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

How To Kill Patent Trolls

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#21

Post by roc »

ktizo wrote: post #19
roc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

I believe that only a few dozen computer/systems/process patents are causing trouble because of reasons that could be arguably attributed to 'sloppiness' on the part of the examiner. That is: too-broad patents, patents granted despite prior art, etc.

I'm not counting any undesirable patents that are causing problems because patent terms are too long, or those that were granted because patent law/precedent/policy didn't give the examiner any cause to reject it, etc.

My point is only to refute the charge that examiners 'sloppiness' is common and/or a notable problem.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#22

Post by roc »

gbhn wrote: post #20
roc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

What you seem to be talking about are infringement suits where the judge throws out consideration of large numbers of patents and claims. That's about whittling down a problem of mind-boggling complexity to a group of questions that can be understood and answered in a reasonable amount of time. Those patents and claims aren't being struck down or ruled 'bogus'. They're just being ruled irrelevant to the meat of the case, to simplify the proceedings.

And most claims are thrown out of consideration simply because most patents only include a few independent claims. And as a practical matter if you can rule out infringement of an independent claim you've ruled out any possibility of infringement of its dependent claims.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#23

Post by moldbug »

Is there something I'm missing here?

Granted, there are more and more trolls these days. RSI is a real concern. You'll want a light weapon without a lot of recoil. And it should probably take an extended clip, to minimize reloading. Not to sound like a fanboy, but the Glock 17 seems perfect to me. All firearms can jam, so do bring a spare...

Seriously: why would anyone think seriously about how to fix this system? Why would anyone imagine it can be fixed? The only relevant question is how to kill it. Glock or no Glock, everything on God's green earth can be killed.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#24

Post by wisty »

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? ;)

No, but you can write nonsense claims (stuff that's obviously way too broad, and already in common use, or just plain silly) and publicize it if they are accepted.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#25

Post by monochromatic »

moldbug wrote: post #23

Is there something I'm missing here? Granted, there are more and more trolls these days. RSI is a real concern. You'll want a light weapon without a lot of recoil. And it should probably take an extended clip, to minimize reloading. Not to sound like a fanboy, but the Glock 17 seems perfect to me. All firearms can jam, so do bring a spare... Seriously: why would anyone think seriously about how to fix this system? Wh…

... what?

Also, it's a magazine, not a clip.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#26

Post by brazzy »

nu23 wrote: post #17
ktizo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's one of the oldest and most useless proposals that gets brought up by at least 5 people in every single discussion of email spam...

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#27

Post by bryanlarsen »

roc wrote: post #22
gbhn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you seem to be talking about are infringement suits where the judge throws out consideration of large numbers of patents and claims. That's about whittling down a problem of mind-boggling complexity to a group of questions that can be understood and answered in a reasonable amount of time. Those patents and claims aren't being struck down or ruled 'bogus'. They're just being ruled irrelevant to the meat of the c…

I find the Google-Oracle case to be a great example of the bogusness of most patents. They started with hundreds of patents. Then the judge told Oracle to pick their "best five". You would think that if told to pick the best 5 out of hundreds that those at least would be solid. Yet Google has managed to get several of the 5 invalidated...

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#28

Post by ktizo »

roc wrote: post #21
ktizo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe that there are only a few dozen bad computer/systems/process patents? That sounds wildly optimistic.

I believe that only a few dozen computer/systems/process patents are causing trouble because of reasons that could be arguably attributed to 'sloppiness' on the part of the examiner. That is: too-broad patents, patents granted despite prior art, etc. I'm not counting any undesirable patents that are causing problems because patent terms are too long, or those that were granted because patent law/precedent/policy didn…

is certainly an incredibly expensive problem, even in single cases;

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down...

And I am pretty sure, even ignoring broadness as a factor and just sticking to patents granted despite prior art, that if there were only a few dozen patents causing trouble then the companies like Article One, who is getting patents revoked in the hundreds due to discovery of prior art, would not be able to exist while paying out millions in discovery fees to their researchers.

[edit] - a look at the problem of workload by a USPTO Patent Examiner;

http://just-n-examiner.livejournal.com/44737.html

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#29

Post by TheAmazingIdiot »

moldbug wrote: post #23

Is there something I'm missing here? Granted, there are more and more trolls these days. RSI is a real concern. You'll want a light weapon without a lot of recoil. And it should probably take an extended clip, to minimize reloading. Not to sound like a fanboy, but the Glock 17 seems perfect to me. All firearms can jam, so do bring a spare... Seriously: why would anyone think seriously about how to fix this system? Wh…

It reminds me of a poster I saw in the Occupy group.

     "Reform or Reveloution?
Societal change just doesnt happen without a very large delta inducing that change. For example, we can view the changes from 9/11: creation of TSA, creation of Department of Fatherland.... Homeland security, breakdown of freedoms of travel and search.

Change can also go the other way. We only have a large chunk of the Middle East to look at, starting with Tunisia.

What I have studied a portion of is how the United states got where it is today. And time and time again, corrupt laws are passed for the reason of knee jerk or 'security'. Those politicians also promise never to use those laws against us, which in 5 or so years undoubtedly are.

Perhaps the base Constitution is correct, although I think clarifications are in order. Perhaps not, considering the claim I have read that it was written solely for white landowners.

I don't have the answers, but I can spot corruption when I see it. And when it's this endemic, revolution is the only way to fix it. Gods hope it's a peaceful one.

Re: How To Kill Patent Trolls

#30

Post by prodigal_erik »

alttag wrote: post #8
arikrak wrote: post #6

I think the solution needs to be more ambitious. What if the "invention" is not prior art, but other people can come up with the same idea on their own? Does that deserve to be patented so that the company that was one week late will need to pay patent fees? Maybe the whole patent process should be crowd-sourced and patents should only be granted if no one can think of the same idea. (I discuss this more here: http:/…

> What if the "invention" is not prior art, but other > people can come up with the same idea on their own? Then at the very least, it's evidence for obviousness, which (although a tougher sell) can also invalidate a patent. EDIT: IANAL

Unfortunately "obvious" in patent law tends to mean there is published work suggesting putting stuff together in that way. If nobody has discussed the problem (e.g., you were the first to work on it), it somehow doesn't matter that anyone competent would have promptly settled on the same solution you did, and we aren't getting anything of value in return for your generation-long monopoly on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousn...

Post reply on HN