I thought it said AskParents.com .. which could be a good idea in itself.
AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
71–80 of 82 posts
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#72This is awesome, my only fear is that it only stops new Patents, giving existing dubious patents even more power, since it will be harder to create a new "defensive" Patent?
Yes, but what other plausible way do we have for getting rid of bad patents? The problem is that those "defensive" patents are all bogus too. If the bad patents are ever going to stop, there has to be a transition period where some of the old ones are still valid (although they can be invalidated over time), but new ones aren't being granted (or realistically, not being granted at the same rate as they were in the past).
Given that it has to happen some time, let's start right now.
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#73Jeez, I hope that server isn't using Linux, that infringes on the double linked list patent.
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#74This is awesome. Check out how it's already turned up prior art for Microsoft's 'whack to silence a phone' patent application: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/109/microsoft-hav...
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#75First thing to be done is to reform the legal practice. Why is legal assistance so costly? Why can't it be done cheap. The legal mafia needs to be busted first.
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#76This seems wonderful. It's exactly the sort of practical solution that could really make a big dent in the patent problem, and to see it actually come into being with the cooperation of the USPTO and Google Patent Search is very, very heartening. I hope folks here will take time to read this new site from time to time and raise any particularly problematic patent applications to their circles. There's the risk of rea…
Regarding the treble damages for having read a patent - since these are patent applications, not granted patents, perhaps one could argue that one didn't know it was actually granted?
That wouldn't matter.
If you read an application, then you know the invention exists
If the application is rejected – it implies the invention is not novel. Whereas if it is granted, it implies the invention is novel.
Either way, you should not be seeking a patent on that particular invention — because you know that you're not the first to invent.
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
some patents take days to review - some have to be reviewed in context with other patents etc. So maybe 200 teacups each but the direction is definitely right.
I just went on to AskPatents and tried my hand at it: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/197/prior-art-for... I'm not doing anything close to as good a job as a patent examiner would do, but with about an hour of work I (hopefully) was able to start pointing to some prior art that could get an examiner quickly up to speed on what the state of the art is. I agree the amount of work involved to comprehensively…
Unless the rules are different for this process, every piece of prior art that you point to now that an examiner doesn't agree with / understand is a piece of prior art that can't be reused further down the line (e.g. in a trial).
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding the treble damages for having read a patent - since these are patent applications, not granted patents, perhaps one could argue that one didn't know it was actually granted?
That wouldn't matter. If you read an application, then you know the invention exists If the application is rejected – it implies the invention is not novel. Whereas if it is granted, it implies the invention is novel. Either way, you should not be seeking a patent on that particular invention — because you know that you're not the first to invent.
It matters a lot in whether or not you should /implement/ your design, not whether you should try and patent it.
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#79If you violate a patent unknowingly, you are liable for damages. If you violate a patent you know exists, you are liable for treble damages. The only rational thing for someone who actually makes stuff to do is to not read any patents, ever, as a matter of general policy. This might not be the socially responsible answer; we should all be fighting the patent madness in our industry. It is, however, the most logical c…
They'll be more measures coming from the USPTO on the issue of software patents soon, if I'm not mistaken. See their website for details.
The advice you give is like an urban myth. It's passed around for many years.
It assumes there's no alternative but to infringe, so you might as well minimize your potential losses.
Maybe it's better to read patents, design around them and not infringe. That seems like the most rational course of action.
Are treble damages automatic? Or are they are discretionary?
Re: AskPatents.com: A Stack Exchange To Prevent Bad Patents
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, I have to say that your "rational strategy" is a terrible suggestion. This strategy only makes sense if your desired goal is to reduce treble damage risk. Moreover it completely ignores the risk of devoting a ton of resources to developing a product that is already protected by a patent.
They're all protected by patents. All of them. I can pretty much guarantee you that any of IBM, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Intellectual Ventures, and many others have sufficient patent coverage to be able to sue you for anything you could possibly build that involves software in any way. [edited to scope it to software]
Doesn't mean they're going to win.