4 ms·
It is pretty clear what he meant; any patent that makes a ridiculously broad generalization was created just to sue everyone and get money or to take its compet
by jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
It is pretty clear what he meant; any patent that makes a ridiculously broad generalization was created just to sue everyone and get money or to take its competitors out of business.
Example:
I patent the way of moving my leg in front of my other leg when that other leg is my only limb supporting my weight in order to repeat this process to make a displacement of my body mass (AKA walking)
- jasomill 14y agoWhat I suspect monochromatic is trying to point out is that patents are not easy to read and understand. Not even for patent lawyers. Maybe even by design. And that even if you do understand a patent, this generally says nothing about why it was filed. Or do you expect executives to regularly review potential patent applications to avoid those that are potentially "too good" for the business?
- stcredzero 14y agoWhat I suspect monochromatic is trying to point out is that patents are not easy to read and understand. Not even for patent lawyers. Maybe even by design. This seems to indicate that patents are written in a way guided by their adversarial purposes. This is broken.
- monochromatic 14y agoEven when a patent is clear as day, it's not obvious on the face of it whether or not it's being used for trolling, or will be used for trolling. Trolling is all about who owns the thing, and what they want to use it for... not about how the patent was drafted. (At least not mostly about how it was drafted.)