3 ms·

If you can’t implement a patent without spending millions of dollars on R&D filling in the blanks it isn’t an invention. This was an idea, and it shouldn’t have

If you can’t implement a patent without spending millions of dollars on R&D filling in the blanks it isn’t an invention. This was an idea, and it shouldn’t have been granted a patent. *IMO NAL

bdcravens 3y ago
You mean like this one filed in 2004? https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060026535A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060026535A1/en (Spoiler: Apple's patent for touch UI years before iPhone came to market, and the illustration indicates more of a iPad-like device) Many more similar, also years before the products came to market: https://patents.google.com/?assignee=apple https://patents.google.com/?assignee=apple
- deckar01 3y ago
  Patenting a UI layout is even more rediculous. These companies are retracing the arbitrary decisions made to solve a problem, then widening the parameters to cover all possible solutions in a vague patent to use as a legal landmine for any competition that might wander into the same sector.
- cma 3y ago
  Looks pretty bogus, almost all claims are dependent on claim 1, which wasn't novel: > 1) A user interface method, comprising: detecting a touch; determining a user interface mode when a touch is detected; displaying one or more GUI elements based on the user interface mode; and enabling the functionality of the GUI element.
AlbertCory 3y ago
The term you're after is "reasonable experimentation." The idea is: if a "lab assistant" can determine the exact concentrations, temperatures, pressures, manufacturing steps, etc. then it is still an invention. In other words, it's ok if practicing it requires reasonable experimentation. You might disagree with that, but that's what the law says.
- deckar01 3y ago
  The USPTO page on enablement is filled with examples of hardware and software patents that were rejected, because of hand-waving generalization. There needs to be some accountability for approving these bogus patents. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Actually, no. Reexamination requests are based on 102 and 103, not 112. But yeah: accountability. The PTO makes money by granting them, and then makes more by hearing the challenges to them. Edit: I forgot to mention that the PTO runs a profit, last I checked. The government takes it, so they don't get to use it for improvement.

If you can’t implement a patent without spending millions of dollars on R&D filling in the blanks it isn’t an invention. This was an idea, and it shouldn’t have been granted a patent. *IMO NAL

bdcravens 3y ago

You mean like this one filed in 2004? https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060026535A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060026535A1/en (Spoiler: Apple's patent for touch UI years before iPhone came to market, and the illustration indicates more of a iPad-like device) Many more similar, also years before the products came to market: https://patents.google.com/?assignee=apple https://patents.google.com/?assignee=apple

deckar01 3y ago
Patenting a UI layout is even more rediculous. These companies are retracing the arbitrary decisions made to solve a problem, then widening the parameters to cover all possible solutions in a vague patent to use as a legal landmine for any competition that might wander into the same sector.
cma 3y ago
Looks pretty bogus, almost all claims are dependent on claim 1, which wasn't novel: > 1) A user interface method, comprising: detecting a touch; determining a user interface mode when a touch is detected; displaying one or more GUI elements based on the user interface mode; and enabling the functionality of the GUI element.

AlbertCory 3y ago

The term you're after is "reasonable experimentation." The idea is: if a "lab assistant" can determine the exact concentrations, temperatures, pressures, manufacturing steps, etc. then it is still an invention. In other words, it's ok if practicing it requires reasonable experimentation. You might disagree with that, but that's what the law says.

deckar01 3y ago
The USPTO page on enablement is filled with examples of hardware and software patents that were rejected, because of hand-waving generalization. There needs to be some accountability for approving these bogus patents. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Actually, no. Reexamination requests are based on 102 and 103, not 112. But yeah: accountability. The PTO makes money by granting them, and then makes more by hearing the challenges to them. Edit: I forgot to mention that the PTO runs a profit, last I checked. The government takes it, so they don't get to use it for improvement.