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

91–100 of 124 posts

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

#91

Post by pbhjpbhj »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #24
zalzane wrote: post #11

project idea: machine learning program that decrypts legalese to find similar patents i wonder if uspo would be interested in licensing it if it was effective enough

Maybe some clever patent attorneys already have the opposite. Some encryption tool: => =>

In a way yes, it's called claims drafting.

One of the jobs of the patent attorney is to claim the widest possible area that's supported by the invention disclosed in the application for a patent. You don't have a calculator, but "calculating means" which could encompass many different facilities - chemical, mechanical, electronic, quantum, ...

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

#92

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Fando wrote: post #67

I like to think about how the world would change if patenting was not generally done. Rather, anyone could copy and implement everyone's ideas. How would this look in the grand scale? I think it's possible to discover a way of coexisting in such a world. Anyways, I agree with the author, patent killing is fun.

The problem I see with that is a return to keeping a lot of inventions secret.

As the rate of industry has increased the patent term hasn't altered and this seems wrong to me, it should be shortened IMO (though I might make exceptions for some fields). The basic premise of exchanging complete disclosure of an invention for a limited time monopoly is still valid and useful.

Yes a world without patents could work but small time inventors would find it nearly impossible to get a financial benefit from their inventions. Lots of R&D would be wasted repeating things the kind of which previously had been disclosed in patent documents.

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

#93

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rowyourboat wrote: post #61

"Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?" Neither. You just like false dichotomies.

Whilst we're being pedantic (are we ever not?) that construction doesn't present a dichotomy it's just a more lyrical way of saying "I like killing patents".

Am I evil, or is pedantry just plain fun?

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

#94

Post by frobozz »

lyndonh wrote: post #83
frobozz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

a. They get money for: 1) Each patent claim (a patent is made up of a number of claims); 2) Each patent issued; 3) maintenance fees on granted patents; 4) Any extensions or continuations requested by the applicant; 5) Any post-rejection amendments.

At their annual review, one measure of how hard an examiner worked is probably based on how many requests they dealt with appropriately, whether that's 5 requests for 1 patent, or 1 request each for 5 patents.

Using a measure like the one you described is like using number of Lines of Code in a programmer's annual review.

It is in no one's interest for an examiner to simply stamp "PASSED" on any application that arrives on his desk.

b. Examiners can send it back for clarification, but if the applicant needs more than the allotted time to clarify, then that attracts a fee.

c. Part of the money goes to the lawyers, some of the money goes to IRS. It is a weak incentive, but not no incentive at all.

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

#95

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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. //

The problem actually doesn't lie with the USPTO specifically, it lies with the entire legal system.

The patent is the applicant's. They should need a patent that's guaranteed as much as possible to be valid. It should be that them getting a patent that's not valid means they can't use that patent for anything. They should therefore be closely allied with the patent examiner who is trying to "grant patents with a high degree of validity" (that's the UKIPO patent groups motto, or it was several years ago). They also want to get the broadest monopoly possible, that's the counterweight, but if it's granted so broadly as to be easily anticipated by a document that a skilled proponent in the field can find in 15 minutes of searching then the patent should be worthless.

All those shoulds depend on the legal system. Can a malevolent patent holder badger people and profit without a valid patent. If they couldn't then you'd be fine as they'd always want the best out of the examiner - make sure they' know all relevant prior art, make sure there's enough support in the description, etc. - to be as sure as possible they had a valid and hence useful patent to litigate with.

You have to make it highly costly to attempt to litigate with an invalid patent. Make the game-theoretic outcome favour working for good patents rather than just getting any rubbish patent and profiting from it.

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

#96

Post by austincheney »

beepp wrote: post #36
austincheney wrote: post #19

I included a full language specification with my patent application. Reading boring specifications can also be a drag, so I even wrote a version that sorts information by color. Its all available on http://mailmarkup.org/ If you are aware of any prior art please do the right thing. I have not been able to find any, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

I have a few thoughts: - Your patent application is much more readable than most. That's a good start. - hosay123 has already said basically what I would've - you may have found something that no one else has done 100% before, but it is clearly very similar to HTML in email with a few minor differences. Here are a few examples that I think would bring both the idea's novelty and non-obviousness into question: http://…

Regardless of whether or not the patent is granted I would like to create a start-up to build a new transport medium. It would be nice to have an online software platform built for automation and data integration above all else that allows any data repository to become a possible publication point using just URI addressing. I can see many possibilities that could arise from such a thing, especially if the primary markup language is always immediately accessible.

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

#98

Post by chrisBob »

bovermyer wrote: post #97

Could someone explain to me why patents are ever a good thing? I'm genuinely curious.

Pharmaceuticals are both one of the best and worst patent examples. It costs a company millions of dollars to develop, test and get approval for a new drug. A patent makes this expensive gamble worth while for the company by guaranteeing that they are the only ones who can sell the drug that they spent the money to develop.

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

#99

Post by yebyen »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #88
cushychicken wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

You can completely describe a crucial innovation without which your product would not be original or compelling, without completely describing your product and giving an instruction manual to start from nothing and build a better competitor to your business.

In that case your "whole" business process or product would not be protected, but it is possible that by identifying the one thing you do better than your potential competitors and by patenting it in time, you could still stifle competition altogether or force your competitors to license your technology (without actually producing a really useful document for anyone who might have wanted to read it once the patent expired.)

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

#100

Post by chrisBob »

vishaldpatel wrote: post #2

Does it cost a large company more to file a shitty patent than it does the community to crush it?

The cost is much higher than the filing fee. You should usually plan to spend about $20k to hire a patent attorney to help get a patent filed. If you are doing this yourself you can keep the cost much lower, and try to do all of the work yourself, but a company usually spends tens of thousands of dollars getting a patent filed.

At Boston University they have an office of about 5 people that evaluates university generated IP to see if it is worth patenting and if their market research doesn't show that it is worth $50k over the next few years they won't bother.

Post reply on HN