6 ms·

I run Google Patents (patents.google.com) - we've thought about including a way to search by expired patents (we have the expiration indicators), but in my opin

I run Google Patents (patents.google.com) - we've thought about including a way to search by expired patents (we have the expiration indicators), but in my opinion it gives a false sense of security. There's also http://freeip.mtu.edu/home/index.php http://freeip.mtu.edu/home/index.php, which searches over only expired patents. The patent in question could have been improved upon, and that improvement can still be in force. Say someone patents a widget A + B, and later files a continuation A + B + C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application). The first patent could be expired, but while building your copy of A + B you might come to the same conclusion that the invention also needs to include C (which is still in force) to actually work. Google Patents focuses on improving patent quality. There's still uncertainty if a granted patent is actually valid. If we can improve the prior art finding process for inventors and examiners, then fewer overly-broad patents will be granted, and it will be easier to tell if an invention actually infringes a patent. Then we can start to think about making patent information more useful for part of the original purpose - as a transfer of knowledge to the public domain in exchange for a temporary exclusive right.

iplaw 10y ago
You run Google Patents? Where is the comment jar?
- amelius 10y ago
  Yes, it would be great if patents could have user comments associated with them. (The same can be said for publications in google scholar, perhaps you could pass it on to the appropriate team)
ww520 10y ago
Thank you for the great work. It's very useful.
blackflame7000 10y ago
Great insight on continuing patent applications. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that overly broad patents, particularly with respect to technology, need serious review. It is way too easy to patent a concept instead of an invention. An example to illustrate my point is a patent such as this: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140244001 http://www.google.com/patents/US20140244001 Which basically says, I haven't actually invented anything useful, but if anyone else does they should have to pay me because I thought of something super generic first.
panabee 10y ago
thanks for the great work and insightful comments! what are the top three things you would do if you could reform the patent system? and do you support/oppose abolishing patents for software (or any other kinds of products)?
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>Google Patents focuses on improving patent quality. // Could you go in to that a bit. There's been fulltext, full image databases with proximity searching and bespoke classifications and such for a while, how has Google Patents improved on that. How is it better than Espacenet for example? When I looked at patents a lot the biggest help would probably have been being able to get decent translations of Korean/Japanese/Chinese/etc. patents - I gather you were involved in an EPO project to do that. What other goodies have I missed? >but while building your copy of A + B you might come to the same conclusion // Worth noting is that this is fine in most jurisdictions as long as your not trying to commercialise the build.
- BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
  I think they meant improving the quality of actual patents (by giving people tools to combat bogus patents), not necessarily improving on the patent browsing experience (though I'm sure they would argue that they try to do that too).
coldpie 10y ago
> Say someone patents a widget A + B, and later files a continuation A + B + C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application). The first patent could be expired, but while building your copy of A + B you might come to the same conclusion that the invention also needs to include C (which is still in force) to actually work. This is a perfect example of why patents are harmful. The patent on C did not in any way help the person copying A + B, it was invented on its own. But now this new person can be punished simply for being equally as creative as the other guy. It's a huge disincentive on innovation. I understand the theory behind patents, but I have a really hard time believing anyone in history has ever actually used a patent to find out how a thing was made and then improved on it; or could not have done this equally as easy without patents. Even if you can point to one or two such examples, that still has to more than balance out the loss in innovation and increased legal costs created by uncertainty of IP legality.
- kevinwang 10y ago
  Without patents, inventing would not be profitable. All products would have exact copycats and ripoffs.
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    I don't think I believe you. That's the theory of course, but I haven't lived in a society without patents so I can only trust people who say that's how it works. My mental heuristic says that software engineering seems like it would be only improved by patents not existing. I can't speak to hardware inventions, though.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghayes 10y ago
    The majority of software companies don't hold any patents (aside of copyrights). As such, it doesn't seem necessary that patents are the only means to profit from "inventing."
niko001 10y ago
Thanks for chiming in, Ian! Google Patents is awesome :-)! You're right, there are a number of edge cases where the expiry date is incorrect - the USPTO even provides a patent expiry calculator [1] (as an Excel file, no less ;)...). For patents issued 20 years ago, the "issue date + 20 years" should hold true as a very basic rule of thumb (disregarding any improvements that may still be in force). I hope that nobody builds a business based on one of the displayed patents without first checking what other, newer patents may also affect said invention - the site is merely meant as a starting point to get inspired; the actual research should follow suit. [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-ter...
monochromatic 10y ago
Why wouldn't the continuation (or CIP as you might have meant) expire at the same time as the original? Same priority date, so unless it's old enough to fall under the 17-years-from-issuance regime...
- md2be 10y ago
  BC under old rule, the term was 17 years from issue date (not filing date)
  - monochromatic 10y ago
    Yeah but that changed a long time ago. There aren't many patents still in force that have a term calculated under the old rule.
md2be 10y ago
Can you share your email? I'd like to reach out to you.

iplaw 10y ago

You run Google Patents? Where is the comment jar?

amelius 10y ago
Yes, it would be great if patents could have user comments associated with them. (The same can be said for publications in google scholar, perhaps you could pass it on to the appropriate team)

ww520 10y ago

Thank you for the great work. It's very useful.

blackflame7000 10y ago

Great insight on continuing patent applications. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that overly broad patents, particularly with respect to technology, need serious review. It is way too easy to patent a concept instead of an invention. An example to illustrate my point is a patent such as this: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140244001 http://www.google.com/patents/US20140244001 Which basically says, I haven't actually invented anything useful, but if anyone else does they should have to pay me because I thought of something super generic first.

panabee 10y ago

thanks for the great work and insightful comments! what are the top three things you would do if you could reform the patent system? and do you support/oppose abolishing patents for software (or any other kinds of products)?

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>Google Patents focuses on improving patent quality. // Could you go in to that a bit. There's been fulltext, full image databases with proximity searching and bespoke classifications and such for a while, how has Google Patents improved on that. How is it better than Espacenet for example? When I looked at patents a lot the biggest help would probably have been being able to get decent translations of Korean/Japanese/Chinese/etc. patents - I gather you were involved in an EPO project to do that. What other goodies have I missed? >but while building your copy of A + B you might come to the same conclusion // Worth noting is that this is fine in most jurisdictions as long as your not trying to commercialise the build.

BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
I think they meant improving the quality of actual patents (by giving people tools to combat bogus patents), not necessarily improving on the patent browsing experience (though I'm sure they would argue that they try to do that too).

coldpie 10y ago

> Say someone patents a widget A + B, and later files a continuation A + B + C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application). The first patent could be expired, but while building your copy of A + B you might come to the same conclusion that the invention also needs to include C (which is still in force) to actually work. This is a perfect example of why patents are harmful. The patent on C did not in any way help the person copying A + B, it was invented on its own. But now this new person can be punished simply for being equally as creative as the other guy. It's a huge disincentive on innovation. I understand the theory behind patents, but I have a really hard time believing anyone in history has ever actually used a patent to find out how a thing was made and then improved on it; or could not have done this equally as easy without patents. Even if you can point to one or two such examples, that still has to more than balance out the loss in innovation and increased legal costs created by uncertainty of IP legality.

kevinwang 10y ago
Without patents, inventing would not be profitable. All products would have exact copycats and ripoffs.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  I don't think I believe you. That's the theory of course, but I haven't lived in a society without patents so I can only trust people who say that's how it works. My mental heuristic says that software engineering seems like it would be only improved by patents not existing. I can't speak to hardware inventions, though.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ghayes 10y ago
  The majority of software companies don't hold any patents (aside of copyrights). As such, it doesn't seem necessary that patents are the only means to profit from "inventing."

niko001 10y ago

Thanks for chiming in, Ian! Google Patents is awesome :-)! You're right, there are a number of edge cases where the expiry date is incorrect - the USPTO even provides a patent expiry calculator [1] (as an Excel file, no less ;)...). For patents issued 20 years ago, the "issue date + 20 years" should hold true as a very basic rule of thumb (disregarding any improvements that may still be in force). I hope that nobody builds a business based on one of the displayed patents without first checking what other, newer patents may also affect said invention - the site is merely meant as a starting point to get inspired; the actual research should follow suit. [1]: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-ter...

monochromatic 10y ago

Why wouldn't the continuation (or CIP as you might have meant) expire at the same time as the original? Same priority date, so unless it's old enough to fall under the 17-years-from-issuance regime...

md2be 10y ago
BC under old rule, the term was 17 years from issue date (not filing date)
- monochromatic 10y ago
  Yeah but that changed a long time ago. There aren't many patents still in force that have a term calculated under the old rule.

md2be 10y ago

Can you share your email? I'd like to reach out to you.