4 ms·

Again, this isn't patent law messing up - it's overworked USPTO examiners not finding the prior art. Furthermore, Google, Microsoft, Apple et al could have cha

Again, this isn't patent law messing up - it's overworked USPTO examiners not finding the prior art. Furthermore, Google, Microsoft, Apple et al could have challenged the validity of the patent application when it was public, before it was awarded.

noonespecial 18y ago
Google's official founding date was September 7, 1998, two months after the patent application was filed. I doubt they were in any position to search all of the patents applied for and challenge the validity of all of the vague ridiculousness that was currently on file that may some day interfere with a 20% project that might possibly become a product! This is submarine-ary of the first order. It may be legal at this time but I'm ready to lean out and say that its immoral.
- iamdave 18y ago
  I don't know if immoral is the right word here, more incredibly irresponsible.
  - qqq 18y ago
    You're saying incredible irresponsibility is moral or morally neutral?
- anamax 18y ago
  > This is submarine-ary of the first order. The term submarine patent is typically used for a patent application where the applicant delayed issuance and kept amending the application until a worthwhile target appeared. Without looking at the application, I can't say whether that's true in this case. However, US patent law changed some time ago to limit the value of this strategy. It used to be that the 20 year term started when the patent issued. Now patents expire 20 years after application, even if they're not issued until 10-15 years after application.
- anamax 18y ago
  > Google's official founding date was September 7, 1998, two months after the patent application was filed. I doubt they were in any position to search all of the patents applied for The "publish one year after application" rule for US patent applications is fairly recent. (I don't think that it was retroactive when it was introduced.) So, even if Google wanted to search for patents back then, they couldn't have.
jbjohns 18y ago
Actually it is patent law that's messed up. US patent law, anyway. It's not that patents shouldn't exist, of course they should in some form. And I disagree that the problem is with the examiners. People always say that more money needs to be invested to have specialists from every field doing the examining, but this is a waste of time. The point of the patent office is to deal with merging new technologies and fields, by definition they will always be behind. The best thing would be to simply lower the cost of invalidating a patent. For example, in the UK anyone can challenge a patent without having to go to court. Just forward your prior art evidence to the patent office and when it is verified the patent becomes invalid. I know of cases where individuals have gotten patents invalidated for things didn't compete with their business or affect them in any way. They challenged the patent just on the grounds that it was false (i.e. the owner of the patent didn't invent the idea). The mistake the US makes is this idea that everything has to be proved/disproved by the court system. That's way to expensive and way too much trouble for things like patents. There are so many laws, patents and so on that shouldn't exist, but do because no one has been willing to challenge it in court to get it thrown out.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  Yes, the system makes it very easy to do something that should be hard (patent trolling), and very hard to do something that should be easy (invalidating bad patents).
- anamax 18y ago
  > For example, in the UK anyone can challenge a patent without having to go to court. As can anyone in the US. One of the procedures is a petition for reexamination. The US patent system has problems, but if you're going to suggest changes, it's good form to know how it actually works.
  - jbjohns 18y ago
    If it's just as easy why doesn't it happen? From what I've seen, companies seem to only challenge patents in court.

noonespecial 18y ago

Google's official founding date was September 7, 1998, two months after the patent application was filed. I doubt they were in any position to search all of the patents applied for and challenge the validity of all of the vague ridiculousness that was currently on file that may some day interfere with a 20% project that might possibly become a product! This is submarine-ary of the first order. It may be legal at this time but I'm ready to lean out and say that its immoral.

iamdave 18y ago
I don't know if immoral is the right word here, more incredibly irresponsible.
- qqq 18y ago
  You're saying incredible irresponsibility is moral or morally neutral?
anamax 18y ago
> This is submarine-ary of the first order. The term submarine patent is typically used for a patent application where the applicant delayed issuance and kept amending the application until a worthwhile target appeared. Without looking at the application, I can't say whether that's true in this case. However, US patent law changed some time ago to limit the value of this strategy. It used to be that the 20 year term started when the patent issued. Now patents expire 20 years after application, even if they're not issued until 10-15 years after application.
anamax 18y ago
> Google's official founding date was September 7, 1998, two months after the patent application was filed. I doubt they were in any position to search all of the patents applied for The "publish one year after application" rule for US patent applications is fairly recent. (I don't think that it was retroactive when it was introduced.) So, even if Google wanted to search for patents back then, they couldn't have.

jbjohns 18y ago

Actually it is patent law that's messed up. US patent law, anyway. It's not that patents shouldn't exist, of course they should in some form. And I disagree that the problem is with the examiners. People always say that more money needs to be invested to have specialists from every field doing the examining, but this is a waste of time. The point of the patent office is to deal with merging new technologies and fields, by definition they will always be behind. The best thing would be to simply lower the cost of invalidating a patent. For example, in the UK anyone can challenge a patent without having to go to court. Just forward your prior art evidence to the patent office and when it is verified the patent becomes invalid. I know of cases where individuals have gotten patents invalidated for things didn't compete with their business or affect them in any way. They challenged the patent just on the grounds that it was false (i.e. the owner of the patent didn't invent the idea). The mistake the US makes is this idea that everything has to be proved/disproved by the court system. That's way to expensive and way too much trouble for things like patents. There are so many laws, patents and so on that shouldn't exist, but do because no one has been willing to challenge it in court to get it thrown out.

GHFigs 18y ago
Yes, the system makes it very easy to do something that should be hard (patent trolling), and very hard to do something that should be easy (invalidating bad patents).
anamax 18y ago
> For example, in the UK anyone can challenge a patent without having to go to court. As can anyone in the US. One of the procedures is a petition for reexamination. The US patent system has problems, but if you're going to suggest changes, it's good form to know how it actually works.
- jbjohns 18y ago
  If it's just as easy why doesn't it happen? From what I've seen, companies seem to only challenge patents in court.