4 ms·

That was just a mistake that slipped through the system. It would be caught later if the patent was ever asserted against anyone. Sun might have caught it thems

That was just a mistake that slipped through the system. It would be caught later if the patent was ever asserted against anyone. Sun might have caught it themselves as part of their evaluation process before asserting the patent. Now examiners have better access to all types of references. And, it is easier to search through them. Academic papers, foreign patents, foreign publications, books, website copy, etc, are all fair game. Though examiners seem to prefer to use US Patents/Applications if they can. US patents or published applications make great prior art references because they have a clearly defined priority date and patent prosecutors tend to draft specs to be as inclusive as possible.

abecedarius 9y ago
It's encouraging to hear the situation may be getting better. I brought up my example because it shows a friction-to-innovation ratio that seems way out of proportion and because the missed prior art makes the comparison unusually clear. The academic paper treated the idea as almost a throwaway -- I can imagine it as one of the first things to be dropped on tighter page limits. (By dim memory -- I ran into this over a decade ago.) More usually when a patent gets argued about, the interested parties make the matter harder to follow for the rest of us without the attention to spare. I think most of us, if we're fair-minded, when we read about one of these disputes should go "That sounds like ordinary junk but the law is complicated, the patent is complicated, my opinion about this case won't be worth much unless I spend way more effort than I can justify." Here was a patent that just by chance I could easily judge, which didn't otherwise look different from others I've heard about. (Maybe I could dig up the patent number since I've been harping on it. I'm not sure.) Having lots of friction from many small inventions helps the big established companies more. My own patent, it'd never have occurred to me to patent it -- but it was work for a tiny startup that needed a defense in this system. (I don't think this patent was a bad one as patents go. It got referenced by a VPRI STEPS paper.) A patent system could encourage growth, or it could get mired in a rent-seeking equilibrium. It seems hard to tell which we've got, but I'd bet on the latter if we knew how to settle this. There's also a freedom-of-thought cost, in that independent invention happens all the time, unlike the case with copyright. That is, even an unarguable finding of welfare benefit wouldn't settle the question if patents are right. It'd have to be a substantial benefit to offset the cost to liberty.

abecedarius 9y ago

It's encouraging to hear the situation may be getting better. I brought up my example because it shows a friction-to-innovation ratio that seems way out of proportion and because the missed prior art makes the comparison unusually clear. The academic paper treated the idea as almost a throwaway -- I can imagine it as one of the first things to be dropped on tighter page limits. (By dim memory -- I ran into this over a decade ago.) More usually when a patent gets argued about, the interested parties make the matter harder to follow for the rest of us without the attention to spare. I think most of us, if we're fair-minded, when we read about one of these disputes should go "That sounds like ordinary junk but the law is complicated, the patent is complicated, my opinion about this case won't be worth much unless I spend way more effort than I can justify." Here was a patent that just by chance I could easily judge, which didn't otherwise look different from others I've heard about. (Maybe I could dig up the patent number since I've been harping on it. I'm not sure.) Having lots of friction from many small inventions helps the big established companies more. My own patent, it'd never have occurred to me to patent it -- but it was work for a tiny startup that needed a defense in this system. (I don't think this patent was a bad one as patents go. It got referenced by a VPRI STEPS paper.) A patent system could encourage growth, or it could get mired in a rent-seeking equilibrium. It seems hard to tell which we've got, but I'd bet on the latter if we knew how to settle this. There's also a freedom-of-thought cost, in that independent invention happens all the time, unlike the case with copyright. That is, even an unarguable finding of welfare benefit wouldn't settle the question if patents are right. It'd have to be a substantial benefit to offset the cost to liberty.