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

Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

inventropy.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 124 posts

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#81

Post by lyndonh »

blablabla123 wrote: post #65
lyndonh wrote: post #63

The author doesn't understand the patent system. The government, via the patent office, is selling a monopoly on technology. If someone writes a frivolous application the patent office usually takes the money and grants it. Does the author think the patent office gives refunds ? There is no incentive for them to stop granting bad patents. While this situation persists, it makes financial sense to apply for a patent i…

You are implying that the US patent office is a profit oriented organization. Even if this is practice, it should be possible to fix that, no? Also I disagree with that it's a self perpetuating cycle. It is only self perpetuating if your reaction to more applications is being less rigorous. Almost every organization in the world, no matter if it is profit or non-profit, gets more rigorous the more * applications come…

> Almost every organization in the world, no matter if it is profit or non-profit, gets more rigorous the more applications come in.

They get more money from processing more patents. They don't get more money by making sure the patents are better quality.

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#82

Post by esquivalience »

Although the example cited in this article seems pretty obvious on what we have, for all we know (a) it is the very first example of time-sorted photos and (b) there could be further context in the article saying that the analysis is done by reference to specific features, such as assessing movement across a field of view (rather than by reference to a timestamp, which is what seems to be implied).

Who is to say this isn't novel? Seems to me it could be a very helpful technology to sort unsorted old photographs or analyse scraps of cctv footage .

That is just an example, but the major problem is that with AskPatents you will always be looking at these applications in a different context to the context in which they were written. The mere fact that something is being read can tend to make it more obvious, when actually at the time it was dreamt up it could have been quite a leap.

Also, the fact that you are reading the patent some time - up to a year - after the original grant means that it will be read in context of the state of the art today. By the time a patent is published its invention probably in common usage already.

All this tends to bias towards a finding of 'obviousness'. Even finding something close that was previously in use doesn't preclude obviousness - it just means that the inventive step is smaller than otherwise thought. If the reader already has an inherent bias against software patents in principle, this will only compound the problem.

There are several significant legal concepts specifically geared to avoiding that mental bias. They are there for a reason, and could be eroded by poor application. That would have a negative effect for any inventor.

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#83

Post by lyndonh »

frobozz wrote: post #73
lyndonh wrote: post #63

The author doesn't understand the patent system. The government, via the patent office, is selling a monopoly on technology. If someone writes a frivolous application the patent office usually takes the money and grants it. Does the author think the patent office gives refunds ? There is no incentive for them to stop granting bad patents. While this situation persists, it makes financial sense to apply for a patent i…

> There is no incentive for them to stop granting bad patents. I disagree. a: If they are currently overrun with more work than they can handle, they can remedy this by refusing patents, thereby discouraging frivolous applications. Having done so, they can become a more efficient organisation. b: Fees for continuations, amendments and extending response deadlines can be larger than the fee for simply issuing the pate…

a. They get money for each patent examined. If they spend more time scrutinizing it, their profit is reduced.

At their annual review, one measure of how hard an examiner worked is probably based on how many patents they dealt with.

b. As an examiner you can send a patent back for a clarification or ask for more details. That's why as an applicant you pack in as many obfuscated details as possible, without giving the game away.

Also, this: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/03/02/214237/inventor-has-w...

c. The money goes to the lawyers. It's not an incentive for the examiners.

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#84

Post by Expez »

PeterisP wrote: post #60
Expez wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no software patents in Europe. I've seen nothing to suggest that European software companies are less competitive. In my daily work as a developer I've not once heard anyone talk about the competition 'stealing our ideas'. The reason I think software patents are a net negative is that it's the sum of the parts that make a software product valuable. Patenting some of the algorithms used to develop this softw…

European software companies do [ab]use patents widely - a historically sensitive example is Fraunhofer institute (Germany) and patents on their invention of the mp3 encoding methods; it brought significant revenue for them, making them competitive; and the patent restrictions also had significant effect on the music software&device market.

This is a good example. There is indeed nothing that prevents an EU based company from filing for a software patent in the US (or other markets). This particular patent has likely been so lucrative (~$100m in revenues) because it's so easy to spot infringements.

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#86

Post by bad_user »

chc wrote: post #18
wyager wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Were someone to start a startup where users got paid-by-the-view for making educational videos, that would not be too far off from the original intent of patents. What makes you say that this was the "original intent" of patents? I've never seen anything to suggest this. See the U.S. Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusiv…

It explicitly requires that there must be time limits. That isn't required if all you want to do is reward innovation. The time limits are required because the ultimate purpose is to enrich everyone, which means that everyone gets access once the inventor has gotten a fair shake. For patents in particular, it is well-established in the law (though poorly followed in practice) that a patent ought to serve as a guide t…

Unfortunately the time limits are useless if they are allowed to grow them indefinitely. In the US, the copyright length has extended from 14 years (with another renewal for 14 years) to life + 70 years. There's nothing fair in Life + 70 years.

On patents - they were meant to replace the need for trade secrets, unfortunately most patents that pass these days is for things that can be replicated without looking at the patent's application. And while I understand somewhat the need for patents in the health-care industry (only to a certain extent, since on the other hand access to quality health-care should be a basic right), the situation we are in is completely ridiculous.

In the end, the inventor already benefits by being first to market and a patent is only morally justified if the research costs were too big, allowing the inventor to recover those costs in the face of potential competition that may replicate the results and for which those costs weren't an issue. On the other hand, if patents would disappear tomorrow, I'm pretty sure that people would still go on, building and inventing things. So the benefit to society at large is questionable.

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#87

Post by pbhjpbhj »

twic wrote: post #76
dropit_sphere wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse, patent obfuscation is baldly contrary to the purpose of patents, which is to make the knowledge contained in them available to the public. Were someone to start a startup where users got paid-by-the-view for making educational videos, that would not be too far off from the original intent of patents .

Sounds like a good site. You could call it Patently Obvious. A squatter (or at least absentee landlord) already has patent.ly, sadly.

Re your last sentence - how do you know, they could be using it for email or for a private internet app, VPN, or something. You don't have to use domains for public web services.

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#88

Post by pbhjpbhj »

cushychicken wrote: post #34
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of today's patents don't contain any valuable knowledge that could be useful for the public. Also the invention does not. So it is not that bad. Of course, there are some patents that could contain some valuable information, but today's patent attorneys are drilled to hide any valuable information from public.

That is actually part of the purpose of a patent attorney - to mention enough information about how the idea works that shows it's novel, but not enough that you can build a competitor. (According to a patent attorney I discussed this with a long time ago.) Bass-ackwards, I know.

If the information as to how the invention is performed isn't disclosed then the application lacks sufficiency - ie it doesn't support the claims - and so should be rejected according to most patent laws.

Remember that the document is directed to a skilled proponent in the relevant art and not to the public per se.

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#89

Post by twic »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #87
twic wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a good site. You could call it Patently Obvious. A squatter (or at least absentee landlord) already has patent.ly, sadly.

Re your last sentence - how do you know, they could be using it for email or for a private internet app, VPN, or something. You don't have to use domains for public web services.

Simple, they're not using it for what i want it used for, so i am badmouthing them.

Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?

#90

Post by pbhjpbhj »

beepp wrote: post #6
robotys wrote: post #4

Why on earth i did not have read anywhere about USPTO officials return a letter to this so called patent troll with simple reply: "Explain this pattern in layman language." USPTO officials should have the power to inquire pattern applicants about their pattern until complete understanding, not to work alone and try to understand it by them self. It is hard to understand something technical, and it is utmost difficult…

Agreed! A huge part of what you can do to help is just parse the legalese into human language, so that any knowledgable person can see right through it.

The problem with that is that if you remove the legalese, like say "fixing means" from a claim to make it clearer then you limit the range of prior art that will render the claim obvious/anticipated. Better probably for knowledgable people to get used to reading claims if they wish to take part in patent killing.
Post reply on HN