3 ms·

Off-topic, but is this the first case in which we're already seeing Gorsuch side with large corporations, just as we expected him to? Technically, this ruling

by mtgx 9y ago

Off-topic, but is this the first case in which we're already seeing Gorsuch side with large corporations, just as we expected him to? Technically, this ruling helps Google (in certain instances), and Google is a big corporation, too, but I think we can agree that the vast majority of large corporations are very much pro-bogus patents (IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Big Pharma, etc). I like the idea of a "patent death squad" (seems like a pejorative term, but I dig it). However, I still believe it should have been the USPTO first job to reject the vast majority of patents based on strong criteria for what actually is a proper invention. And if that criteria would have been set early on, it wouldn't have to reject most of them, because those that now file for bogus patents wouldn't afford to keep getting their bogus ideas rejected for too long.

hermitdev 9y ago
A friend of mine was a former USPTO reviewer, and he told me something to the effect that as the law stands, they are pretty limited in their reviews and what they can do to investigate prior art. Basically, they assume the patent should be granted and then have to kick to the courts to decide if it is valid or not. I know there was more to the conversation, but was years who and dont recall much more.
- pnw_hazor 9y ago
  Okay. That's the opposite of the world I live in.
- dctoedt 9y ago
  > Basically, they assume the patent should be granted and then have to kick to the courts to decide if it is valid or not. That's pretty much how the statute works (unfortunately, IMO): The default mode is that you're entitled to a patent unless the USPTO's patent examiner can show that you're not eligible. See 35 USC 102(a): "(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— [list of various disqualifications]" (Emphasis mine.) [0] I've groused here before that this is akin to requiring a dissertation committee to grant a Ph.D. degree unless the advisor can show that the research had already been done before, instead of requiring the candidate to conduct and document a thorough literature survey. Of course, the consequences of an improvidently-granted patent can be far more serious than for an improvidently-granted Ph.D. degree. [0] https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html

by mtgx 9y ago

hermitdev 9y ago

A friend of mine was a former USPTO reviewer, and he told me something to the effect that as the law stands, they are pretty limited in their reviews and what they can do to investigate prior art. Basically, they assume the patent should be granted and then have to kick to the courts to decide if it is valid or not. I know there was more to the conversation, but was years who and dont recall much more.

pnw_hazor 9y ago
Okay. That's the opposite of the world I live in.
dctoedt 9y ago
> Basically, they assume the patent should be granted and then have to kick to the courts to decide if it is valid or not. That's pretty much how the statute works (unfortunately, IMO): The default mode is that you're entitled to a patent unless the USPTO's patent examiner can show that you're not eligible. See 35 USC 102(a): "(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— [list of various disqualifications]" (Emphasis mine.) [0] I've groused here before that this is akin to requiring a dissertation committee to grant a Ph.D. degree unless the advisor can show that the research had already been done before, instead of requiring the candidate to conduct and document a thorough literature survey. Of course, the consequences of an improvidently-granted patent can be far more serious than for an improvidently-granted Ph.D. degree. [0] https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html