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

Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

#41

Post by bluGill »

Loughla wrote: post #40
pfdietz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demonization of Monsanto is really something. You should go back to those who've been doing it and reevaluate what they were trying to get you to think.

I mean, they are leaders in genetic use restriction technology in crops. This runs counter to millennia of the farming practice of seed saving for very small farms. That feels pretty bad guyish. Unless I'm missing something?

farmers want that. last years corn in this years field is a weed you don't want so if the corn won't grow that is good. No farmer saves seed as modern hybrids yield several times better but the children don't.

Re: Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

#42

Post by pfannkuchen »

AlbertCory wrote: post #36
doctorpangloss wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google’s patent strategy is to patent everything it sees and hears about. This is a good case of it: https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea . As long as patent attorneys are on quotas at Google, they will be filing bullshit patents they didn’t invent all the same as the trolls. Anything sincere about US patents must always be about how they should cost basically nothing to file correctly by invento…

> Google’s patent strategy is to patent everything it sees and hears about. This is a good case of it: https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea . As long as patent attorneys are on quotas at Google, they will be filing bullshit patents they didn’t invent all the same as the trolls. No, that's not the strategy. I served for a while on a engineers' committee in Geo to evaluate submitted patent ideas, 1…

Are you talking about the time period of the article, so looks like 2014ish?

I think Google changed its patent strategy fairly abruptly at some point. Currently they aren’t too excited about filing patents, but at some point in the past they definitely were.

Re: Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

#43

Post by pfdietz »

Loughla wrote: post #40
pfdietz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demonization of Monsanto is really something. You should go back to those who've been doing it and reevaluate what they were trying to get you to think.

I mean, they are leaders in genetic use restriction technology in crops. This runs counter to millennia of the farming practice of seed saving for very small farms. That feels pretty bad guyish. Unless I'm missing something?

You're repeating more of the bullshit there. You're talking about Terminator seeds, which were never brought to market, and which don't do anything good old fashioned non-GMO hybrid seeds did (in preventing reuse of seeds.)

Re: Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

#44

Post by AlbertCory »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #42
AlbertCory wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google’s patent strategy is to patent everything it sees and hears about. This is a good case of it: https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea . As long as patent attorneys are on quotas at Google, they will be filing bullshit patents they didn’t invent all the same as the trolls. No, that's not the strategy. I served for a while on a engineers' committee in Geo to evaluate submitted patent ideas, 1…

Are you talking about the time period of the article, so looks like 2014ish? I think Google changed its patent strategy fairly abruptly at some point. Currently they aren’t too excited about filing patents, but at some point in the past they definitely were.

It was never "patent everything you can see."

That committee I was talking about was to evaluate IDEAS for patents, so they were definitely beating the bushes. But not shooting everything that came out.

Re: Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

#45

Post by Dracophoenix »

dctoedt wrote: post #16

Inactive patent lawyer here (these days my practice is in other areas). 1. This bill doesn't appear to address Alice/Mayo unpatentability under 35 USC § 101. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/222... 2. My concern is that this bill seems to inappropriately raise the evidentiary bar for a patent challenger to prove invalidity in an inter partes review in the USPTO: - Existing law, at 35 USC § 316…

I don't mean to digress significantly from the topic at hand, but what impact did you witness after the US switched from a first-to-invent to first-to-file system?

Re: Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

#47

Post by dctoedt »

derf_ wrote: post #26
dctoedt wrote: post #16

Inactive patent lawyer here (these days my practice is in other areas). 1. This bill doesn't appear to address Alice/Mayo unpatentability under 35 USC § 101. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/222... 2. My concern is that this bill seems to inappropriately raise the evidentiary bar for a patent challenger to prove invalidity in an inter partes review in the USPTO: - Existing law, at 35 USC § 316…

> (As I understand it, every reputable Ph.D.-granting institution requires the candidate to do a literature search to demonstrate novelty.) It is also worse than that, because for most dissertations, your committee is generally going to be more widely-read than the candidate, and have discussed the topic with them for years. Although the candidate may have more specific knowledge by the time they are finished writing…

> A closer analogy would be saying the Ph.D candidate must be issued the degree unless a randomly chosen undergraduate can show the research wasn't sufficiently novel.

That's not correct: Patent examiners are hired for their technical background, they're put through a four-month academy that includes their technical areas, and they get regular refresher training in recent developments by attendance at industry conferences, etc.

https://2017-2021.commerce.gov/americanworker/work-based-lea...

Re: Senate Vote Tomorrow Could Give Helping Hand to Patent Trolls

#50

Post by bee_rider »

AlbertCory wrote: post #35
daedrdev wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me point out the opposite view. Google is a massive company that often throws its weight to take patented technology without payment under the guise of fighting patent trolls. Ex Parte Reexamination simply makes it easier to avoid patent claims since it provides another opportunity to throw out claims, some of which may have stood in a full trial. Patent cases can easily take decades to complete an span multiple…

> throws its weight to take patented technology without payment This is called "begging the question": assuming what is in dispute and needs proving. "Patented technology" assumes that the "invention" was indeed worthy of a patent. If you want to take some example patents whose claims were thrown out in IPR, I'll be happy to debate them with you. > Ex Parte Reexamination simply makes it easier to avoid patent claims…

I’m generally of the opinion that you are probably right, given that you are on a site where people are inclined to be opposed to your position but are handling the argument quite deftly (this is a dumb way of handling it, but I’m not a law guy, I’m a programming guy, so this is outside my wheelhouse, so I’m just using social signals).

But this has be confused:

>> Is this not depriving people of their right to a jury?

> Not an unconditional right. A jury trial costs anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 a day. Demand for a jury trial by an NPE is basically extortion.

Sure, no right is infinite, but jury trials are pretty foundational to our system, right?

And these costs, where do they come from? Does every trial cost a million dollars a day? (I mean surely small claims court trials don’t right?)

I’m a little suspicious because I’ve heard these big companies tend to hire expensive lawyers. If that’s where the cost is coming from, seems like a “them problem.”

Post reply on HN