[deleted]
Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
101–110 of 124 posts
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#102project 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
It wouldn't even require machine learnign imho. From the first example: generating, using a processor = calculating a plurality of images = images clusters = groups It's more of a translation software than machine learning. Perhaps the translation software could suggest 3-4 variations of the legalese sentence and allow users to vote for the best translation?
Isn't translation software trained with machine learning?
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#103Why is it with patents everything has to be nothing ever, never a good reason? I'm sure my perspective here might get this downvoted to oblivion, but really, think for a second what would happen if tomorrow, no software was patentable? Why would a large company focus any effort on R&D, new idea development, vs investing that money in just ripping off the competition and scaling it better? (not that that ever happens…
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…
Depends on the patent office, both the German & European patent offices are fairly liberal in allowing software patents.
The UK patent office is currently harder to get a pure software patent in.
It's certainly possible to get patents on software particularly if it has a technical effect. The UK patent office gives an example of software that improves a car breaking system would be patentable.
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#104Why is it with patents everything has to be nothing ever, never a good reason? I'm sure my perspective here might get this downvoted to oblivion, but really, think for a second what would happen if tomorrow, no software was patentable? Why would a large company focus any effort on R&D, new idea development, vs investing that money in just ripping off the competition and scaling it better? (not that that ever happens…
What would happen with the demise of software patents is an explosion of creativity, no longer bridled by the threat of shady actors (ab)using their patents to extract money from those who create.
The only net loss would be for the legal profession. Less money to the lawyers, less money to the patent office. More money to the rest of the economy. Like the parable of the broken window, money going to these actors is actually money lost to the economy. These actors do not create value, they only consume. In other words, the software industry would be rid of a parasite.
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#105I posted a similar comment in the author's post, but I figure I'll post it here too in case anyone finds it useful.
----
I sympathize with the author's belief that many software patents are obvious, but as a practicing patent attorney I just want to point out a couple of things:
1. The patent claim copied in the post is from a published application, not a patent. It is common to file an application with broader claims, and then to narrow those claims during the process of getting the patent. Thus, art that you find based on that claim may not actually disclose or render obvious a claim that eventually issues in a patent. It is important to look at the history of the application to see how the published claim has been amended at this point.
2. Obviousness is judged as of the time of invention or application filing. Because hindsight bias is very difficult to avoid, the patent office relies on actual art that was disclosed before the invention date. The art generally must teach each and every limitation of the claim. I submit that a “photo album that groups your photos by the time they were taken” would not teach all of the limitations of the claim in the post.
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 potent…
I really doubt that in 20 years something would not be reversed engineered or trivial by then. Moreover, patents are usually functional specifications, not algorithmic. In the rare cases where the description is vital, like perhaps crypto or coding patents, the published software already allows reverse engineering.
Isn't the actual intention of patents to publicize the invention after the 20 years has gone by?
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Instead of badmouthing them, contact them and see if they like the idea.
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 potent…
I really doubt that in 20 years something would not be reversed engineered or trivial by then. Moreover, patents are usually functional specifications, not algorithmic. In the rare cases where the description is vital, like perhaps crypto or coding patents, the published software already allows reverse engineering. Isn't the actual intention of patents to publicize the invention after the 20 years has gone by?
No, that is the actual reason for a general (non-inventing) public to allow patents to exist, but that is not the point of patents.
The point of a patent is to grant a limited monopoly to a person who invests substantial resources in some innovation that was previously undiscovered; and yes, in exchange for full disclosure on what exactly the innovation is made of, they can be granted that exclusive right to collect license fees from those who needed to implement that innovation.
Reverse engineering can be a non-trivial effort. If the collective of all car manufacturers have failed to discover a novel way to make cars that (foo) and your invention is mainly a way to make cars (foo), there is no requirement to describe everything about and around the part that makes it (foo) in order to obtain the patent protection of (cars that _foo_). Those other car manufacturers then can either a) find a way to (foo) that doesn't use your (bar), b) pay you for your patented (foo/bar) tech, or c) go on selling cars that don't (foo) with a (bar). In twenty years, everyone who can make cars becomes free to use your (bar) to make their own cars that (foo).
If a (bar) that makes cars (foo) wasn't sufficiently described in the patent application then a patent should not have been granted. If the problem is that 20 years later, cars that work with a (bar) are no longer made by anyone, rendering the patent for (foo) useless, then that's a different problem and it can't be solved in the patent framework that we have now.
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#109Earlier 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.
Here's a clue:
(I wonder if the HN traffic spike drives up the "value"?)
Re: Am I evil, or is killing patents just plain fun?
#110Could 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.
I used to buy that argument till I read that they typically spend far more on marketing and sales than R&D.