Patent Trolls - A New Study and a Survey • Hacker News Board

Re: Patent Trolls - A New Study and a Survey

#11

Post by monochromatic » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 9:19 PM UTC

linuxhansl wrote: post #4

btilly wrote: post #3

I have a dirty secret that so far has not turned out poorly, but which could. About a decade ago, before I was fully aware of the problems with patents, my employer asked me to assist in the filing of a patent on some work that I had done. Because it was my job, I complied. Then about 5 years ago they contacted me about the patent application, I answered a few simple questions and did a bit of routine paperwork as I…

> Software patents these days are most valuable when you did it first, then other people redid it without knowing about you. I think it's quite a bit more sinister than this. As a patent lawyer confided to me once: The most valuable patents are the obvious ones (as other folks will likely think of it themselves) and that his job is to mask the fact that a patent is in fact obvious. Pathetic scum if you ask me. Edit:…

Patent attorney here. I never really thought of it that way, but I can kind of see his point.

Re: Patent Trolls - A New Study and a Survey

#12

Post by Natsu » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 9:59 PM UTC

law wrote: post #9

linuxhansl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software patents these days are most valuable when you did it first, then other people redid it without knowing about you. I think it's quite a bit more sinister than this. As a patent lawyer confided to me once: The most valuable patents are the obvious ones (as other folks will likely think of it themselves) and that his job is to mask the fact that a patent is in fact obvious. Pathetic scum if you ask me. Edit:…

> I think it's quite a bit more sinister than this. As a patent lawyer confided to me once: The most valuable patents are the obvious ones (as other folks will likely think of it themselves) and that his job is to mask the fact that a patent is in fact obvious. That lawyer should be disbarred. Obvious inventions (from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art) are per se unpatentable, and merely ma…

The test for obviousness is... less than robust. In a quest for legal certainty, "obviousness" is tested by applying the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test[1]. While this does help to prevent hindsight bias, the fact is that people often fail to state the obvious, so there may be no record of just how obvious something was. So blindingly obvious things can and do slip through, though the Supreme Court has tried to give the courts some leeway to strike down the worst of the lot with KSR v. Teleflex (2006).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...

Re: Patent Trolls - A New Study and a Survey

#13

Post by lukifer » Sat, Jul 14, 2012, 10:06 PM UTC

edouard1234567 wrote: post #10

How about making patents non transferable? Wouldn't that solve the patent troll problem and at the same time preserve some of the rights of the inventors. The way I see the problem is that patents have become a hot commodity people just trade to make money where it should simply be a mean for inventors to benefit from their invention and creativity, meaning an incentive to innovate. Too simplistic?

It would reduce the problem, and I'm in favor of it. However, patent trolls would mutate and become outsourced "patent management" companies instead, litigating on behalf of the actual patent owners in exchange for a percentage. While some creators would be principled and refuse to try to profit this way, some would not be able to resist the lure.

It also still doesn't stop patents from being invented out of thin air without actually having to build something.

I don't think patents are salvageable. It's one thing to own the rights to a specific mystery novel, and another to own the concept of "the butler did it".

Re: Patent Trolls - A New Study and a Survey

#14

Post by bradfeld » Sun, Jul 15, 2012, 1:03 PM UTC

law wrote: post #9

linuxhansl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software patents these days are most valuable when you did it first, then other people redid it without knowing about you. I think it's quite a bit more sinister than this. As a patent lawyer confided to me once: The most valuable patents are the obvious ones (as other folks will likely think of it themselves) and that his job is to mask the fact that a patent is in fact obvious. Pathetic scum if you ask me. Edit:…

> I think it's quite a bit more sinister than this. As a patent lawyer confided to me once: The most valuable patents are the obvious ones (as other folks will likely think of it themselves) and that his job is to mask the fact that a patent is in fact obvious. That lawyer should be disbarred. Obvious inventions (from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art) are per se unpatentable, and merely ma…

Totally agree the lawyer should be disbarred. However, many patent lawyers, especially those who work for either (a) big companies, (b) patent trolls, or (c) are independent owners of patents they've purchased from others "live on this concept."

As an engineer from a large software company once told me, "our internal patent lawyers have a simple saying - write the patent to be as broad as possible while obscuring what you are actually doing."