21–30 of 219 posts
I assume this change is related to the patent office wanting to reduce its workload? Funding probably should be increased. Patent nonsense ends up costing everyone a LOT more in the long run.
My reading is that it's probably related to an extortion attempt where a firm went after VLSI and Intel? https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blackmail-at-the-uspto-dir...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! I assumed "Take Action" was a simple form, and I didn't want to do that until I read what I was taking action about.
When looking at the proposed rules, I think this is the problematic bit (search for "standing"): "The changes under consideration would make clear that the Board would discretionarily deny any petition for IPR or PGR filed by an entity that: (1) is a for-profit entity; (2) has not been sued on the challenged patent or has not been threatened with infringement of the challenged patent in a manner sufficient to give ri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My reading is that it's probably related to an extortion attempt where a firm went after VLSI and Intel? https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blackmail-at-the-uspto-dir...
After reading the proposed rule changes, I'm not so sure it's bad, and I'm also not sure it hits the EFF in any meaningful way (unless the EFF is hopelessly corrupt, which I guess is a possibility). The biggest thing at issue is that it protects small entities from spurious IPRs ( ie IPRs from parties not being sued) from for-profit companies while litigation is ongoing, which seems kind of reasonable. IPRs are expen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure radicalising this debate helps anyone. We are trying for a narrow victory of preserving IPR. Turning that into a broader argument about software patents plays into the opposition’s hands.
As long as people keep focusing solely on these "narrow victories" in order to simply maintain the broken status quo, the broader abuse of the patent system to serve as a legal anti-competitive moat in service of large companies who can afford expensive lawyers will continue. It's not radical to believe that.
I’m not saying drop the fight. Just to show a modicum of strategy. Turning an IPR fight into a patent debate lets those looking to quash IPR win while doing nothing for the broader debate.
What is smart, tactically, is doing exactly this when you oppose something: overscope so people disengage or get distracted in a juicier discussion while forgetting to send the relevant message to their elected or regulator.
Why Software Patents are Bad, Period. https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0027 Patents are out of control, and they’re hurting innovation https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/patents-are-out-of-control... Economic and Game Theory Against Intellectual Monopoly https://web.archive.org/web/20120121014753/https://levine.ss... PATENTS AND INNOVATION IN ECONOMIC HISTORY https://gwern.net/doc/economics/2016-moser.pdf Historical rec…
I'm starting to believe that all patents are at best ineffective, and at worse harmful in a globalized world, because it's not like airpods clones off aliexpress are actually being stopped at the port all too often.
I'm thinking of the 'sawstop' and 'festool domino' woodworking tools here. Which are important innovations that were probably motivated by patents, but whose patents have run long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After reading the proposed rule changes, I'm not so sure it's bad, and I'm also not sure it hits the EFF in any meaningful way (unless the EFF is hopelessly corrupt, which I guess is a possibility). The biggest thing at issue is that it protects small entities from spurious IPRs ( ie IPRs from parties not being sued) from for-profit companies while litigation is ongoing, which seems kind of reasonable. IPRs are expen…
non-profit is a complicated topic and companies which are not corrupt and "in spirit" act as a non profit might very well count as a for-profit company in many legal situations AFIK
Why Software Patents are Bad, Period. https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0027 Patents are out of control, and they’re hurting innovation https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/patents-are-out-of-control... Economic and Game Theory Against Intellectual Monopoly https://web.archive.org/web/20120121014753/https://levine.ss... PATENTS AND INNOVATION IN ECONOMIC HISTORY https://gwern.net/doc/economics/2016-moser.pdf Historical rec…
I'm starting to believe that all patents are at best ineffective, and at worse harmful in a globalized world, because it's not like airpods clones off aliexpress are actually being stopped at the port all too often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My reading is that it's probably related to an extortion attempt where a firm went after VLSI and Intel? https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blackmail-at-the-uspto-dir...
After reading the proposed rule changes, I'm not so sure it's bad, and I'm also not sure it hits the EFF in any meaningful way (unless the EFF is hopelessly corrupt, which I guess is a possibility). The biggest thing at issue is that it protects small entities from spurious IPRs ( ie IPRs from parties not being sued) from for-profit companies while litigation is ongoing, which seems kind of reasonable. IPRs are expen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm starting to believe that all patents are at best ineffective, and at worse harmful in a globalized world, because it's not like airpods clones off aliexpress are actually being stopped at the port all too often.
This is a bad example though, because everyone knows who Apple are. There's no point inventing anything as a new company if an existing one can just copy it and outspend your marketing.
Why Software Patents are Bad, Period. https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0027 Patents are out of control, and they’re hurting innovation https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/patents-are-out-of-control... Economic and Game Theory Against Intellectual Monopoly https://web.archive.org/web/20120121014753/https://levine.ss... PATENTS AND INNOVATION IN ECONOMIC HISTORY https://gwern.net/doc/economics/2016-moser.pdf Historical rec…
There are no software patents in EU (maybe even in the whole Europe) with exception for specially designed hardware. Idk how that works.
What is and isn't technical is largely down to convention and can't be readily reasoned over IME. In the UK you only need to be familiar with about a half-dozen pieces of caselaw to be able to make a pretty good guess.
It's established caselaw that compression is a mathematical method (not patentable); but you can implement that as a computer program (probably not patentable); but you can apply that to image compression (probably patentable, see Vicom).
Any opinions here are my own and do not relate to my employment. This is not legal advice.