6 ms·
The system has not been able to define a solid test for "non-obviousness" which is one of the criteria for patentability. As a result, in my experience, approv
by alok-g 5y ago
The system has not been able to define a solid test for "non-obviousness" which is one of the criteria for patentability. As a result, in my experience, approvals are based most notably on "novelty" -- If no one has seemingly done in the past, it tends to get approved.
In my opinion, that's what has gone wrong with the system, i.e., not the theoretical criteria for patentability but its execution.
- jjoonathan 5y agoIf the USPTO gets to keep any part of the fees it charges, it is heavily incentivized to allow silly patents through the "non-obvious" gate. Defining "non-obvious" might be tricky, but fixing the incentives would be comparatively straightforward if they are half as broken as they appear to be.
- dpark 5y agoI’m pretty sure the USPTO is not a money making venture. It’s chronically understaffed and ill equipped to deal with the volume of bullshit it receives.
- hardolaf 5y agoUSPTO is mostly self-funded. If they collect fewer fees, then their budget gets slashed. This model was introduced under Reagan.
- esens 5y agoThe core problem is that for someone knowledgeable in the field, everything becomes straightforward, but the further away you are from the field, the more novel it becomes -- this is true across the board. Even the great accomplishments where people win Nobel prizes, often it can be argued that it was going to happen anyhow because it was the next step in scientific progress given the context. Thus defining "non-obviousness" is super hard to do -- because it is all context dependent and humans are like a million monkeys inventing everything that can possibly be invented in aggregate.
- elektronaut1 5y agoAnd this years Nobel prize goes to ... for securing the funding to do the research
- josho 5y agoControlling volume to a set of speakers via a remote is something we’ve been doing in the analog world for decades. So a general patent on volume control across speakers should be invalidated. It only becomes novel due to the details of the tech. But even then you could implement the solution in various ways and I can’t imagine every potential method was patented. So, while I agree the non-obvious can be hard to define. But with patents like this I don’t think we’ve found the right balance.
- VikingCoder 5y agoAt a previous company, we had to _add code_ to our software in order to avoid violating a patent. Yes, if we just let our system do what it could, that violated a patent. We had to check for a certain condition, and disallow the generic system from doing a specific thing, in order to not get in trouble. Sorry, but that's insane.
- simplestats 5y agoI dealt with a manufacturing patent where you had to align certain parts off-center, because lining them up was patented. Of course it didn't really matter how you did it. Hence a subsequent patent was eventually actually awarded to someone else to manufacture them off-center. Which was far worse if you think about it. The first patent claimed a unique point. The next one claimed the entire three-dimensional volume of possible alternatives--minus that unique point.
- VikingCoder 5y agoI always want people to patent TERRIBLE ideas, to prevent game companies from implementing them.
- 5y ago
- zip1234 5y agoYes--basically a tech like Bluetooth will come out and then a bunch of dumb patents will come out for 'controlling a microwave with bluetooth' and 'controlling refrigerator with bluetooth' and the patent will be approved even though they are completely obvious and the exact same thing.