5 ms·

Is it just me (it's not) or are 80% of these fairly trivial? Patents don't make sense when you think about it.

donquichotte 10y ago
I thought the same. It's interesting that this kind of comment gets downvoted without explanation. Is there some kind of culture on HN that implicitly forbids us to voice criticism?
- kl4m 10y ago
  It's not constructive, at all. "When you think about it"? Well, I tought about it, and patents are useful for their stated purpose.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  They seem trivial now, 20 some odd years after the fact.
  - miguelrochefort 10y ago
    I once wanted to build a system, and decided to browse through patents. I realized that my system would easily infringe 100+ of patents. Many of them were actually very recent.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      Ok? That doesn't really disagree with my point.
    - bbcbasic 10y ago
      What if my human body infringes a parent?
      - Crespyl 10y ago
        I think a convincing case could be made that the human body is prior art.
A_Crazy_Idea 10y ago
The idea is to waste other people's time. In time-constrained scenarios, this is the best strategy. Thus large lists of trivial information is the best tool.
cr0sh 10y ago
The thing about a lot of inventions is that they do sometimes look "trivial" after the fact; in other words, things look really simple once its been done! Most inventions (and patents reflect this) are actually small improvements to certain parts of other inventions, which improve the system in such a manner as to be considered a patentable item of their own. As such, they tend to be small things, which when you look at them after the fact, seem to be obvious. Maybe they were - but only to a particular person, who may also be somewhat versed in the art, and also willing to spend the money and time doing the "invention", who also doesn't think (or is aware) that nobody else has done the invention before (often, sometimes you might see something, and go "hey - this could be improved if they did this" - then think "but somebody has probably already done it, it is so simple" - and you never follow up - which if you had, you would have found that nobody did! Because they all thought the same thing!). We see this often in software (also, there is the correlating idea of software that - after it is made and is popular - seemed too stupid for it to succeed before it did - Twitter, anyone?) - that there is a need for something, but everything thinks that either it has already been done, or that a new version wouldn't be substantially different or better than what is already out there - and so it doesn't get developed. ...Until someone does develop it - then we look at it, and smack our foreheads thinking "It is so obvious!" or "It is so simple!" or "I thought of that years ago!" Maybe you did, or maybe it is - but you weren't the guy who followed up on it (or in many cases, you might actually follow up on it - but the market doesn't care or want it at that point - only to find that a decade or more later, that's when the market wants it - and someone else does it, while you aren't looking).
- miguelrochefort 10y ago
  I once designed a system that, I latter realized, would infringe over 100 patents. Am I supposed to make my design worse just because other people thought of these things first?
  - dsp1234 10y ago
    Or you license it from the patent holders
monochromatic 10y ago
Are you reading the claims, or just the titles?

I thought the same. It's interesting that this kind of comment gets downvoted without explanation. Is there some kind of culture on HN that implicitly forbids us to voice criticism?

kl4m 10y ago
It's not constructive, at all. "When you think about it"? Well, I tought about it, and patents are useful for their stated purpose.
st3v3r 10y ago
They seem trivial now, 20 some odd years after the fact.
- miguelrochefort 10y ago
  I once wanted to build a system, and decided to browse through patents. I realized that my system would easily infringe 100+ of patents. Many of them were actually very recent.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Ok? That doesn't really disagree with my point.
  - bbcbasic 10y ago
    What if my human body infringes a parent?
    - Crespyl 10y ago
      I think a convincing case could be made that the human body is prior art.

A_Crazy_Idea 10y ago

The idea is to waste other people's time. In time-constrained scenarios, this is the best strategy. Thus large lists of trivial information is the best tool.

cr0sh 10y ago

The thing about a lot of inventions is that they do sometimes look "trivial" after the fact; in other words, things look really simple once its been done! Most inventions (and patents reflect this) are actually small improvements to certain parts of other inventions, which improve the system in such a manner as to be considered a patentable item of their own. As such, they tend to be small things, which when you look at them after the fact, seem to be obvious. Maybe they were - but only to a particular person, who may also be somewhat versed in the art, and also willing to spend the money and time doing the "invention", who also doesn't think (or is aware) that nobody else has done the invention before (often, sometimes you might see something, and go "hey - this could be improved if they did this" - then think "but somebody has probably already done it, it is so simple" - and you never follow up - which if you had, you would have found that nobody did! Because they all thought the same thing!). We see this often in software (also, there is the correlating idea of software that - after it is made and is popular - seemed too stupid for it to succeed before it did - Twitter, anyone?) - that there is a need for something, but everything thinks that either it has already been done, or that a new version wouldn't be substantially different or better than what is already out there - and so it doesn't get developed. ...Until someone does develop it - then we look at it, and smack our foreheads thinking "It is so obvious!" or "It is so simple!" or "I thought of that years ago!" Maybe you did, or maybe it is - but you weren't the guy who followed up on it (or in many cases, you might actually follow up on it - but the market doesn't care or want it at that point - only to find that a decade or more later, that's when the market wants it - and someone else does it, while you aren't looking).

miguelrochefort 10y ago
I once designed a system that, I latter realized, would infringe over 100 patents. Am I supposed to make my design worse just because other people thought of these things first?
- dsp1234 10y ago
  Or you license it from the patent holders

monochromatic 10y ago

Are you reading the claims, or just the titles?