10 ms·

My Own Patent Apologies (2014)

57 points by mariuz 11y ago

thinkcomp 11y ago
I own a few patents, as I'm sure many on Hacker News do. As I write this, I'm in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Square (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northern-district-court/think-computer-corporation-v-square-inc/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe...). I don't apologize for it. I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. I'm also someone well known for having dealt with intellectual property theft as a victim. I also spent a year at Stanford Law School poking around as a fellow as I developed what is now the most accurate patent assignment database there is--far more accurate than the official one--on PlainSite. I'll be deliberately terse with my comments here, but the upshot is that the problem here isn't the idea of patents. They are a lottery ticket to a lawsuit as Elon Musk has said, but they're also an important insurance policy for serious innovators. (Another such insurance policy is VC, but not every serious innovator has VC backing.) The problem is the legal profession. Patent trolls (and other sorts of IP trolls) are by and large the creations of corrupt lawyers. Inventors are slighted in favor of large corporations because of "upstanding" lawyers. Transparency is impeded everywhere you turn in the patent world courtesy of the patent bar. And unlike the USPTO TTAB, where corporations can represent themselves at virtually no cost, in the USPTO PTAB, the patent bar has seen to it that you must hire a lawyer. It's not a coincidence. The system is incredibly broken, but if you want to blame someone, blame the lawyers for ruining what might have been a workable and necessary paradigm.
- aetherson 11y ago
  There are lots of things where "the idea of them" isn't bad, but they can't be turned into law-enforced policy without leading to bad consequences. That's not really the fault of lawyers, either.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  If anyone is curious about the patent the parent is suing for, it is included in the documents he linked to. Here is an handier link: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=132275042&a=3&z=d3106d66 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=132275042&... I'm afraid that I (and surely many others on Hacker News as well) will not be cheering you on. It's pretty much the definition of something I do not want to be patentable. I understand it will probably not be possible to convince you to change your mind, so I won't insult you by trying. However, keep in mind that your stance really is diametrically opposed to many groups who do not want software patents.
  - pc86 11y ago
    It's the "for payments" version of all those "but on a screen" patents that people here hate on so much. Prior work includes but is not limited to Facebook tag suggestions, and and just about everything done in facial recognition on any laptop in the world.
  - ChuckMcM 11y ago
    See also http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/07/zuckerberg-nemesis-aaron-greenspan-sues-facebook-again-plus-the-rest-of-silicon-valley/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/07/zuckerberg-nemesis-...
- ploxiln 11y ago
  If patents were granted fairly and litigated fairly and efficiently, sure, they'd be great. But they just can't be. Many millions of dollars are spent gaining bad patents and litigating them unfairly. In practice, they're a tool which enables and amplifies the worse parts of human and societal nature, a tool for the abuse of power. I say we just give them up. There may be fewer published inventions, but not that many fewer really. Some inventors will be motivated to invent for its own sake. Others will profit from being involved in the implementation and commercialization of their own inventions combined with others. Some inventors will get "screwed" when others get rich off their creations. But that happens today anyway. There will likely be disagreements about who really came up with the core of an idea first, or who's idea is really more core to the product, and without patents, those arguments won't cost millions of dollars and stifle creation. Everyone would be better off IMHO.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    A huge part your argument comes down to "it will all be the same as now but magically better" but you didn't bother to make a case, just list out some very assertive predictions.
    - ploxiln 11y ago
      But I did make a case: no patent lawsuits. That's easily big enough to counter any downsides.
  - meanduck 11y ago
    Also, Its very likely that the invention will be reinvented by someone. Is not there a public patent review process before a patent is granted so the other inventors can provide alternative solutions ? This would solve most if not all problems.
- scriptproof 11y ago
  No need to downvote a comment that exposes an opinion you disagree with (and I disagree too). The patent is clearly a joke: "A method for transferring an electronic payment between a purchaser and a merchant etc...". Instead of downvote, send a letter to your congressmen to stop this ludicrous software patent thing, it will be more useful.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Nothing wrong with sending a clear message to someone actively trying to do harm to innovation. That kind of behavior should not be welcome in our industry.
    - thinkcomp 11y ago
      Your message's clarity gets muddied by your overzealousness I'm afraid. It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. Smart people can disagree on this topic. I understand that a lot of people don't think there should be software patents, or patents at all. I don't think it's that simple.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        > It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. You sued Square, right? Square benefited in no way from your work or from your patent, but now you're either expecting payment from them for no services rendered, or forcing them to waste their resources fighting your shakedown attempt. In what worldview is that not harming innovation?
        thinkcomp 11y ago
        Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the complaint. And why bother when you can spew factually incorrect vitriol at someone over the internet? Not to mention that Square's fundamental innovation, its credit card reader, is premised on intellectual property theft. See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-squares-start-up-story/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-s.... So in addition to holding a hundred more patents than my company, Square isn't even being honest about who deserves credit for theirs. Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys, and non-VC backed independent inventors are actively destroying innovation, because they hold patents? I have to disagree.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > I own a few patents, as I'm sure many on Hacker News do. As I write this, I'm in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Square (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe... http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe...). I don't apologize for it. I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. That's great you made a real product. So many who file patents don't end up creating real products. But the problem here is you made a real product that's pretty generic much akind to the patents of "input devices changes display on output device" kind of patents. It's an abuse of the system that many are working to eradicate. So I don't think you're going to find any support on HN for it. It's great you're not like the typical patent troll since you claim you made a product (of which I have not verified but I give you the benefit of the doubt) but obvious design patents hurt innovation. Hell to some degree all patents hurt innovation but the obvious designs are the most egregious in my opinion.
- coldpie 11y ago
  > I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. Doesn't matter. You're trying to take ownership of an obvious idea. Your patent did not inspire anyone at Square, nor did anyone at Square learn how to perform this process by your patent. They don't owe you a cent. It is only by a shitty quirk of the system, which you are taking advantage of, that allows you to try to extort money out of them. You are part of the problem.
  - jb613 11y ago
    > Your patent did not inspire anyone at Square question is how do we distinguish between patents that "inspired" and those which did not? Or does inspiring even matter - anyone can see the "inspiration" on Android from the release of the 1st iPhone (e.g. before and after designs) - yet this fact plus all of Apple's $billions were unable to stop/prevent Android from their clearly inspired copying.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    > shitty quirk of the system Is it still considered a quirk when it's by design and it's the entire point of the system? If we're only talking about damages for when designs are copied (instead of independently developed), we're basically talking about trade secret misappropriation.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      There is no evidence that Square viewed and copied this dude's "novel invention".
      - URSpider94 11y ago
        You're misreading parent's comment. What s/he is saying is that if someone flat-out copied your design, then that would presumably be trade secret appropriation. Patents are SUPPOSED to cover the case where someone else invents the same thing in parallel, independently. You might not like it, but that's a legal fact. Clearly, you have a different moral opinion of when someone should be able to enforce their patent rights.
- nkurz 11y ago
  Since no one else has said it yet, thanks for contributing your insight to this discussion. You must have known it would be a hostile audience, and that many wouldn't agree with you, but we benefit from hearing your side and being able to talk about the disagreement. Genuinely, thanks for your bravery and openness in discussing it.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
Honestly I think the apology is a bit unnecessary but I'm glad many are turning around on the ideal of technology patents. Yeah patents on obvious designs not only hinder but hurt innovation (one click, anyone?) but even patents on non-obvious but obviously-trending designs can slow progress in many areas. I'll be honest though I wish patents worked. It would be nice to have a way to protect the "little guy" when they figured out a break through, showed it to the "big guy" and was then ripped off. But in practice the "little guy" would need millions of dollars just to create the case and go after the "big guy". That practically makes the patent system a place where only the "big guys" can play which defeats its purpose. So maybe it's time to do something radical and just completely end or retard its abilities. I'm not sure if the current political environment will change this system any time soon though. Most patent holders have large sums of political influence.
- abstractbill 11y ago
  I'll be honest though I wish patents worked. I'm glad patents don't work. I've always felt there's something very deeply wrong with owning an idea.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    I don't mean in the form that they exist today but the original ideal behind them: that they can protect someone with little to no money from being steam rolled when they come up with a new invention / novel idea that is taken by the bigger guys. At least this felt like the original intent of patents but it simply can't work like that today. And yeah owning an idea is terrible. It would have been nice to at least be required to demonstrate the idea being patented. But that opens all sorts of issues.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  > But in practice the "little guy" would need millions of dollars just to create the case and go after the "big guy". This is the exact problem that many patent trolls solve. If your patent is strong enough, they will take your case on "contingency" and take a (huge) cut of the winnings, if any. Patent trolls can help even the imbalance between the big guys and the little guys. Not surprising then that the loudest complaints about patent trolls come from the "big guys". Unfortunately for them, multiple studies, including by the GAO and professors like Michael Risch and Coleen Chien show that there is no real patent troll litigation crisis. Fortunately for them, tech media is happy to regurgitate their PR for the rage-view value, and most people are happy to accept it uncritically.
Animats 11y ago
It's amusing to see Canonical held up as a good example. Of course they're anti-patent. They repackage the work of others and sell it.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Releasing the patents is a bad idea. A prior discussion on Schneier's blog about dealing with the patents came to a different conclusion: amass patents to use in self defense. It's what all the big names do. Otherwise, you're just going to be sued into oblivion by big names and the trolls with little leverage to use. So, if the concern is innovation, then it's best to patent everything possible into non-profits and public benefit corporations that promise to never use or charge any open developments. Not just promise but in their charters, etc. Might have a small membership fee just to keep it going. Then, any threats to open projects are made with lawsuits from this organization going against them. I think there's already an alliance in OSS doing something similar. Yet, the lesson from prior discussion was: "a good offense is the best defense" given virtually anything can be patented and sued over. Too broken for an avoidance strategy or even fair, payment strategy.
- Zikes 11y ago
  I'm not sure leverage counts for much anymore, considering Oracle was still able to go after Google recently despite Google's own massive patent holdings.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    1. Google likely had a much weaker portfolio when Oracle sued. It is much, much stronger now. 2. There's probably both much overlap in Google's patents and Oracle's technology. 3. The Oracle v. Google case is now primarily about copyright rather than patents.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      Regarding point 1, what's stopping Google from leveraging those patents now, if point 2 allows for even a sliver of potential? I mean, a single function seems to be causing Google quite a bit of grief in this lawsuit, so that seems to be enough. Regarding point 3, I had forgotten that part, but I don't quite get the distinction where it affects the "mutually assured destruction" feature of patent libraries. Even though the sword Oracle swings at Google says "copyright" on the hilt rather than "patent", can Google still not file patent-based countersuits regardless? In other words, if Person A and Person B are in a standoff with guns leveled at each other, why would Person A simply allow Person B to stab them instead?
robrenaud 11y ago
Would Twitter's Innovator's Patent agreement have worked out better for him?
ddlatham 11y ago
The fact I can sit down and solve a problem and then get sued for it because someone else happened to solve it the same way without me even being aware of it is terrible.
- canam 11y ago
  Agreed. I believe a reasonably qualified engineer would produce similar solutions to those same problems. With this patent system, you have to search the patent databases before your start to implement your idea. I've had several buzzkills on ideas because I found them to have been patented. Perhaps my implementations would have made the world better, but we will never know because of the daunting prospect of facing a legal battle.

57 points by mariuz 11y ago

I own a few patents, as I'm sure many on Hacker News do. As I write this, I'm in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Square (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northern-district-court/think-computer-corporation-v-square-inc/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe...). I don't apologize for it. I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. I'm also someone well known for having dealt with intellectual property theft as a victim. I also spent a year at Stanford Law School poking around as a fellow as I developed what is now the most accurate patent assignment database there is--far more accurate than the official one--on PlainSite. I'll be deliberately terse with my comments here, but the upshot is that the problem here isn't the idea of patents. They are a lottery ticket to a lawsuit as Elon Musk has said, but they're also an important insurance policy for serious innovators. (Another such insurance policy is VC, but not every serious innovator has VC backing.) The problem is the legal profession. Patent trolls (and other sorts of IP trolls) are by and large the creations of corrupt lawyers. Inventors are slighted in favor of large corporations because of "upstanding" lawyers. Transparency is impeded everywhere you turn in the patent world courtesy of the patent bar. And unlike the USPTO TTAB, where corporations can represent themselves at virtually no cost, in the USPTO PTAB, the patent bar has seen to it that you must hire a lawyer. It's not a coincidence. The system is incredibly broken, but if you want to blame someone, blame the lawyers for ruining what might have been a workable and necessary paradigm.

aetherson 11y ago
There are lots of things where "the idea of them" isn't bad, but they can't be turned into law-enforced policy without leading to bad consequences. That's not really the fault of lawyers, either.
mikekchar 11y ago
If anyone is curious about the patent the parent is suing for, it is included in the documents he linked to. Here is an handier link: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=132275042&a=3&z=d3106d66 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=132275042&... I'm afraid that I (and surely many others on Hacker News as well) will not be cheering you on. It's pretty much the definition of something I do not want to be patentable. I understand it will probably not be possible to convince you to change your mind, so I won't insult you by trying. However, keep in mind that your stance really is diametrically opposed to many groups who do not want software patents.
- pc86 11y ago
  It's the "for payments" version of all those "but on a screen" patents that people here hate on so much. Prior work includes but is not limited to Facebook tag suggestions, and and just about everything done in facial recognition on any laptop in the world.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  See also http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/07/zuckerberg-nemesis-aaron-greenspan-sues-facebook-again-plus-the-rest-of-silicon-valley/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/07/zuckerberg-nemesis-...
ploxiln 11y ago
If patents were granted fairly and litigated fairly and efficiently, sure, they'd be great. But they just can't be. Many millions of dollars are spent gaining bad patents and litigating them unfairly. In practice, they're a tool which enables and amplifies the worse parts of human and societal nature, a tool for the abuse of power. I say we just give them up. There may be fewer published inventions, but not that many fewer really. Some inventors will be motivated to invent for its own sake. Others will profit from being involved in the implementation and commercialization of their own inventions combined with others. Some inventors will get "screwed" when others get rich off their creations. But that happens today anyway. There will likely be disagreements about who really came up with the core of an idea first, or who's idea is really more core to the product, and without patents, those arguments won't cost millions of dollars and stifle creation. Everyone would be better off IMHO.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  A huge part your argument comes down to "it will all be the same as now but magically better" but you didn't bother to make a case, just list out some very assertive predictions.
  - ploxiln 11y ago
    But I did make a case: no patent lawsuits. That's easily big enough to counter any downsides.
- meanduck 11y ago
  Also, Its very likely that the invention will be reinvented by someone. Is not there a public patent review process before a patent is granted so the other inventors can provide alternative solutions ? This would solve most if not all problems.
scriptproof 11y ago
No need to downvote a comment that exposes an opinion you disagree with (and I disagree too). The patent is clearly a joke: "A method for transferring an electronic payment between a purchaser and a merchant etc...". Instead of downvote, send a letter to your congressmen to stop this ludicrous software patent thing, it will be more useful.
- coldpie 11y ago
  Nothing wrong with sending a clear message to someone actively trying to do harm to innovation. That kind of behavior should not be welcome in our industry.
  - thinkcomp 11y ago
    Your message's clarity gets muddied by your overzealousness I'm afraid. It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. Smart people can disagree on this topic. I understand that a lot of people don't think there should be software patents, or patents at all. I don't think it's that simple.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      > It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. You sued Square, right? Square benefited in no way from your work or from your patent, but now you're either expecting payment from them for no services rendered, or forcing them to waste their resources fighting your shakedown attempt. In what worldview is that not harming innovation?
      - thinkcomp 11y ago
        Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the complaint. And why bother when you can spew factually incorrect vitriol at someone over the internet? Not to mention that Square's fundamental innovation, its credit card reader, is premised on intellectual property theft. See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-squares-start-up-story/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-s.... So in addition to holding a hundred more patents than my company, Square isn't even being honest about who deserves credit for theirs. Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys, and non-VC backed independent inventors are actively destroying innovation, because they hold patents? I have to disagree.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> I own a few patents, as I'm sure many on Hacker News do. As I write this, I'm in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Square (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe... http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe...). I don't apologize for it. I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. That's great you made a real product. So many who file patents don't end up creating real products. But the problem here is you made a real product that's pretty generic much akind to the patents of "input devices changes display on output device" kind of patents. It's an abuse of the system that many are working to eradicate. So I don't think you're going to find any support on HN for it. It's great you're not like the typical patent troll since you claim you made a product (of which I have not verified but I give you the benefit of the doubt) but obvious design patents hurt innovation. Hell to some degree all patents hurt innovation but the obvious designs are the most egregious in my opinion.
coldpie 11y ago
> I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. Doesn't matter. You're trying to take ownership of an obvious idea. Your patent did not inspire anyone at Square, nor did anyone at Square learn how to perform this process by your patent. They don't owe you a cent. It is only by a shitty quirk of the system, which you are taking advantage of, that allows you to try to extort money out of them. You are part of the problem.
- jb613 11y ago
  > Your patent did not inspire anyone at Square question is how do we distinguish between patents that "inspired" and those which did not? Or does inspiring even matter - anyone can see the "inspiration" on Android from the release of the 1st iPhone (e.g. before and after designs) - yet this fact plus all of Apple's $billions were unable to stop/prevent Android from their clearly inspired copying.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > shitty quirk of the system Is it still considered a quirk when it's by design and it's the entire point of the system? If we're only talking about damages for when designs are copied (instead of independently developed), we're basically talking about trade secret misappropriation.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    There is no evidence that Square viewed and copied this dude's "novel invention".
    - URSpider94 11y ago
      You're misreading parent's comment. What s/he is saying is that if someone flat-out copied your design, then that would presumably be trade secret appropriation. Patents are SUPPOSED to cover the case where someone else invents the same thing in parallel, independently. You might not like it, but that's a legal fact. Clearly, you have a different moral opinion of when someone should be able to enforce their patent rights.
nkurz 11y ago
Since no one else has said it yet, thanks for contributing your insight to this discussion. You must have known it would be a hostile audience, and that many wouldn't agree with you, but we benefit from hearing your side and being able to talk about the disagreement. Genuinely, thanks for your bravery and openness in discussing it.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

Honestly I think the apology is a bit unnecessary but I'm glad many are turning around on the ideal of technology patents. Yeah patents on obvious designs not only hinder but hurt innovation (one click, anyone?) but even patents on non-obvious but obviously-trending designs can slow progress in many areas. I'll be honest though I wish patents worked. It would be nice to have a way to protect the "little guy" when they figured out a break through, showed it to the "big guy" and was then ripped off. But in practice the "little guy" would need millions of dollars just to create the case and go after the "big guy". That practically makes the patent system a place where only the "big guys" can play which defeats its purpose. So maybe it's time to do something radical and just completely end or retard its abilities. I'm not sure if the current political environment will change this system any time soon though. Most patent holders have large sums of political influence.

abstractbill 11y ago
I'll be honest though I wish patents worked. I'm glad patents don't work. I've always felt there's something very deeply wrong with owning an idea.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  I don't mean in the form that they exist today but the original ideal behind them: that they can protect someone with little to no money from being steam rolled when they come up with a new invention / novel idea that is taken by the bigger guys. At least this felt like the original intent of patents but it simply can't work like that today. And yeah owning an idea is terrible. It would have been nice to at least be required to demonstrate the idea being patented. But that opens all sorts of issues.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
> But in practice the "little guy" would need millions of dollars just to create the case and go after the "big guy". This is the exact problem that many patent trolls solve. If your patent is strong enough, they will take your case on "contingency" and take a (huge) cut of the winnings, if any. Patent trolls can help even the imbalance between the big guys and the little guys. Not surprising then that the loudest complaints about patent trolls come from the "big guys". Unfortunately for them, multiple studies, including by the GAO and professors like Michael Risch and Coleen Chien show that there is no real patent troll litigation crisis. Fortunately for them, tech media is happy to regurgitate their PR for the rage-view value, and most people are happy to accept it uncritically.

Animats 11y ago

It's amusing to see Canonical held up as a good example. Of course they're anti-patent. They repackage the work of others and sell it.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Releasing the patents is a bad idea. A prior discussion on Schneier's blog about dealing with the patents came to a different conclusion: amass patents to use in self defense. It's what all the big names do. Otherwise, you're just going to be sued into oblivion by big names and the trolls with little leverage to use. So, if the concern is innovation, then it's best to patent everything possible into non-profits and public benefit corporations that promise to never use or charge any open developments. Not just promise but in their charters, etc. Might have a small membership fee just to keep it going. Then, any threats to open projects are made with lawsuits from this organization going against them. I think there's already an alliance in OSS doing something similar. Yet, the lesson from prior discussion was: "a good offense is the best defense" given virtually anything can be patented and sued over. Too broken for an avoidance strategy or even fair, payment strategy.

Zikes 11y ago
I'm not sure leverage counts for much anymore, considering Oracle was still able to go after Google recently despite Google's own massive patent holdings.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  1. Google likely had a much weaker portfolio when Oracle sued. It is much, much stronger now. 2. There's probably both much overlap in Google's patents and Oracle's technology. 3. The Oracle v. Google case is now primarily about copyright rather than patents.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    Regarding point 1, what's stopping Google from leveraging those patents now, if point 2 allows for even a sliver of potential? I mean, a single function seems to be causing Google quite a bit of grief in this lawsuit, so that seems to be enough. Regarding point 3, I had forgotten that part, but I don't quite get the distinction where it affects the "mutually assured destruction" feature of patent libraries. Even though the sword Oracle swings at Google says "copyright" on the hilt rather than "patent", can Google still not file patent-based countersuits regardless? In other words, if Person A and Person B are in a standoff with guns leveled at each other, why would Person A simply allow Person B to stab them instead?

robrenaud 11y ago

Would Twitter's Innovator's Patent agreement have worked out better for him?

ddlatham 11y ago

The fact I can sit down and solve a problem and then get sued for it because someone else happened to solve it the same way without me even being aware of it is terrible.

canam 11y ago
Agreed. I believe a reasonably qualified engineer would produce similar solutions to those same problems. With this patent system, you have to search the patent databases before your start to implement your idea. I've had several buzzkills on ideas because I found them to have been patented. Perhaps my implementations would have made the world better, but we will never know because of the daunting prospect of facing a legal battle.