4 ms·

> But if you had a raw image from a camera with a bayer pattern, and you were tasked to compress it, anyone with decent knowledge about compression and the tech

by jpe90 4y ago

> But if you had a raw image from a camera with a bayer pattern, and you were tasked to compress it, anyone with decent knowledge about compression and the technology they're working with should be able to come up with compressing before de-bayering. Is something really patentable just because it applies to non-mainstream technology? Actually this exact reasoning is textbook grounds for rejecting a patent application. If a “person having ordinary skill in the art” would trivially come up with the claimed invention, a patent application can be rejected without a reference of prior art by citing obviousness of the invention. If what you’re saying is true, the examiner that originally granted the parent was probably not familiar with the subject matter(which is common). Source: was a patent examiner a good while back

IshKebab 4y ago
Yes that's the theory, but in practice patent offices massively err on the side of "eh it's probably novel, we'll let the courts sort it out later, oh and by the way here's our fee".
- jpe90 4y ago
  Absolutely. Well, first "let me issue a vague rejection and force a slight amendment to show due diligence, then issue an allowance on the amended claims". And then let the courts sort it out, as you said.
ip26 4y ago
A lot of great inventions can seem obvious in retrospect once it's been explained to you, so it's a tricky razor to apply.
- scarab92 4y ago
  Perhaps, but this line is more often used to pretend that obvious inventions are more novel than they really are.
  - OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
    While I intuitively agree with you, how do you tell?
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      And more importantly, how do you tell in the limited time window the patent examiner has ([1] claims it's as low as 19 hours.) edit: [2] has a more in-depth look at the problem [1] https://www.oecd.org/site/stipatents/5_4_Frakes_Wasserman.pdf https://www.oecd.org/site/stipatents/5_4_Frakes_Wasserman.pd... - "on average, an examiner spends only nineteen hours reviewing an application, including reading the patent application, searching for prior art, comparing the prior art with the patent application, writing a rejection, responding to the patent applicant’s arguments, and often conducting an interview with the applicant’s attorney" [2] https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/03/06/granted-19-hours/ https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/03/06/granted-19-hours/
btilly 4y ago
The problem is that, as you say, examiners usually lack ordinary skill in the art. Judges likewise. And there is never a shortage of "experts" who will testify (for a fee, of course) to how hard this was in retrospect.
esrauch 4y ago
I see a lot of people say that software shouldn't be patentable, but I actually think the real problem is the "ordinary skill in the art" test seems to be entirely broken / almost absent in that domain. A lot of high value software patents seem to be things that would be in the realm of a solid candidate to come up with on the spot in a 30 minute interview for a programming job, and not because the technique is "known". Compressing individual channels is definitely something that sounds in the realm of good intern candidate to be able to come up with the idea on the spot in an interview. So the problem isn't really software parents intrinsically, it's that they are so absurdly out of line with the "invention costs" such that "something an average programming intern would be able to come up with independently has a high chance of actually being patented". If the parents were only actually for "nonobvious to someone who hasn't been exposed to it before" things then they wouldn't really be a problem.
- nybble41 4y ago
  It's not either/or but rather both. Software (like all other math) shouldn't be patentable, and the "ordinary skill in the art" test is entirely broken / almost absent in that domain.

by jpe90 4y ago

IshKebab 4y ago

Yes that's the theory, but in practice patent offices massively err on the side of "eh it's probably novel, we'll let the courts sort it out later, oh and by the way here's our fee".

jpe90 4y ago
Absolutely. Well, first "let me issue a vague rejection and force a slight amendment to show due diligence, then issue an allowance on the amended claims". And then let the courts sort it out, as you said.

ip26 4y ago

A lot of great inventions can seem obvious in retrospect once it's been explained to you, so it's a tricky razor to apply.

scarab92 4y ago
Perhaps, but this line is more often used to pretend that obvious inventions are more novel than they really are.
- OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
  While I intuitively agree with you, how do you tell?
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    And more importantly, how do you tell in the limited time window the patent examiner has ([1] claims it's as low as 19 hours.) edit: [2] has a more in-depth look at the problem [1] https://www.oecd.org/site/stipatents/5_4_Frakes_Wasserman.pdf https://www.oecd.org/site/stipatents/5_4_Frakes_Wasserman.pd... - "on average, an examiner spends only nineteen hours reviewing an application, including reading the patent application, searching for prior art, comparing the prior art with the patent application, writing a rejection, responding to the patent applicant’s arguments, and often conducting an interview with the applicant’s attorney" [2] https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/03/06/granted-19-hours/ https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/03/06/granted-19-hours/

btilly 4y ago

The problem is that, as you say, examiners usually lack ordinary skill in the art. Judges likewise. And there is never a shortage of "experts" who will testify (for a fee, of course) to how hard this was in retrospect.

esrauch 4y ago

I see a lot of people say that software shouldn't be patentable, but I actually think the real problem is the "ordinary skill in the art" test seems to be entirely broken / almost absent in that domain. A lot of high value software patents seem to be things that would be in the realm of a solid candidate to come up with on the spot in a 30 minute interview for a programming job, and not because the technique is "known". Compressing individual channels is definitely something that sounds in the realm of good intern candidate to be able to come up with the idea on the spot in an interview. So the problem isn't really software parents intrinsically, it's that they are so absurdly out of line with the "invention costs" such that "something an average programming intern would be able to come up with independently has a high chance of actually being patented". If the parents were only actually for "nonobvious to someone who hasn't been exposed to it before" things then they wouldn't really be a problem.

nybble41 4y ago
It's not either/or but rather both. Software (like all other math) shouldn't be patentable, and the "ordinary skill in the art" test is entirely broken / almost absent in that domain.