6 ms·

somewhat active on Ask Patents. In fact, I've submitted an answer that is pretty sure to kill at least one Google patent application, and possibly another from

somewhat active on Ask Patents. In fact, I've submitted an answer that is pretty sure to kill at least one Google patent application, and possibly another from Uniloc. A few comments on this article: 1) This is a very unusual case; most answers (and almost all questions) from "lay engineers" completely misunderstand the scope of the patent, since they don't even know what claims are. And even if they do, they are very lax at interpreting claims. And even then, most posters frequently misunderstand the terms used (case in point, Spolsky's very post! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6084884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6084884). All this leads them to post irrelevant prior art. That does not mean there are no useful answers at all; there are, but they mostly come from people who are somewhat versed in patent law (such as agents, lawyers and examiners). Some re-wording of claims, such as what Micah Seigel does in his posts, helps, but for the proportion of useful answers to go up, we need more education about how patents work for this to be useful. It's really not that hard; heck I did it! 2) It's wayyy too soon for a victory lap because that was only the first non-final rejection, for which a response has already been filed. Statistically, this application will undergo 2.5 more rejections [1] and (based on my guestimate) at least one Request for Continued Examination (RCE) before being abandoned or (more likely considering the applicant) issued with much narrower claims. 3) Patents are worded so not (primarily) to be obfuscating, but rather because of legal, technical and some silly historical reasons. For instance, pronouns are very rarely used because any indefiniteness can be cause for invalidation. Obfuscation will not help much, because you are not trying to get it past lay engineers, but patent examiners, who have a technical background and are (usually) adept at reading patentese. Complaining about how hard it is to read patents is like a Blub programmer complaining about Lisp. You simply need to learn the language to appreciate what you are reading. 4) Most "software" patents (which can't even be cleanly categorized as such) are not crappy, at least with respect to all other patents. There are studies presenting this view [2, 3], but it's also based on my experience having read hundreds of patents. Almost none are revolutionary, but just as few are really as bad as the media portrays. The PTO has gotten pretty good at finding prior art (interestingly around the same time Google came around), and the really broad patents are dying out. The "crappy software patents" view is common mostly because tech media routinely publishes uninformed (or disinformed? [4]) rhetoric, mostly because they garner some easy rageviews, and audiences accept it without critical thought. I do think the bar for non-obviousness should be different, but solving that is a difficult, almost-philosophical problem. 5) In response to various comments on this thread regarding pay-for-prior art schemes, initiatives such as Article One Partners already exist. I am not a patent lawyer or an agent, but I believe in the patent system, as I have actually worked for the mythical small-guy firm that was ripped off by the big guys and almost died, but eventually prevailed with patents. You don't hear these stories much because typically the small guys don't have the PR budget for it [4]. (And also because many of those with patents turn to trolls, who like to keep a low profile.) I have only recently become personally invested in the patent system, but I want all inventions, including mine, to be truly novel and worthwhile. And I want people to get off their butts and do something rather than complain about patents on HN. This is why I support Ask Patents. [1] http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml [2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=650921 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=650921 [3] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=970083 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=970083 [4] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

VladRussian2 13y ago
>You simply need to learn the language to appreciate what you are reading. when i read my ones (basically the same crap that other 99% software patents are) in patent legalese they sound more pompous, yet still an utter crap.
- throwawaykf 13y ago
  The pompous aspect comes (IMO) from primarily historical reasons. However, in my experience, the judgement of them being "utter crap" is simultaneously (1) mostly uninformed and (2) yet mostly correct. Let me clarify: people think they are crap for the wrong reasons, such as vastly overestimating the scope of the claims. But they are (IMO) still mostly crap because they are ridiculously narrow and not necessarily clever... Yet they are still valid because that's what the patent system is tuned to. I have said this before in other comments -- the way patents are examined is mostly quantitative: find enough pieces of prior art where enough snippets of texts cover the text of the claims, and you have a rejection. No thought is given to the quality of the claims. For instance, I'd wager the RSA patent (which even the most die-hard anti-patent folks typically admit is novel) would not be granted today because each aspect of the claims is mentioned somewhere in the prior art. It is the combination of steps which is novel. Yet todays examination process would shoehorn the claims into a ridiculously narrow set of steps that (the attorneys hope) would still typically be infringed. Examination these days is a mechanical process whereby examiners just try to find enough references with language in them to cover all steps in a claim to issue an easy rejection. (Yes, the "rubber stamp" is more likely used to reject rather than allow.) So how do you try to qualitatively judge a patent when you have only a few hours appreciate all the prior art out there and appreciate what is being claimed and to do so? The answer is, you can't; the only way to have a scalable process is to issue actions on a quantitative basis rather than a qualitative one. As I said, it's a difficult, almost philosophical question.
dctoedt 13y ago
Re (2): In 1924, legendary federal judge Learned Hand [0] remarked that "the antlike persistency [sic] of [patent] solicitors has overcome, and I suppose will continue to overcome, the patience of examiners, and there is apparently always but one outcome." [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand [1] Lyon v. Boh, 1 F.2d 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y.1924), copy available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9696597566965196877 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9696597566965196....

VladRussian2 13y ago

>You simply need to learn the language to appreciate what you are reading. when i read my ones (basically the same crap that other 99% software patents are) in patent legalese they sound more pompous, yet still an utter crap.

throwawaykf 13y ago
The pompous aspect comes (IMO) from primarily historical reasons. However, in my experience, the judgement of them being "utter crap" is simultaneously (1) mostly uninformed and (2) yet mostly correct. Let me clarify: people think they are crap for the wrong reasons, such as vastly overestimating the scope of the claims. But they are (IMO) still mostly crap because they are ridiculously narrow and not necessarily clever... Yet they are still valid because that's what the patent system is tuned to. I have said this before in other comments -- the way patents are examined is mostly quantitative: find enough pieces of prior art where enough snippets of texts cover the text of the claims, and you have a rejection. No thought is given to the quality of the claims. For instance, I'd wager the RSA patent (which even the most die-hard anti-patent folks typically admit is novel) would not be granted today because each aspect of the claims is mentioned somewhere in the prior art. It is the combination of steps which is novel. Yet todays examination process would shoehorn the claims into a ridiculously narrow set of steps that (the attorneys hope) would still typically be infringed. Examination these days is a mechanical process whereby examiners just try to find enough references with language in them to cover all steps in a claim to issue an easy rejection. (Yes, the "rubber stamp" is more likely used to reject rather than allow.) So how do you try to qualitatively judge a patent when you have only a few hours appreciate all the prior art out there and appreciate what is being claimed and to do so? The answer is, you can't; the only way to have a scalable process is to issue actions on a quantitative basis rather than a qualitative one. As I said, it's a difficult, almost philosophical question.

dctoedt 13y ago

Re (2): In 1924, legendary federal judge Learned Hand [0] remarked that "the antlike persistency [sic] of [patent] solicitors has overcome, and I suppose will continue to overcome, the patience of examiners, and there is apparently always but one outcome." [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand [1] Lyon v. Boh, 1 F.2d 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y.1924), copy available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9696597566965196877 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9696597566965196....