6 ms·
New USPTO Memo Makes Fighting Patent Trolls Even Harder
- buckle8017 2y agoMaybe it's time for a patent pool for non-trolls covering patent to behavior.
- yubiox 2y agoI can't parse this sentence. I even tried reading out loud. I thought maybe to=troll but still I can't understand it.
- charleslmunger 2y agohttps://patents.google.com/patent/US20080270152 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080270152 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070244837 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070244837
- herniatedeel 2y agoDefensive patent pools exist, if that's what you're saying: Unified Patents, LOT network, and RPX are a few.
- jerry1979 2y agoI'm confused. Do you mean a patent that patents 'patent trolling'?
- sejje 2y agoWay too much prior art, no? And we want people using the patents, so you'd have to actively troll...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- buckle8017 2y agoYes.
- ted_dunning 2y agoDefensive patents don't really help against trolls since they don't actually make products. That means that they don't infringe on any patents and thus your defensive portfolio doesn't get to play.
- whatshisface 2y agoThe policymaking with regards to industry is functioning more like a clearinghouse, where every interest group gets to have their targeted policy, than a coalition, where the event that one interest group's target policy would hamstring another member would result in dealmaking and some sort of compromise. Certain industries like the steel industry receive steeply protectionist trade restraints, but they're also being de-prioritized in favor of non-producing vexatious litigators who stop them from innovating. In essence this is similar to how some industries are seeing major policy-driven price increases on their outputs and inputs. Multiply that by every lobby and that's all I can interpret out of the big picture.
- amelius 2y agoWe should have notarized LLM models for this. Timestamp your LLMs, put them in a notarized database. Then, if you en up in a patent lawsuit, just fire up the relevant LLM, and ask it in simple terms to reproduce troll's claims.
- herniatedeel 2y agoFor what purpose? If it's for prior art, the prior at must have been publicly available, so a private LLM wouldn't work. Perhaps I'm missing your point, though.
- kam 2y agoI think the idea is that if an LLM trained prior to the patent date can reproduce the invention, then either the idea is obvious or there was prior art in the training set; either way the patent is invalid.
- btrettel 2y agoI had similar thoughts before. It's worth thinking about what attorneys will do in response to rejections based on LLMs reproducing ideas. I'm a former patent examiner, and attorneys frequently argue that the examiners showed "hindsight bias" when rejecting claims. The LLM needs to produce the idea without being led too much towards it. Something like clean-room reverse engineering could be applied. First ask a LLM to describe the problem in a way that avoids disclosing the solution, then ask an independent LLM how that problem could be solved. If LLMs can reliably produce the idea in response to the problem description, that is, after running a LLM 100 times over half show the idea (the fraction here is made up for illustration), the idea's obvious.
- simoncion 2y ago> ...if an LLM trained prior to the patent date can reproduce the invention... Would we even be able to tell if the machine reproduced the invention covered by the claims in the patent? I (regrettably) have my name on some US software patents. I've read the patents, have intimate knowledge of the software they claim to cover, and see nearly zero relation between the patent and the covered software. If I set a skilled programmer to the task of reproducing the software components that are supposed to be covered by the patents, I guarantee that they'd fail, and fail hard. Back before I knew about the whole "treble damage thing" (and just how terrible many-to-most software patents are) I read many software patents. I found them to offer no hints to the programmer seeking to reproduce the covered software component or system.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 2y ago> Congress Created IPR to Protect the Public—Not Just Patent Owners For this administration, this is a problem to be solved. Big business are the masters now and we need to make it easier for them to step on small business by any means.
- herniatedeel 2y agoBig business isn't really monolithic when it comes to patents. Some large tech companies love patents (MSFT, e.g.), while others (Google, e.g.) seem to abhor them. Also, the troll problem is a problem for big business, not a benefit to big business.
- zerkten 2y agoAre tech companies really the ones lobbying hardest for policy changes? I suspect other industries are the ones pushing harder with fallout for tech.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ujkhsjkdhf234 2y agoTech companies aren't the only big businesses in the US.
- antasvara 2y agoPatent trolls benefit from it being expensive and time-consuming to challenge patents (and defend yourself from infringement claims) These regulations are actually beneficial to big business. It makes it significantly easier to defend your own patents and sue anybody that infringes on them. I imagine that these benefits are much bigger than the downside of dealing with patent trolls.
- reverendsteveii 2y agoWhy do we keep moving toward a system where being ahead is the most viable way to get ahead?
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoPower accumulates the same way rivers flow into the ocean If there is no continuous effort to tax rich people and split up political power, democracy will fall back into feudalism
- quantified 2y ago"While" not "if"
- CoastalCoder 2y agoAsking someone who knows history better than I do: Is it the case that every time a society has developed extreme wealth concentration, that concentration gets diffused only via violence? E.g., by internal revolution or by takeover by another country?
- Centigonal 2y agothe US Gilded Age into the Great Depression, Labor Movement, and New Deal appears to be a counterexample.
- eszed 2y agoI agree. You can, however, make a case that that time period was revolutionary - i.e. that power relationships were transformed - though without (much, at least widespread) violence. That's certainly the argument made by those within American society who want to undo the legislation and institutions by which those changes came about.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- niwtsol 2y agoWe dealt with some patent trolls back in the 2010-2020 era, for those who have not experienced it, it is absurd. In our case, the patent "troll" was an LLC w/ ~5 members - 2 lawyers, 1 person who owned the original patent, and some spouses. The only "asset" of the LLC was the patent. I think it was around scrollbars or some CSS overflow thing - they sent us a demand/cease-desist letter saying they will sue for $1M and asked for a call. Classic Lawyer call "well, we can make this all go away for $25k." We ended up fighting it a bit because of "principles" by our founder. - in discovery there was something like 1,000 of these exact demand letters they had sent. The kicker? If you fight back, it costs a ton in legal fees, and even if you win, you can’t recover those fees — because the LLC’s only asset is the patent itself. Just insane to me we would take a step back like this.
- elevatedastalt 2y agoDoesn't it cost a lot in legal fee to the troll too? How are they able to finance it given that they are basically a sham company?
- Someone1234 2y agoThe troll is lawyers, so it only costs their own time.
- mmooss 2y agoTheir time is worth more than the $25K they want.
- ziddoap 2y agoIt's like spam. Send out 1,000s of dubious demand letters which don't cost much. Some percent of those will settle with minimal effort on the troll's side. Profit. Drop the ones that look expensive and hope they don't counter sue.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoWhat would they counter sue for?
- daedrdev 2y agoIPR is a tool that weakens all patents. Saying it helps trolls at the expense of everyone else (which this article says) is a bad faith argument. Weakening IPR helps all patent holders fight for their rights, including trolls. Considering how the tech industry has bullied its way past numerous rightful patents, this seems like it could be reasonable or might not be. If you think we should have no patents be my guest, but this helps non troll patent holders and not just trolls.
- dctoedt 2y ago(Inactive) patent litigator here (been doing other things for some years now): IPRs are way better than jury trials for determining patentability.
- cryptonector 2y agoThe USPTO is limiting IPR, not the other way around.
- cryptonector 2y agoHas the new administration replaced the leadership at the USPTO yet?
- knowaveragejoe 2y agoWhat makes you think this is something the new administration would take issue with?
- cryptonector 2y agoDid I indicate that's what I think? My question was quite fair.
- TaurenHunter 2y agoUSPTO is the U.S. Patent Troll Office?
- curtisszmania 2y ago[dead]
- silexia 2y agoWe must get rid of the patent system. It is solely a way to grant monopolies to those who do not deserve them and slow down all human progress. Henry Ford said the gas engine was delayed twenty years by a frivolous patent.