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

Victory Lap for Ask Patents

joelonsoftware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#91

Post by jaydles »

DannyBee wrote: post #73
jaydles wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USPTO explicitly asked us to set up this site to help get the public involved in getting prior art to the examiners. (Press release: http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2012/12-60.jsp. ) So, while it's entirely possible that the examiner might have eventually found this without us, which is far from certain, it seems reasonable to assume that they saw it on the site. Which means that even if you assume they would have f…

I'm aware the USPTO asked you to set up ask patents. The USPTO has a number of pilot programs, and i'm involved in some. My only question is whether AskPatents was how it got to the USPTO. I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that they saw it on the site considering most examiners still don't do that sort of thing. Most of them search the USPTO approved databases, internally, and go about their way. This is in f…

No offense taken, and thanks for the overall support!

As to:

> "Do you have any evidence that your site is the reason the USPTO found this?"

Well, the office has told us directly that examiners are reviewing the site. So, when they then reject an application, based primarily on art posted on the site, that was asked for and posted there just prior to the actual review, it makes me highly optimistic that it's not all a coincidence, although I suppose that's theoretically possible.

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#92

Post by larrys »

silvestrov wrote: post #14
jasonkester wrote: post #11

Pure Awesome. Shame there's not a way to do the same thing to existing software patents. There are plenty (~40k/year according to the article) of bad, obvious nonsense patents already out there. It'd be nice if there were a simple process to appeal and invalidate them with similar demonstrations of prior art and obviousness. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some Wikipedia-level-OCD focused on this site to sto…

One thing missing in the patent system is that the patent seeker should pay a "fee" of $1000 if it is patentlyobvious that prior art exists. That would enable "Amazon Mechanical Turk"-style killing of most patents with prior art.

Would hurt the proverbial small inventor more than it would hurt others. Almost like a regressive tax.

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#93

Post by donaldc »

sutro wrote: post #53
roc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the Patent office generates net revenue for the US Government, you don't have to worry about that.

Actually you do have to worry about that. Since the USPTO is financed by patent application fees it has a perverse incentive to continue promiscuously granting as many patents as possible.

Since the USPTO is financed by patent application fees it has a perverse incentive to continue promiscuously granting as many patents as possible.

I would hope that filers for patents that are rejected would still get charged a fee. If they aren't, they should be. After all, it still takes up a patent clerk's time.

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#94

Post by DannyBee »

cleverjake wrote: post #89
DannyBee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been tried. Many times.

do go on.

bountyquest (paid) - existed in early 2000's

patentbusters - ditto

Peer to patent - more recent

Patexia - still exists

article one partners - which still exists and pays

I don't feel like trying to hunt down the rest, but there are/have been at least 10 or so crowdsourcing attempts, some serious, some not so serious.

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#95

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

larrys wrote: post #92
silvestrov wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing missing in the patent system is that the patent seeker should pay a "fee" of $1000 if it is patentlyobvious that prior art exists. That would enable "Amazon Mechanical Turk"-style killing of most patents with prior art.

Would hurt the proverbial small inventor more than it would hurt others. Almost like a regressive tax.

I think the problem is that the proverbial small inventor is extremely rare, and if they are indeed small enough for us to take pity on them, then a patent isn't enough to protect them anyway.

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#96

Post by dlwh »

larrys wrote: post #92
silvestrov wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing missing in the patent system is that the patent seeker should pay a "fee" of $1000 if it is patentlyobvious that prior art exists. That would enable "Amazon Mechanical Turk"-style killing of most patents with prior art.

Would hurt the proverbial small inventor more than it would hurt others. Almost like a regressive tax.

Make the prior art fee scale up by number of patent applications submitted by that entity, then. First one's free. Then $100, then start growing at some small-ish exponent.

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#97

Post by VladRussian2 »

throwawaykf wrote: post #80

somewhat active on Ask Patents. In fact, I've submitted an answer that is pretty sure to kill at least one Google patent application, and possibly another from Uniloc. A few comments on this article: 1) This is a very unusual case; most answers (and almost all questions) from "lay engineers" completely misunderstand the scope of the patent, since they don't even know what claims are. And even if they do, they are ver…

>You simply need to learn the language to appreciate what you are reading.

when i read my ones (basically the same crap that other 99% software patents are) in patent legalese they sound more pompous, yet still an utter crap.

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#98

Post by [deleted] »

cruise02 wrote: post #83
neilk wrote: post #57

It would be great if others could attach bounties to certain patents. Of course then the patent examiner would have to pick "winners", answers that helped the most. Also, like Quora, does the StackExchange system allow one to register one's fields of expertise, to have questions suggested to you? (I'm not a big participant on SE but I know it may be hiding that feature from me, because it slowly reveals features base…

You can post bounties on Stack Exchange if you have enough reputation to cover it. Whoever posts the bounty (not necessarily the patent examiner) gets to pick who wins the bounty. If they don't, it can be automatically awarded to the highest-scoring answer during the bounty period (one week). More details: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-b...

[deleted]

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#99

Post by rgraham »

donaldc wrote: post #93
sutro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you do have to worry about that. Since the USPTO is financed by patent application fees it has a perverse incentive to continue promiscuously granting as many patents as possible.

Since the USPTO is financed by patent application fees it has a perverse incentive to continue promiscuously granting as many patents as possible. I would hope that filers for patents that are rejected would still get charged a fee. If they aren't, they should be. After all, it still takes up a patent clerk's time.

This appears to be the case. Well, perhaps not an additional fee, but filing isn't cheap.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee031913.htm

Re: Victory Lap for Ask Patents

#100

Post by dctoedt »

throwawaykf wrote: post #80

somewhat active on Ask Patents. In fact, I've submitted an answer that is pretty sure to kill at least one Google patent application, and possibly another from Uniloc. A few comments on this article: 1) This is a very unusual case; most answers (and almost all questions) from "lay engineers" completely misunderstand the scope of the patent, since they don't even know what claims are. And even if they do, they are ver…

Re (2): In 1924, legendary federal judge Learned Hand [0] remarked that "the antlike persistency [sic] of [patent] solicitors has overcome, and I suppose will continue to overcome, the patience of examiners, and there is apparently always but one outcome."

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand

[1] Lyon v. Boh, 1 F.2d 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y.1924), copy available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9696597566965196....

Post reply on HN