4 ms·

Claims typically start out broad, and then refine further to get at the core of what exactly it is they are patenting. Since many patents are extensions or impr

by grogers 17y ago

Claims typically start out broad, and then refine further to get at the core of what exactly it is they are patenting. Since many patents are extensions or improvements on existing things this seems to be a common theme in the patents I've skimmed over. This patent application just keeps everything vague and broad, which I suspect is common in many software patents.

roc 17y ago
That's incorrect. An invention is infringing an issued patent if it includes all the elements of any independent claim. Dependent claims, in this case 2 - 5 (the ones that refer to another claim), add specificity, but do not narrow the scope of the original independent claim. They exist as a legal tactic; helping to ensure that a more specific variant of the invention is covered, in the event that the parent claim is later invalidated (ruled too broad, revoked upon discovery of prior art, struck after re-examination, etc).
- sp332 17y ago
  But in case of a legal dispute, it may be that only certain contested claims are ruled illegitimate. So it makes sense to have many claims ranging from less to more specific, instead of having a few specific claims, so that maybe a somewhat wider claim will make it through a legal dispute.
  - roc 17y ago
    There's absolutely a lot of legal strategy in developing claims. There are very good reasons that top firms hire specialized IP lawyers. All that is, however, an aside. The original point stands: If this patent issues, any competing invention that merely contains all the elements of that broad independent claim, would be infringing. Those more-specific dependent claims are only a concern if you plan on prevailing in court against the broad one. As setting foot in a courtroom is a net loss for most innovators, the very existence of those dependent claims is essentially irrelevant.

4 ms·

Claims typically start out broad, and then refine further to get at the core of what exactly it is they are patenting. Since many patents are extensions or impr

by grogers 17y ago

roc 17y ago
That's incorrect. An invention is infringing an issued patent if it includes all the elements of any independent claim. Dependent claims, in this case 2 - 5 (the ones that refer to another claim), add specificity, but do not narrow the scope of the original independent claim. They exist as a legal tactic; helping to ensure that a more specific variant of the invention is covered, in the event that the parent claim is later invalidated (ruled too broad, revoked upon discovery of prior art, struck after re-examination, etc).
- sp332 17y ago
  But in case of a legal dispute, it may be that only certain contested claims are ruled illegitimate. So it makes sense to have many claims ranging from less to more specific, instead of having a few specific claims, so that maybe a somewhat wider claim will make it through a legal dispute.
  - roc 17y ago
    There's absolutely a lot of legal strategy in developing claims. There are very good reasons that top firms hire specialized IP lawyers. All that is, however, an aside. The original point stands: If this patent issues, any competing invention that merely contains all the elements of that broad independent claim, would be infringing. Those more-specific dependent claims are only a concern if you plan on prevailing in court against the broad one. As setting foot in a courtroom is a net loss for most innovators, the very existence of those dependent claims is essentially irrelevant.