5 ms·
It really depends on the specifics of the patent. Patents are usually very technical documents and their breadth tends to be much narrower than what non-patent
by hristov 14y ago
It really depends on the specifics of the patent. Patents are usually very technical documents and their breadth tends to be much narrower than what non-patent lawyers assume.
In any event I will not going to examine Digg's particular patent because I do not want to get PG in trouble. But, as I said patents tend to be much narrower than non-specialists assume, so if someone mentions a patent, you should not panic but get a competent patent lawyer to determine what the exact scope of the patent is. Usually, it is not as bad as it seems and often you can get around it.
- gruseom 14y agoIt's helpful to have people commenting who know what they're talking about. Question: what are some examples of ways that "often you can get around it"?
- radagaisus 14y agoGiving "stars". Users get starts they can spend based on their own karma. You can get green stars and gold stars, +1 and +5 and brown stars and dark stars, -1 and -5. This system was implemented in an Israeli gaming forum, gamer.co.il, way before digg was up. Instead of circlejerks and karma whores we had star whores and a different term I don't remember.
- hristov 14y agoThe scope of the protected invention of a patent is supposed to be defined very precisely by the claims (and indirectly by the specification, procurement history, etc.) If you have a very precise definition of what is protected, you can often find an alternative that is not protected. Of course, I am speaking in generalities and individual cases may vary, but when people come to me with patent problems I often find a way to avoid a patent. When non-specialists talk about patents they usually interpret the patent coverage based on the title or the summary, but the actual scope of protection is defined by the claims and it is usually much more narrow than the title suggests.
- gruseom 14y agoThat reminds me of something I've always wondered. Suppose a patent has claims 1 thru 5. Does an invention have to copy all of them, or only one of them, in order to fall in the scope of the patent? What if you come along with a product that does, say, 1, 2, and 3, but not 4 or 5? Have you infringed the patent? Basically I'm asking whether the implied boolean operator combining the claims is AND or OR. I expect you'll say what lawyers always say, which is "it depends", but it's my question and I'm sticking with it :)
- hristov 14y agoYou have to only infringe a single valid claim to infringe a patent. But some claims include all the limitations of other claims. Ps i have to say that this is not legal advice and if you are asking this in relation to a real case, i strongly suggest you contact an attorney.
- gruseom 14y agoHeh - no real case, just general curiosity. But if you're still working in this area, you might want to put contact info in your profile. It wouldn't be surprising if someone around here made use of it.