that one might think that if they are so sloppy to approve patents on the first place, that they'll be just as sloppy in a re examination. Or is the re examination all that much rigorous and accurate?

> "We see so many obviously ridiculous patents" Many -- if not most -- of the patents that the community is quick to decry as "obviously ridiculous" only appear so if you misunderstand how patents work. [1] The US Patent Office has granted millions of patents and reviewed millions more applications in the fairly brief life of computer/systems/process patents. The few dozen legitimately bad patents hardly justify an a…

Do you really believe that there are only a few dozen bad computer/systems/process patents?

That sounds wildly optimistic.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#20

Post by gbhn » Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 7:08 PM UTC

roc wrote: post #18

vibrunazo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does invalidating a patent usually work well a intended? We see so many obviously ridiculous patents, that one might think that if they are so sloppy to approve patents on the first place, that they'll be just as sloppy in a re examination. Or is the re examination all that much rigorous and accurate?

> "We see so many obviously ridiculous patents" Many -- if not most -- of the patents that the community is quick to decry as "obviously ridiculous" only appear so if you misunderstand how patents work. [1] The US Patent Office has granted millions of patents and reviewed millions more applications in the fairly brief life of computer/systems/process patents. The few dozen legitimately bad patents hardly justify an a…

My impression is the opposite. Patent cases one hears about seem to start with 137 patents, and the judge throws out all but a few claims of 2. Perhaps this is self-selecting, but the impression is that most of the patents granted are, in fact, bogus.