5 ms·

I never understand where patents start and end with the bit they claim to be new. Where is that in the patent document? In this case they’re talking about execu

by aidos 6y ago

I never understand where patents start and end with the bit they claim to be new. Where is that in the patent document? In this case they’re talking about executing sql and rendering as html. Ok. Fine. Phpmyadmin was already doing that in 1998. But they also talk about these macro files that you’re executing by substituting variables into them. As that the new thing? Are these just stored procedures? I feel like we were already doing that in 1998 too.

stan_rogers 6y ago
The patent application was in 1995 (the patent is expired now). Like a lot of (even most of) IBM's generalizable patents, it is and was defensive. (Non-obviousness had gone out the window long before this, and they'd already been bitten by trolls. Basically, they patented everything that wasn't already patented by anyone just to avoid infringement suits. To my knowledge, they never actively protected anything that should have been unpatentable because of obviousness.)
- slfnflctd 6y ago
  This would make for a fascinating book, with the right interviews. Seems like a very thorough case study and a must-read for anyone dealing in the U.S. with potential patent concerns. There are likely some dissonant takeaways, too, and that's always fun.
- ekidd 6y ago
  IBM is alleged to have have used dubious parents very aggressively back in the day: https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html > As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one. > An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
  - stan_rogers 6y ago
    That was an answering suit, as I recall - answering an equally ridiculous suit. The writer conveniently left that part out.
auxym 6y ago
The important bit is the claims. However, you still have to know the legalese codewords. Every word has a very specific definition. For example, "a plurality of things" explicitly excludes from the claim an implementation where only one "thing" is used. NAL, but something a patent attorney explained to me once.
- tempodox 6y ago
  Yep, terminology in legal documents can be quite misleading when interpreted as colloquial language. Something to keep in mind when reading any Legalese.
  - codingdave 6y ago
    On the contrary, legal documents are like code - you have to read them exactly as they are worded. They may use complex grammar and obscure vocabulary, but slow down, read every word and pretend it is code. There are no extra words, every "or" and "and" really is a boolean operator that impacts how to interpret a sentence. If you are a coder, extracting an accurate meaning from legalese should come naturally. Just slow the flippety-flop down, stop trying to read it like a book, and instead read it like you are a compiler.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      `every "or" and "and" really is a boolean operator' In my experience, not being a lawyer, but working with people with legal educations on queries for document review, they didn't generally seem to "get" logical concepts like the idea that precedence of boolean operators matters to interpretation. Maybe people who went to top tier law schools are better or something.
    - rhino369 6y ago
      While there is a code-like aspect to reading legalese, the law isn't as specific as a programming language. No matter how hard you try, legal documents will have ambiguity. I just read a case law week about whether "or" in a patent claim should be interpreted as OR or XOR.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nsajko 6y ago
The "Claims" section is what you're looking for, it seems to be missing from the scanned part, but it's there in the OCR'd part (on the right).
JackC 6y ago
This wikipedia section is a good place to start seeing how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_c... What I remember from law school is: let's say you're drafting a patent, and you want it to cover as much as possible without getting invalidated by prior art. So you're going to write some claims, and each claim can stand or fall on its own (each claim could be rejected by the patent office, or invalidated later because of prior art, without invalidating the more specific claims). So first you'll write a series of independent claims, and those will each be as broad as you hope you can get away with ("it's HTML on a computer!"). Having the broad independent claims stand is your best case scenario, because that makes it hard for competitors to work around your patent. But then for each independent claim you'll add dependent claims, which narrow down what you're claiming ("OK, it's HTML on a computer with foo," "OK, it's HTML on a computer with foo and bar"). That's your fallback scenario: maybe "HTML on a computer" gets rejected, and "HTML on a computer with foo" gets rejected, but "HTML on a computer with foo and bar" is original enough to make it through, so you still end up owning something of value. But maybe now that your broad claims are gone, your competitors can avoid your patent by doing "HTML with foo and baz" to accomplish the same thing. So that's how the game theory works: you're basically leaving money on the table if you don't include some super broad claims at the top. Doesn't cost you anything if those ones don't stick. So we can't just read a patent and assume it actually protects every single broad claim -- but we can't assume it doesn't, either. We won't find out for sure which (if any) claims are actually valid unless there's a lawsuit and a judge or jury has to pick through the prior art and decide whether there are claims in there that are narrow enough to be original.
- dathinab 6y ago
  > "HTML on a computer with foo and bar" But here it's where the patent system is broken. Doing conceptually trivial combinations of on itself non patentable thinks should _never_ be patentable, at lest for software but probably for anything. Sure patenting a specific complex mechanism for combining two thinks might be patentable but in case of software this is hardly ever the case, most times its more or less trivial glue code. So e.g. Face recognition + smartphone + unlock screen might all be patentable by itself. Especially a faceregocnition algorithm which works especially good for smartphone usecase might be patentable. Bu using existing face recognition on a smartphone to unlock the screen shouldn't be patentable. They are all existing components and combining them is conceptually trivial. In the end patents where meant to protect research investments, not random ideas.
bdowling 6y ago
> Where is that in the patent document? The new parts are necessarily included in the claims at the end of patent document. However, there's nothing that requires an applicant to specify which elements of a claim are new over the prior art.

by aidos 6y ago

stan_rogers 6y ago

The patent application was in 1995 (the patent is expired now). Like a lot of (even most of) IBM's generalizable patents, it is and was defensive. (Non-obviousness had gone out the window long before this, and they'd already been bitten by trolls. Basically, they patented everything that wasn't already patented by anyone just to avoid infringement suits. To my knowledge, they never actively protected anything that should have been unpatentable because of obviousness.)

slfnflctd 6y ago
This would make for a fascinating book, with the right interviews. Seems like a very thorough case study and a must-read for anyone dealing in the U.S. with potential patent concerns. There are likely some dissonant takeaways, too, and that's always fun.
ekidd 6y ago
IBM is alleged to have have used dubious parents very aggressively back in the day: https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html > As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one. > An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
- stan_rogers 6y ago
  That was an answering suit, as I recall - answering an equally ridiculous suit. The writer conveniently left that part out.

auxym 6y ago

The important bit is the claims. However, you still have to know the legalese codewords. Every word has a very specific definition. For example, "a plurality of things" explicitly excludes from the claim an implementation where only one "thing" is used. NAL, but something a patent attorney explained to me once.

tempodox 6y ago
Yep, terminology in legal documents can be quite misleading when interpreted as colloquial language. Something to keep in mind when reading any Legalese.
- codingdave 6y ago
  On the contrary, legal documents are like code - you have to read them exactly as they are worded. They may use complex grammar and obscure vocabulary, but slow down, read every word and pretend it is code. There are no extra words, every "or" and "and" really is a boolean operator that impacts how to interpret a sentence. If you are a coder, extracting an accurate meaning from legalese should come naturally. Just slow the flippety-flop down, stop trying to read it like a book, and instead read it like you are a compiler.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    `every "or" and "and" really is a boolean operator' In my experience, not being a lawyer, but working with people with legal educations on queries for document review, they didn't generally seem to "get" logical concepts like the idea that precedence of boolean operators matters to interpretation. Maybe people who went to top tier law schools are better or something.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    While there is a code-like aspect to reading legalese, the law isn't as specific as a programming language. No matter how hard you try, legal documents will have ambiguity. I just read a case law week about whether "or" in a patent claim should be interpreted as OR or XOR.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nsajko 6y ago

The "Claims" section is what you're looking for, it seems to be missing from the scanned part, but it's there in the OCR'd part (on the right).

JackC 6y ago

This wikipedia section is a good place to start seeing how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_c... What I remember from law school is: let's say you're drafting a patent, and you want it to cover as much as possible without getting invalidated by prior art. So you're going to write some claims, and each claim can stand or fall on its own (each claim could be rejected by the patent office, or invalidated later because of prior art, without invalidating the more specific claims). So first you'll write a series of independent claims, and those will each be as broad as you hope you can get away with ("it's HTML on a computer!"). Having the broad independent claims stand is your best case scenario, because that makes it hard for competitors to work around your patent. But then for each independent claim you'll add dependent claims, which narrow down what you're claiming ("OK, it's HTML on a computer with foo," "OK, it's HTML on a computer with foo and bar"). That's your fallback scenario: maybe "HTML on a computer" gets rejected, and "HTML on a computer with foo" gets rejected, but "HTML on a computer with foo and bar" is original enough to make it through, so you still end up owning something of value. But maybe now that your broad claims are gone, your competitors can avoid your patent by doing "HTML with foo and baz" to accomplish the same thing. So that's how the game theory works: you're basically leaving money on the table if you don't include some super broad claims at the top. Doesn't cost you anything if those ones don't stick. So we can't just read a patent and assume it actually protects every single broad claim -- but we can't assume it doesn't, either. We won't find out for sure which (if any) claims are actually valid unless there's a lawsuit and a judge or jury has to pick through the prior art and decide whether there are claims in there that are narrow enough to be original.

dathinab 6y ago
> "HTML on a computer with foo and bar" But here it's where the patent system is broken. Doing conceptually trivial combinations of on itself non patentable thinks should _never_ be patentable, at lest for software but probably for anything. Sure patenting a specific complex mechanism for combining two thinks might be patentable but in case of software this is hardly ever the case, most times its more or less trivial glue code. So e.g. Face recognition + smartphone + unlock screen might all be patentable by itself. Especially a faceregocnition algorithm which works especially good for smartphone usecase might be patentable. Bu using existing face recognition on a smartphone to unlock the screen shouldn't be patentable. They are all existing components and combining them is conceptually trivial. In the end patents where meant to protect research investments, not random ideas.

bdowling 6y ago

> Where is that in the patent document? The new parts are necessarily included in the claims at the end of patent document. However, there's nothing that requires an applicant to specify which elements of a claim are new over the prior art.