6 ms·

If only defending a patent suit was as simple as finding the prior art. Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court, knowi

by seanc 15y ago

If only defending a patent suit was as simple as finding the prior art. Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court, knowing full well you can't afford to do it.

pwg 15y ago
> Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court If you (the defendant) has found good prior art (either by this method or some other method), you can also file for a re-examination with the USPTO using that new prior art. Still somewhat expensive, but significantly less expensive than going to court, and if the patent is found invalid it is just as dead.
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  But does invalidating a patent usually work well a intended? We see so many obviously ridiculous patents, that one might think that if they are so sloppy to approve patents on the first place, that they'll be just as sloppy in a re examination. Or is the re examination all that much rigorous and accurate?
  - wisty 15y ago
    There's something like a million pending patents backing up the system. I think their attitude is "screw it, just approve everything, and let the courts sort it out". If you call for a re-examination, they might think twice, because they'll look bad if the courts suggest they screwed up.
    - ktizo 15y ago
      Could you automate a patent troll using a variation on the SCIgen software and effectively ddos the entire patent office with nonsensical gibberish? Am I bad for thinking of such things? ;)
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - nu23 15y ago
        I guess the problem is you need to pay a significant amount of money to file a claim. Interestingly, some have advocated the same method for preventing spam in email by requiring you to pay a very small amount every time you send one.
        brazzy 15y ago
        Yes, that's one of the oldest and most useless proposals that gets brought up by at least 5 people in every single discussion of email spam...
        onemoreact 15y ago
        Which just happened to work well for the closest thing email has to a replacement. Text Messages. Think about this for a second, just about anyone can send you a text at any time using your public phone number yet it's not a problem.
        brazzy 15y ago
        Not a problem? Google for "text message spam". Now think a second about the useful things emails are used for which text messages generally can't be: notifications for new releases of OSS projects or replies to a blog comment, mailing lists for OSS developers or hobbies...
      - wisty 15y ago
        No, but you can write nonsense claims (stuff that's obviously way too broad, and already in common use, or just plain silly) and publicize it if they are accepted.
      - eurleif 15y ago
        I think you might actually be able to make some money with a program that searched expired computer-related patents for ideas which could be repatented for mobile devices instead of computers in general.
  - roc 15y ago
    > "We see so many obviously ridiculous patents" Many -- if not most -- of the patents that the community is quick to decry as "obviously ridiculous" only appear so if you misunderstand how patents work. [1] The US Patent Office has granted millions of patents and reviewed millions more applications in the fairly brief life of computer/systems/process patents. The few dozen legitimately bad patents hardly justify an accusation of sloppiness. We would all be positively blessed if every bureaucratic system had such a low failure rate. That all said: Yes, the system obviously needs work. But the performance of patent examiners isn't that primary a concern to anyone who's taken a good look at the system and it's problems. [1] All that matters are the claims. The descriptions are irrelevant to the meat of what, specifically was being patented. The community has a long history of loudly complaining about descriptions that define an absurdly general invention, when the claims, in fact, indicate a narrowly defined patent of at least arguable value.
    - ktizo 15y ago
      Do you really believe that there are only a few dozen bad computer/systems/process patents? That sounds wildly optimistic.
      - roc 15y ago
        I believe that only a few dozen computer/systems/process patents are causing trouble because of reasons that could be arguably attributed to 'sloppiness' on the part of the examiner. That is: too-broad patents, patents granted despite prior art, etc. I'm not counting any undesirable patents that are causing problems because patent terms are too long, or those that were granted because patent law/precedent/policy didn't give the examiner any cause to reject it, etc. My point is only to refute the charge that examiners 'sloppiness' is common and/or a notable problem.
        ktizo 15y ago
        is certainly an incredibly expensive problem, even in single cases; http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down... And I am pretty sure, even ignoring broadness as a factor and just sticking to patents granted despite prior art, that if there were only a few dozen patents causing trouble then the companies like Article One, who is getting patents revoked in the hundreds due to discovery of prior art, would not be able to exist while paying out millions in discovery fees to their researchers. [edit] - a look at the problem of workload by a USPTO Patent Examiner; http://just-n-examiner.livejournal.com/44737.html http://just-n-examiner.livejournal.com/44737.html

by seanc 15y ago

If only defending a patent suit was as simple as finding the prior art. Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court, knowing full well you can't afford to do it.

pwg 15y ago

> Most patent trolls will happily invite you to take your prior art claim to court If you (the defendant) has found good prior art (either by this method or some other method), you can also file for a re-examination with the USPTO using that new prior art. Still somewhat expensive, but significantly less expensive than going to court, and if the patent is found invalid it is just as dead.

vibrunazo 15y ago
But does invalidating a patent usually work well a intended? We see so many obviously ridiculous patents, that one might think that if they are so sloppy to approve patents on the first place, that they'll be just as sloppy in a re examination. Or is the re examination all that much rigorous and accurate?
- wisty 15y ago
  There's something like a million pending patents backing up the system. I think their attitude is "screw it, just approve everything, and let the courts sort it out". If you call for a re-examination, they might think twice, because they'll look bad if the courts suggest they screwed up.
  - ktizo 15y ago
    Could you automate a patent troll using a variation on the SCIgen software and effectively ddos the entire patent office with nonsensical gibberish? Am I bad for thinking of such things? ;)
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - nu23 15y ago
      I guess the problem is you need to pay a significant amount of money to file a claim. Interestingly, some have advocated the same method for preventing spam in email by requiring you to pay a very small amount every time you send one.
      - brazzy 15y ago
        Yes, that's one of the oldest and most useless proposals that gets brought up by at least 5 people in every single discussion of email spam...
        onemoreact 15y ago
        Which just happened to work well for the closest thing email has to a replacement. Text Messages. Think about this for a second, just about anyone can send you a text at any time using your public phone number yet it's not a problem.
        brazzy 15y ago
        Not a problem? Google for "text message spam". Now think a second about the useful things emails are used for which text messages generally can't be: notifications for new releases of OSS projects or replies to a blog comment, mailing lists for OSS developers or hobbies...
    - wisty 15y ago
      No, but you can write nonsense claims (stuff that's obviously way too broad, and already in common use, or just plain silly) and publicize it if they are accepted.
    - eurleif 15y ago
      I think you might actually be able to make some money with a program that searched expired computer-related patents for ideas which could be repatented for mobile devices instead of computers in general.
- roc 15y ago
  > "We see so many obviously ridiculous patents" Many -- if not most -- of the patents that the community is quick to decry as "obviously ridiculous" only appear so if you misunderstand how patents work. [1] The US Patent Office has granted millions of patents and reviewed millions more applications in the fairly brief life of computer/systems/process patents. The few dozen legitimately bad patents hardly justify an accusation of sloppiness. We would all be positively blessed if every bureaucratic system had such a low failure rate. That all said: Yes, the system obviously needs work. But the performance of patent examiners isn't that primary a concern to anyone who's taken a good look at the system and it's problems. [1] All that matters are the claims. The descriptions are irrelevant to the meat of what, specifically was being patented. The community has a long history of loudly complaining about descriptions that define an absurdly general invention, when the claims, in fact, indicate a narrowly defined patent of at least arguable value.
  - ktizo 15y ago
    Do you really believe that there are only a few dozen bad computer/systems/process patents? That sounds wildly optimistic.
    - roc 15y ago
      I believe that only a few dozen computer/systems/process patents are causing trouble because of reasons that could be arguably attributed to 'sloppiness' on the part of the examiner. That is: too-broad patents, patents granted despite prior art, etc. I'm not counting any undesirable patents that are causing problems because patent terms are too long, or those that were granted because patent law/precedent/policy didn't give the examiner any cause to reject it, etc. My point is only to refute the charge that examiners 'sloppiness' is common and/or a notable problem.
      - ktizo 15y ago
        is certainly an incredibly expensive problem, even in single cases; http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down... And I am pretty sure, even ignoring broadness as a factor and just sticking to patents granted despite prior art, that if there were only a few dozen patents causing trouble then the companies like Article One, who is getting patents revoked in the hundreds due to discovery of prior art, would not be able to exist while paying out millions in discovery fees to their researchers. [edit] - a look at the problem of workload by a USPTO Patent Examiner; http://just-n-examiner.livejournal.com/44737.html http://just-n-examiner.livejournal.com/44737.html