7 ms·

I do research in computer science and in the last few years, lots of trivial and dumb patents in my field appeared out of nowhere. However, I can only assume th

I do research in computer science and in the last few years, lots of trivial and dumb patents in my field appeared out of nowhere. However, I can only assume that they really are trivial because they are written in a way to claim a lot without actually describing how any of it works. These patents have 0% information in them. What's more, they all read like a rewrite of papers that were published years ago (before the date filed) into lawyer speak with no amount of information. I have no idea how any of these were ever granted since there is prior art all over the place. Edit: Okay to be fair, there is maybe not 0% but 10% information in these patents, but it's encoded into unintelligible lawyer/patent talk that is not at all fit to convey technical information. They are written in a way to get a monoply on results without disclosing how these results are obtained.

jchw 7y ago
I suspect the real big driving motivation is actually just to make sure the patent isn’t too narrow. If you are sinking time and money into patenting everything, it makes business sense to make it as broad as you think you can. On the flip side, patents exist probably in part exactly because trade secrets are incredibly hard to keep. People are pretty good at reverse engineering things. (Note: I am not trying to convey an opinion about patents with any of this conjecture, but if you want mine, I think software patents are fully bunk and other patents should not last nearly as long as they do.)
- levythe 7y ago
  It's typically considered the best approach to cast a broad net, then narrow down until a patent is granted. That being said, in the US, patents are given on a first to invent basis, so if you are awarded a patent that is overly vague, it's pretty likely it won't hold up if challenged. I find myself questioning the value of a patent office that awards patents that are vague enough that they wouldn't hold up in a dispute.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    In my understanding the US is now on a first-to-file system.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Apparently it's first inventor to file, though I'm not entirely clear on what that means.
      - paul7986 7y ago
        Or the first person who has the money to file even if he or she only saw some kids invention on YouTube and got to the patent office first.
        tzs 7y ago
        They would not be an inventor, and would not be eligible for a patent in the US or in most other jurisdictions.
      - tzs 7y ago
        The main difference between the USA's "first inventor to file" and the "first to file" systems in most of the rest of the world is how disclosing the invention publicly by printed publication, use, or sale before you apply for a patent affects patent eligibility. In the "first to file" systems, you lose eligibility. In the "first inventor to file" system of the US, you have a grace period of one year from such disclosure before you lose eligibility, just like you did under the prior "first to invent" system. To a decent first approximation, the change to the US system mostly just affects how things are handled if independent inventors try to patent the same thing. Under the "first to invent" system, the patent went to whichever applicant invented the thing first. But when is something invented? When you first think of the idea? Or when you have reduced the idea to practice? Or sometime in between? Under the US first to invent system, it was when you conceived the invention if you then worked diligently from that point to reduction to practice. If you stop so working and resume, your lose the prior invention date and your new invention date is when you resumed working diligently on reduction to practice. When two or more inventors were claiming the same invention determining who was actually first under those rules could be difficult and messy, requiring hearings, and costing the inventors money for attorneys. Now with first inventor to file, we pretty much don't care who thought of it first--we just care which person who independently thought of it reduced it to practice and submitted their patent application first. That's a lot simpler, and requires no expensive hearings.
Railsify 7y ago
There has been a surge in stupid patents because Obama changed the rules to allow patents to be granted to the first person to file for patent, even if the device of process has been in use for 100 years.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Patents are only valid if they relate to new and inventive stuff. USA came in to line with the rest of the World which uses first-to-file (first to invent means the litigious will always challenge inventorship which is exceedingly difficult to determine as there isn't necessarily a paper-trail). USA patent seem, to me, to be worse than other places, and first to file works elsewhere suggesting that is not the problem. Personally I feel the costs system, and low presumption of validity at grant seem more to blame.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    First to file vs first to invent only matters if if there are two near-simultaneous independent patent applications on same subject by different parties. Patents are not like registered marks where you can apply for the same thing over and over; only the original inventor or its employer can apply, otherwise lour patent would be invalidated due to prior art.
zachguo 7y ago
Also people in tech companies get bonus if they file patents.
CalChris 7y ago
Can you cite one of these patents? That way we can see what you mean by 10%, gauge the quality of the patent, and look at its history.
kurthr 7y ago
If the specification is not enabling and novel to one skilled in the art (much less obvious), then it is not valid. Under rexam or court proceedings they will be worth the paper they're printed on. That's an expensive way to determine things, but it sounds like that particular section of art at the patent office isn't doing much. On the other hand they only have to hide one novel idea and unique claim in the list to have a right to enforce. I do think the EFF's concern about claims and documentation already debunked/invalid being hidden behind seal is pretty serious and I think judges approving it are doing the public no service.
- excessive 7y ago
  When you go to court, the presumption is that the patent is valid. The judge is unlikely to be technical, and he must assume the experts at the patent office did their job. Since the patent office basically rubber stamps anything you send to them, it's a very uphill battle to start with. In my case, we submitted lots of prior art (some over 100 years old) to the court, and of course they shared this with the plaintiffs. I was certain we should be in the clear. However, in the time between receiving those documents and the actual court date, the plaintiffs submitted our list of prior art to the patent office as some sort of addendum. The patent office re-rubber stamped the new stack of paper, and the judge disregarded it during the trial. We lost. I doubt the patent office bothered to read, much less understand, any of it. I feel very strongly that their patent was not novel, and since I wrote the algorithm which got us sued from scratch as a new college grad with only a bachelors degree, I doubt it was non-obvious to one skilled in the art. Maybe we could've won with better lawyers, but as a small startup, we didn't have that kind of money.
  - everybodyknows 7y ago
    > The patent office re-rubber stamped the new stack of paper, and the judge disregarded it during the trial. Not sure I understand this -- are you saying the judge took the PO rubber-stamp as proof that though the prior art might be related, it was not disqualifying?
    - 7y ago
ImprovedSilence 7y ago
The patents are written with the most broad and generic claims as possible first. Then the claims are re stated like 3 or 4 times, that would seem identical, but each re statement of them adds like one or two words of detail or specifics each time down. (So maybe claim 2 won’t stand up in court, but claim 23, a derivative of 2, will, the idea that you sue for infringement of as much as possible) I’ve submitted a patent before, and hardly Understood my own patent by the time the lawyer was done with it. But after really paying attention, I guess all the technical details are there. I think larger companies that aren’t specifically patent trolls patent as much as possible just for their own defense too.
- nitwit005 7y ago
  I read the patents that teammates filed. The lawyers were supposed to talk to the engineer to get the idea before filing, but I got the impression that process didn't always work, and they wrote something nonsensical.

jchw 7y ago

I suspect the real big driving motivation is actually just to make sure the patent isn’t too narrow. If you are sinking time and money into patenting everything, it makes business sense to make it as broad as you think you can. On the flip side, patents exist probably in part exactly because trade secrets are incredibly hard to keep. People are pretty good at reverse engineering things. (Note: I am not trying to convey an opinion about patents with any of this conjecture, but if you want mine, I think software patents are fully bunk and other patents should not last nearly as long as they do.)

levythe 7y ago
It's typically considered the best approach to cast a broad net, then narrow down until a patent is granted. That being said, in the US, patents are given on a first to invent basis, so if you are awarded a patent that is overly vague, it's pretty likely it won't hold up if challenged. I find myself questioning the value of a patent office that awards patents that are vague enough that they wouldn't hold up in a dispute.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  In my understanding the US is now on a first-to-file system.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Apparently it's first inventor to file, though I'm not entirely clear on what that means.
    - paul7986 7y ago
      Or the first person who has the money to file even if he or she only saw some kids invention on YouTube and got to the patent office first.
      - tzs 7y ago
        They would not be an inventor, and would not be eligible for a patent in the US or in most other jurisdictions.
    - tzs 7y ago
      The main difference between the USA's "first inventor to file" and the "first to file" systems in most of the rest of the world is how disclosing the invention publicly by printed publication, use, or sale before you apply for a patent affects patent eligibility. In the "first to file" systems, you lose eligibility. In the "first inventor to file" system of the US, you have a grace period of one year from such disclosure before you lose eligibility, just like you did under the prior "first to invent" system. To a decent first approximation, the change to the US system mostly just affects how things are handled if independent inventors try to patent the same thing. Under the "first to invent" system, the patent went to whichever applicant invented the thing first. But when is something invented? When you first think of the idea? Or when you have reduced the idea to practice? Or sometime in between? Under the US first to invent system, it was when you conceived the invention if you then worked diligently from that point to reduction to practice. If you stop so working and resume, your lose the prior invention date and your new invention date is when you resumed working diligently on reduction to practice. When two or more inventors were claiming the same invention determining who was actually first under those rules could be difficult and messy, requiring hearings, and costing the inventors money for attorneys. Now with first inventor to file, we pretty much don't care who thought of it first--we just care which person who independently thought of it reduced it to practice and submitted their patent application first. That's a lot simpler, and requires no expensive hearings.

Railsify 7y ago

There has been a surge in stupid patents because Obama changed the rules to allow patents to be granted to the first person to file for patent, even if the device of process has been in use for 100 years.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Patents are only valid if they relate to new and inventive stuff. USA came in to line with the rest of the World which uses first-to-file (first to invent means the litigious will always challenge inventorship which is exceedingly difficult to determine as there isn't necessarily a paper-trail). USA patent seem, to me, to be worse than other places, and first to file works elsewhere suggesting that is not the problem. Personally I feel the costs system, and low presumption of validity at grant seem more to blame.
- anticensor 7y ago
  First to file vs first to invent only matters if if there are two near-simultaneous independent patent applications on same subject by different parties. Patents are not like registered marks where you can apply for the same thing over and over; only the original inventor or its employer can apply, otherwise lour patent would be invalidated due to prior art.

zachguo 7y ago

Also people in tech companies get bonus if they file patents.

CalChris 7y ago

Can you cite one of these patents? That way we can see what you mean by 10%, gauge the quality of the patent, and look at its history.

kurthr 7y ago

If the specification is not enabling and novel to one skilled in the art (much less obvious), then it is not valid. Under rexam or court proceedings they will be worth the paper they're printed on. That's an expensive way to determine things, but it sounds like that particular section of art at the patent office isn't doing much. On the other hand they only have to hide one novel idea and unique claim in the list to have a right to enforce. I do think the EFF's concern about claims and documentation already debunked/invalid being hidden behind seal is pretty serious and I think judges approving it are doing the public no service.

excessive 7y ago
When you go to court, the presumption is that the patent is valid. The judge is unlikely to be technical, and he must assume the experts at the patent office did their job. Since the patent office basically rubber stamps anything you send to them, it's a very uphill battle to start with. In my case, we submitted lots of prior art (some over 100 years old) to the court, and of course they shared this with the plaintiffs. I was certain we should be in the clear. However, in the time between receiving those documents and the actual court date, the plaintiffs submitted our list of prior art to the patent office as some sort of addendum. The patent office re-rubber stamped the new stack of paper, and the judge disregarded it during the trial. We lost. I doubt the patent office bothered to read, much less understand, any of it. I feel very strongly that their patent was not novel, and since I wrote the algorithm which got us sued from scratch as a new college grad with only a bachelors degree, I doubt it was non-obvious to one skilled in the art. Maybe we could've won with better lawyers, but as a small startup, we didn't have that kind of money.
- everybodyknows 7y ago
  > The patent office re-rubber stamped the new stack of paper, and the judge disregarded it during the trial. Not sure I understand this -- are you saying the judge took the PO rubber-stamp as proof that though the prior art might be related, it was not disqualifying?
  - 7y ago

ImprovedSilence 7y ago

The patents are written with the most broad and generic claims as possible first. Then the claims are re stated like 3 or 4 times, that would seem identical, but each re statement of them adds like one or two words of detail or specifics each time down. (So maybe claim 2 won’t stand up in court, but claim 23, a derivative of 2, will, the idea that you sue for infringement of as much as possible) I’ve submitted a patent before, and hardly Understood my own patent by the time the lawyer was done with it. But after really paying attention, I guess all the technical details are there. I think larger companies that aren’t specifically patent trolls patent as much as possible just for their own defense too.

nitwit005 7y ago
I read the patents that teammates filed. The lawyers were supposed to talk to the engineer to get the idea before filing, but I got the impression that process didn't always work, and they wrote something nonsensical.