Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

ipde.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 360 posts

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#221

Post by newaccount74 »

headhasthoughts wrote: post #213
newaccount74 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the story of "small inventor makes big contribution" is very misleading. If an invention is small enough that someone can make it without spending significant resources, it is probably obvious enough that you shouldn't be allowed to patent it, because it is more likely other people incidentally have the same idea than they are "stealing" it. The only scenario where patents make sense is when a research group…

In your proposed world, shouldn't we simply get rid of patents entirely? The person who made the flash freezer, for example, was just one person. If he couldn't protect his patent, despite definitively changing the face of global food preparation, why should IBM have any intellectual property?

I don't know if abolishing patents altogether would improve innovation. But I'm pretty sure that patents on obvious things hinder innovation, rather than help it.

I'm not familiar with the invention of flash freezing. Did the inventor just patent the idea of freezing food fast? That sounds like a pretty obvious idea that should not be patentable. Why give someone a monopoly on quick freezing?

Or did the inventor patent a non-obvious mechanical device that is capable of quickly freezing food? Giving the inventor a short term monopoly on that device in exchange for publishing the blueprints sounds like a reasonable deal.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#222

Post by thewebcount »

cycomanic wrote: post #179

I find the framing of the conversation around problems with the patent system to largely be about patent trolls quite disingenuous. This might sound controversial, but patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent (note not invention). If say IBM violates your patent an individual or even a moderate startup or company has absolutely no chance of defending it, because IBM will…

If you're suing IBM, maybe. But I don't see how the majority of patent trolls that seem to be suing small businesses for things like using a printer, scanner, fax combo they bought at Office Depot is helping anyone out.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#223

Post by kmacdough »

newaccount74 wrote: post #200
cycomanic wrote: post #179

I find the framing of the conversation around problems with the patent system to largely be about patent trolls quite disingenuous. This might sound controversial, but patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent (note not invention). If say IBM violates your patent an individual or even a moderate startup or company has absolutely no chance of defending it, because IBM will…

I think the story of "small inventor makes big contribution" is very misleading. If an invention is small enough that someone can make it without spending significant resources, it is probably obvious enough that you shouldn't be allowed to patent it, because it is more likely other people incidentally have the same idea than they are "stealing" it. The only scenario where patents make sense is when a research group…

While many contributions do require significant tools & investment, there are still plenty of sectors where individuals can make massive contributions. For example Ben Choi leveraged mostly public knowledge and a few thousand $ to develop a low-cost neural prosthetic in high school. Having been to enough hackathons, this caliber of project, though uncommon is also not rare. The surface area for innovation is so huge, and the flexibility afforded by individuals/small groups is so significant that major breakthroughs continue to be made without backing.

Many of these inventions could be readily transformed into significant business ventures but, without patent protection, would be easily beat out by companies with the resources to build out manufacturing nearly instantly.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#224

Post by btrettel »

late2part wrote: post #220
btrettel wrote: post #60

Current USPTO patent examiner here. The most effective way to eliminate bad patents would be to give examiners more time, say double the time across the board to start. If an examiner can't find prior art in the little time they're given, and they have no other reasons to reject the application, they'll have to grant it. The amount of time was (basically) set in the 1970s based on data from the 1960s. There have been…

It's tiring to hear people in government say all their problems can be solved with more people and more money.

The situation here is different than in other government agencies. The USPTO is funded entirely by user fees, not taxes. In fact, the USPTO actually diverts a lot of money back to the federal government, so they don't even get to keep their own revenues.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#225

Post by balderdash »

newaccount74 wrote: post #200
cycomanic wrote: post #179

I find the framing of the conversation around problems with the patent system to largely be about patent trolls quite disingenuous. This might sound controversial, but patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent (note not invention). If say IBM violates your patent an individual or even a moderate startup or company has absolutely no chance of defending it, because IBM will…

I think the story of "small inventor makes big contribution" is very misleading. If an invention is small enough that someone can make it without spending significant resources, it is probably obvious enough that you shouldn't be allowed to patent it, because it is more likely other people incidentally have the same idea than they are "stealing" it. The only scenario where patents make sense is when a research group…

That’s probably true in the aggregate (as I’d posit most advances are incremental and become more expensive as you run up against diminishing returns to investment with legacy technologies). However, I think it discounts breakthrough tech/new technology fields and new applications. Not to mention many things that are consumer focused ( beanie babies, spanks, super soakers etc)

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#226

Post by ilamont »

"Passive income" strikes again. Such schemes are not just clogging up courts with patent troll cases, they're responsible for a great deal of the spam, bogus reviews, garbage products, affiliate nonsense, and other online B.S. designed to trick the unwary and make it miserable for legitimate businesses.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#227

Post by AlbertCory »

kag0 wrote: post #201
AlbertCory wrote: post #171

I'm a patent agent and I worked in Google's Patent Litigation department. This is a slight hyperbole, but only slight: I can bust any software patent. I found the prior art that prevented Google Maps from being shut down in Germany: https://www.themarysue.com/google-maps-facing-german-ban/ @btrettel is right that examiners need more time, but that would mean the PTO would have to hire a lot more of them. A better sol…

> change patentable subject matter to (effectively) exclude computer software I don't necessarily disagree with you, but what makes software unique in that it would be effectively excluded by changes while other subject matter (presumably) wouldn't be affected?

What @riskable said.

The list of "patentable subject matter" ("101" to insiders) is a legislative decision, i.e. a political one. The Congress doesn't need an ironclad reason, but there are plenty. The Constitution just says:

Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

It's simply a matter of Congress using its power to decide that the "useful art" of software does not need patent protection.

Pure mathematical formulas are already excluded from patentability.

And now yet another election is happening where Congressional and Senatorial candidates are not asked to support or oppose this proposal.

This is how it's going to happen, if it ever does. A bill gets introduced, the Establishment runs op-eds against it, and the battle is joined.

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#228

Post by yieldcrv »

thewebcount wrote: post #222
cycomanic wrote: post #179

I find the framing of the conversation around problems with the patent system to largely be about patent trolls quite disingenuous. This might sound controversial, but patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent (note not invention). If say IBM violates your patent an individual or even a moderate startup or company has absolutely no chance of defending it, because IBM will…

If you're suing IBM, maybe. But I don't see how the majority of patent trolls that seem to be suing small businesses for things like using a printer, scanner, fax combo they bought at Office Depot is helping anyone out.

Its about identifying symptoms, not being an apologist

okay so you’re living paycheck to paycheck and took the risk of filing your patent with the attorney for $10,000 and arguing with the patent office a couple times for another $10,000

now you need to monetize it and other people did the thing you described after you described it

everyone on the internet says “hm you should have launched a startup using more capital and more risk, doing that one specific thing, otherwise you are just a troll!”

yeah ok. convincing argument

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#229

Post by GuardianCaveman »

headhasthoughts wrote: post #213
newaccount74 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the story of "small inventor makes big contribution" is very misleading. If an invention is small enough that someone can make it without spending significant resources, it is probably obvious enough that you shouldn't be allowed to patent it, because it is more likely other people incidentally have the same idea than they are "stealing" it. The only scenario where patents make sense is when a research group…

In your proposed world, shouldn't we simply get rid of patents entirely? The person who made the flash freezer, for example, was just one person. If he couldn't protect his patent, despite definitively changing the face of global food preparation, why should IBM have any intellectual property?

I wanted to know too. It seems he was inspired by fish being naturally preserved in the arctic by wind and cold and how it was still tasted good later.

"After years of work on his own process, Birdseye invented a system that packed dressed fish, meat, or vegetables into waxed-cardboard cartons, which were flash-frozen under high pressure"

Re: Delaware judge discovers hidden entity recruiting people to be patent trolls

#230

Post by bjornsing »

newaccount74 wrote: post #200
cycomanic wrote: post #179

I find the framing of the conversation around problems with the patent system to largely be about patent trolls quite disingenuous. This might sound controversial, but patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent (note not invention). If say IBM violates your patent an individual or even a moderate startup or company has absolutely no chance of defending it, because IBM will…

I think the story of "small inventor makes big contribution" is very misleading. If an invention is small enough that someone can make it without spending significant resources, it is probably obvious enough that you shouldn't be allowed to patent it, because it is more likely other people incidentally have the same idea than they are "stealing" it. The only scenario where patents make sense is when a research group…

> If an invention is small enough that someone can make it without spending significant resources, it is probably obvious enough that you shouldn't be allowed to patent it, because it is more likely other people incidentally have the same idea than they are "stealing" it.

The resources spent on an invention is typically a terrible measure of novelty or inventive step.

But I agree, patent law should to a greater extent protect the investment that goes into realizing an invention, and less the invention itself. For example I think it’s absurd that you can patent stuff that you have no intention of building or offering for sale.

Post reply on HN