6 ms·

Patent 7,620,565 is a good example of everything that's wrong with the patent system; it's vague and generic, nothing novel, and seemingly far reaching. They a

by gav 14y ago

Patent 7,620,565 is a good example of everything that's wrong with the patent system; it's vague and generic, nothing novel, and seemingly far reaching. They are using claim 15 to sue over interactive chat: "A method, comprising: monitoring a product for an occurrence in the product of a trigger event of a predefined plurality of trigger events; incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product; displaying a user interface, configured to probe for information regarding a use of the product, if the counter exceeds a threshold; storing an input received from the user interface on a device; and transmitting the input to a server. "

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
melling 14y ago
I think there are tens of thousands of examples like this, with thousands more being added every year. Now everyone wants to know how to solve the problem. If every developer needs to get a patent lawyer, it's going to be a big problem.
- bdavisx 14y ago
  Not for the patent lawyers.
Wingman4l7 14y ago
"[...] incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product [...]"? Sounds like a website hit counter from the '90s.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Sounds like a trip odometer or a turnstile.
shmerl 14y ago
Can't a prior art be found for this?
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago
  Yes. However, invalidating patents via prior art takes long, and is quite expensive. Which is precisely why Lodsys is targeting the people they are -- if they tried to go after any of the big guys, they'd lose their patents. The small guys can't fight back.
  - fakeer 14y ago
    Even the big guys can't fight back with prior-art pitch. History says this.
    - shmerl 14y ago
      Can't or don't want to? Newegg fought and won. It's surprising that many of those who actually have enough resources to fight chicken out.
      - talmand 14y ago
        It's not that they always chicken out, sometimes it's just cheaper to not fight. Which often is the strategy in these types of lawsuits, make an offer to settle that's less than the cost of litigation. This has gotten so bad lately that many letters are simply bold, in-your-face threats of extortion that for some unknown reason the courts have done little to address. Plus, for some of the bigger companies you say chicken out, this is a potential winning strategy for them to stifle competition. The big companies have the funds to just settle and move on while the small companies that might pose a threat in the future may have a harder time dealing with even just a simple settlement.
        shmerl 14y ago
        > for some of the bigger companies you say chicken out, this is a potential winning strategy for them to stifle competition. I'd guess those must be the same sort of companies who engage in patent aggression themselves.
kunai 14y ago
Just like Wikipedia has notability guidelines, there's no reason patents should not. Problem is, the legislation to cover vague and broad patents may very well end up being vague and broad itself, unfortunately.
- podperson 14y ago
  Yes and there are no ridiculous articles in Wikipedia.
fpp 14y ago
In former times (when patents mostly covered only machinery) you had to present a working prototype or product that demonstrated your invention. My suggested solution to the current software patent disaster: Inventors have to demonstrate a solution (in source code and running) that covers "ALL" the claims. Earlier inventions, e.g. those from the last 17 years, that have not provided this by means of ending up in a product during this period are automatically revoked / declared invalid. Inventors can appeal against this (at cost increasing the older the patent is). Demonstrations within appeals are only possible with technology available at the date of filing. This will automatically revoke all the fantasy patents (I call them Jules Verne Patents), bring sense back into patent filing - particularly when "pure front-end" patents are disqualified, and will help to protect us from the 1999/2000 patent litigation tsunami some are already expecting. (Reg: 1999/2000 patent litigation tsunami - this could be caused by all those start-up companies that filed patents within the 1999/2000 bubble and then went belly-up - many of those patents might soon end up in patent troll litigation portfolios.) Update: And patents should only be enforceable by practising entities vs. PAEs along the lines / to mitigate the issues that Google, Blackberry, Red Hat and Earthlink have outlined in their letter to the DOJ last Friday ( https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwxyRPFduTN2VTE4TXlNcW9MR2s/view?pli=1&sle=true https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwxyRPFduTN2VTE4TXlNcW9MR2s/... )
- solarexplorer 14y ago
  This won't help against overly generic patents. And those cause most damage...
  - fpp 14y ago
    Why not?
    - solarexplorer 14y ago
      Well, a troll can present a prototype and still make overly broad claims.

by gav 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

melling 14y ago

I think there are tens of thousands of examples like this, with thousands more being added every year. Now everyone wants to know how to solve the problem. If every developer needs to get a patent lawyer, it's going to be a big problem.

bdavisx 14y ago
Not for the patent lawyers.

Wingman4l7 14y ago

"[...] incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product [...]"? Sounds like a website hit counter from the '90s.

sageikosa 14y ago
Sounds like a trip odometer or a turnstile.

shmerl 14y ago

Can't a prior art be found for this?

Tuna-Fish 14y ago
Yes. However, invalidating patents via prior art takes long, and is quite expensive. Which is precisely why Lodsys is targeting the people they are -- if they tried to go after any of the big guys, they'd lose their patents. The small guys can't fight back.
- fakeer 14y ago
  Even the big guys can't fight back with prior-art pitch. History says this.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    Can't or don't want to? Newegg fought and won. It's surprising that many of those who actually have enough resources to fight chicken out.
    - talmand 14y ago
      It's not that they always chicken out, sometimes it's just cheaper to not fight. Which often is the strategy in these types of lawsuits, make an offer to settle that's less than the cost of litigation. This has gotten so bad lately that many letters are simply bold, in-your-face threats of extortion that for some unknown reason the courts have done little to address. Plus, for some of the bigger companies you say chicken out, this is a potential winning strategy for them to stifle competition. The big companies have the funds to just settle and move on while the small companies that might pose a threat in the future may have a harder time dealing with even just a simple settlement.
      - shmerl 14y ago
        > for some of the bigger companies you say chicken out, this is a potential winning strategy for them to stifle competition. I'd guess those must be the same sort of companies who engage in patent aggression themselves.

kunai 14y ago

Just like Wikipedia has notability guidelines, there's no reason patents should not. Problem is, the legislation to cover vague and broad patents may very well end up being vague and broad itself, unfortunately.

podperson 14y ago
Yes and there are no ridiculous articles in Wikipedia.

fpp 14y ago

In former times (when patents mostly covered only machinery) you had to present a working prototype or product that demonstrated your invention. My suggested solution to the current software patent disaster: Inventors have to demonstrate a solution (in source code and running) that covers "ALL" the claims. Earlier inventions, e.g. those from the last 17 years, that have not provided this by means of ending up in a product during this period are automatically revoked / declared invalid. Inventors can appeal against this (at cost increasing the older the patent is). Demonstrations within appeals are only possible with technology available at the date of filing. This will automatically revoke all the fantasy patents (I call them Jules Verne Patents), bring sense back into patent filing - particularly when "pure front-end" patents are disqualified, and will help to protect us from the 1999/2000 patent litigation tsunami some are already expecting. (Reg: 1999/2000 patent litigation tsunami - this could be caused by all those start-up companies that filed patents within the 1999/2000 bubble and then went belly-up - many of those patents might soon end up in patent troll litigation portfolios.) Update: And patents should only be enforceable by practising entities vs. PAEs along the lines / to mitigate the issues that Google, Blackberry, Red Hat and Earthlink have outlined in their letter to the DOJ last Friday ( https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwxyRPFduTN2VTE4TXlNcW9MR2s/view?pli=1&sle=true https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwxyRPFduTN2VTE4TXlNcW9MR2s/... )

solarexplorer 14y ago
This won't help against overly generic patents. And those cause most damage...
- fpp 14y ago
  Why not?
  - solarexplorer 14y ago
    Well, a troll can present a prototype and still make overly broad claims.