11–20 of 73 posts
So this new version of patent trolling is to find old valuable patents that can be invalidated in some way, and patent them again, then sue everyone in the world that "infringes" because they thought the patent was long expired? Wow, that is a new level of scumbaggery.
So this new version of patent trolling is to find old valuable patents that can be invalidated in some way, and patent them again, then sue everyone in the world that "infringes" because they thought the patent was long expired? Wow, that is a new level of scumbaggery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may balance out over time, but big businesses spend an enormous amount of money defending themselves against patent suits and defensively filing patents. Patent trolls are the only types of businesses that purely see upside from patents.
They also benefit from the stability of operating within a pretty known system and the fact that they are able to afford legal expertise. Big businesses may get hurt by patent trolls, but I’d imagine that this is less strategically important to their business than using their patents to prevent competitors from starting up or from taking away their business. Small businesses get hurt the most by the patent system. A…
Basically abolishing patents would definitely receive pushback from bigger and even smaller companies, but improving case law to be more reasonable really wouldn't.
I think the EFF's note is a bit confusing, because it glosses over a key nuance in the evaluation. Here's a bit more information about the case: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/07/diagnostics-provisional... Briefly: Granted patents count as prior art from their filing date. The question is what happens to provisional filings. The court has split the treatment of those documents depending on whether or not the prior…
Is it true that provisional applications are not disclosed to the public? It seems fair that if the invention is never publicly disclosed (only mentioned in private filings), that the invention isn't covered by patent law. That's standard -- only public information is part of the patent system.
So this new version of patent trolling is to find old valuable patents that can be invalidated in some way, and patent them again, then sue everyone in the world that "infringes" because they thought the patent was long expired? Wow, that is a new level of scumbaggery.
Not new. Turbotax has long lobbied the government to make the tax law convoluted so you have to use Turbotax (or another similarsoftware) so you can avoid fines for submitting the wrong amount of taxes.
So this new version of patent trolling is to find old valuable patents that can be invalidated in some way, and patent them again, then sue everyone in the world that "infringes" because they thought the patent was long expired? Wow, that is a new level of scumbaggery.
Not new. Turbotax has long lobbied the government to make the tax law convoluted so you have to use Turbotax (or another similarsoftware) so you can avoid fines for submitting the wrong amount of taxes.
The entire patent system needs to be redesigned. Lawyers always seem terrified at the prospect of throwing away decades of case law but in this case, considering the nature of what patents represent and how they are used has changed so much from their original purpose, it’s probably necessary. Of course, big business incumbents don’t mind the system because they have corporate lawyer teams that understand how it work…
It may balance out over time, but big businesses spend an enormous amount of money defending themselves against patent suits and defensively filing patents. Patent trolls are the only types of businesses that purely see upside from patents.
I think the EFF's note is a bit confusing, because it glosses over a key nuance in the evaluation. Here's a bit more information about the case: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/07/diagnostics-provisional... Briefly: Granted patents count as prior art from their filing date. The question is what happens to provisional filings. The court has split the treatment of those documents depending on whether or not the prior…
Is EFF mischaracterizing the case (which it often does when blogging about on patent cases)? Is it true that provisional applications are not disclosed to the public? It seems fair that if the invention is never publicly disclosed (only mentioned in private filings), that the invention isn't covered by patent law. That's standard -- only public information is part of the patent system.
However, patent applications can act as prior art as of the day they are filed, which is often well before they are published. The justification for this is that, even though the information is not yet public, the applicant has established that they know that information and that it will be disclosed to the public when the patent publishes.
The question in Ariosa Diagnostics v. Illumina is whether the provisional application can also act as prior art as of its filing date. The court's decision was that only the material from the provisional application that was later claimed in the published patent counts as prior art as of the filing date. Everything else in the provisional application only counts as of the publication date.
I haven't seen anything good about patents in years. Maybe the government should just get rid of them, along with copyright. The idea of granting someone a monopoly to an idea is crazy to me.
If I make something, I should be capable of earning money with it if I want to. Copyright protects software in that regard, as well as music and images, etc.