Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat • Hacker News Board

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#41

Post by strbean » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #22

jpollock wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why does the EFF have a problem with a rule about for-profit entities? Aren't they a non-profit?

These rules say that a company cannot preemptively challenge a bogus patent before developing something that would infringe that patent.

This would have a chilling effect on the challenge of bogus patents, which is bad for creativity and innovation, and therefore against the EFF's mission.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#42

Post by jpollock » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:11 PM UTC

jpollock wrote: post #11

jpollock wrote: post #4

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…

There is also this - "intent to commercialize" would preclude most third parties.

"The Board should first determine whether a petitioner meets the first three criteria—standing, intent to commercialize and privy/real party in interest—before moving to the compelling merits analysis."

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#43

Post by jsdeveloper » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

patent are necessary, but they must be only granted for 5 years of time span. 5 years of leverage to patent holder is more than enough for them to cover up there research cost

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#44

Post by contravariant » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #39

judge2020 wrote: post #17

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.

I don't think this true of all patents. Patents for drugs are obviously necessary in the current environment. But software patents are definitely bogus.

I agree that it is the obvious choice for medicine, but is it really the best option? Do we really have no other methods to fund medicine? Is it worth prioritising new patentable discoveries over other ones like making drugs cheaper or using them more effectively?

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#45

Post by downWidOutaFite » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #39

judge2020 wrote: post #17

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.

I don't think this true of all patents. Patents for drugs are obviously necessary in the current environment. But software patents are definitely bogus.

Not sure why drug patents are obviously necessary. There are tons of issues with them including big pharma gaming the system to keep drugs protected for decades.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#46

Post by ImHereToVote » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:16 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #39

judge2020 wrote: post #17

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.

I don't think this true of all patents. Patents for drugs are obviously necessary in the current environment. But software patents are definitely bogus.

Well obviously. How else could publicly funded research be price gouged?

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#47

Post by dannyobrien » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:16 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #15

jpollock wrote: post #9

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…

The alternative explanation is that EFF, having experienced incredible and well-funded push-back in its attempts to invalidate dumb patents, believes that this rule has been engineered to limit even further the ability of third-parties to challenge unnecessary patents.

I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is that EFF is corrupt", seems a bit of a jump, compared to the simpler explanation that EFF does believe its process to be affected, as argued by the OP link.

(Due disclosure: I used to work for EFF. The fight for a reasonable way to overturn bad patents has been, IIRC, a multi-decade uphill battle, against an industry of patent troll adversaries, who did everything from trying to subpoena EFF's membership rolls[1], to suing in Australia to have an EFF blog post taken down[2]. I guess we could have been being paid off by Big Don't Patent Dumb Things, but I defy you to find any of the patents that the EFF has either exposed or organizationally fought that should, in fact, have stayed patentable [3])

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/eff-fights-patent-trol...

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/court-rules-effs-stupi...

[3] https://www.eff.org/issues/patents

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#48

Post by drschwabe » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:18 PM UTC

myshpa wrote: post #6

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…

Thanks for the links. How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here?

On one had, we shouldn't feed the flames but on the other hand - we may need a foundation of patents for defensive measure or to reaslitically compete against the likes of IBM who have a gajillion patents.

And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application process. From what I can asertain this is otherwise money on the table, after meeting that prerequsite.

Are you suggesting we walk away from technology grants and just wing it with regards to what may happen when IBM legal team (or other patent troll) comes knocking ?

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#49

Post by pclmulqdq » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:20 PM UTC

strbean wrote: post #41

pclmulqdq wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the EFF have a problem with a rule about for-profit entities? Aren't they a non-profit?

These rules say that a company cannot preemptively challenge a bogus patent before developing something that would infringe that patent. This would have a chilling effect on the challenge of bogus patents, which is bad for creativity and innovation, and therefore against the EFF's mission.

You should read the rules. They only apply to patents that currently have ongoing litigation and parties that are not involved in the litigation or likely to produce a product. They are a lot more narrow than you think.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#50

Post by lend000 » Mon, Jun 05, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #27

judge2020 wrote: post #17

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.

You need to have enforceable NDA's, keep things as trade secrets, and have a well built organization that simply continuously out-innovates AND out-executes the competition.

I think patents are okay, but the maximum duration should be 5 years and there needs to be some proof of utilization of the patent to sue for damages.

20 year patents are ridiculous, and it seems like even in the 1800's that should have been considered a bit extreme.