6 ms·

US5758352 was filed on Sep 5, 1996, so it's still got another three years of life before we can bury the silly thing. US5960411 A (One Click Shopping) Dies a y

US5758352 was filed on Sep 5, 1996, so it's still got another three years of life before we can bury the silly thing. US5960411 A (One Click Shopping) Dies a year later (filed Sep 12, 1997) A whole host of idiotic patents should be ending their life in the next several years.

trusche 13y ago
Unless, or should I say until, Congress caves to the lobbyists and extends the patent life again, no?
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Something both parties will agree on...
- mtgx 13y ago
  I think US is trying to extend patent life to 30 years or something in the TPP.
- tzs 13y ago
  In 1995, it was changed from 17 years counting from the issuance of the patent to 20 years counting from the earliest filing date. It is not clear whether this should count as an extension or not--it is 3 more years, but the clock starts running earlier. Before that, the only extension of the patent term was from 14 years to 21 years, which happened in 1836. In 1861, it was shortened to 17 years.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Yes. The clock starting at filing change was due to submarine patents (people would keep things in process for many years, and slowly amend them, until when they finally issued, they covered whatever was cool at the time. There are a few famous examples). Realistically, the life of the average patent was not extended by this change, since patent apps, on average, were taking three years to approve.
bborud 13y ago
For each idiotic patent that expires I would suspect that more than one idiotic patent is granted. This nonsense won't stop until we abolish patents. And we really need to abolish patents. Completely. The patent system can't be fixed.
- csmuk 13y ago
  Agree entirely. I know someone who milked an obvious patent for the best part of 40 years and made a killing on it. People were paid to get the patent reissued and to chase down manufacturers for pay offs. The patent (wait for it) was: "the use of printed circuit boards in television sets". Fortunately it was allowed to expire about 8 years ago when one of the manufacturers assembled a large legal team to claim prior art.
- wheaties 13y ago
  No, patents serve a good purpose outside of software and in many disciplines. It's just in software where we see the worst side of the patent system, i.e. "tack on computer to anything and it's 'original.'"
  - felipeko 13y ago
    I don't think you can prove this. I'd love to see research proving patents do more good than harm (in any field).
    - wheaties 13y ago
      Actually in medicine we have both the good and bad of patents. For any drug to be brought to market in the U.S. there is, by necessity, a long and expensive process to ensure a drug does more benefit than harm. This process can cost millions of dollars but producing the formula + manufacturing is often not nearly as expensive. Hence, a patent, because of the legal framework for which these inventions are conceived within, granting a monopoly for a short period of time is the only thing that promotes or gives companys an incentive to continue on with FDA approval. This, by the way, is no means or excuse for some of the shenanigans drug manufacturers take part in. It merely is one illustration of why a patent system should exist.

trusche 13y ago

Unless, or should I say until, Congress caves to the lobbyists and extends the patent life again, no?

Tloewald 13y ago
Something both parties will agree on...
mtgx 13y ago
I think US is trying to extend patent life to 30 years or something in the TPP.
tzs 13y ago
In 1995, it was changed from 17 years counting from the issuance of the patent to 20 years counting from the earliest filing date. It is not clear whether this should count as an extension or not--it is 3 more years, but the clock starts running earlier. Before that, the only extension of the patent term was from 14 years to 21 years, which happened in 1836. In 1861, it was shortened to 17 years.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Yes. The clock starting at filing change was due to submarine patents (people would keep things in process for many years, and slowly amend them, until when they finally issued, they covered whatever was cool at the time. There are a few famous examples). Realistically, the life of the average patent was not extended by this change, since patent apps, on average, were taking three years to approve.

bborud 13y ago

For each idiotic patent that expires I would suspect that more than one idiotic patent is granted. This nonsense won't stop until we abolish patents. And we really need to abolish patents. Completely. The patent system can't be fixed.

csmuk 13y ago
Agree entirely. I know someone who milked an obvious patent for the best part of 40 years and made a killing on it. People were paid to get the patent reissued and to chase down manufacturers for pay offs. The patent (wait for it) was: "the use of printed circuit boards in television sets". Fortunately it was allowed to expire about 8 years ago when one of the manufacturers assembled a large legal team to claim prior art.
wheaties 13y ago
No, patents serve a good purpose outside of software and in many disciplines. It's just in software where we see the worst side of the patent system, i.e. "tack on computer to anything and it's 'original.'"
- felipeko 13y ago
  I don't think you can prove this. I'd love to see research proving patents do more good than harm (in any field).
  - wheaties 13y ago
    Actually in medicine we have both the good and bad of patents. For any drug to be brought to market in the U.S. there is, by necessity, a long and expensive process to ensure a drug does more benefit than harm. This process can cost millions of dollars but producing the formula + manufacturing is often not nearly as expensive. Hence, a patent, because of the legal framework for which these inventions are conceived within, granting a monopoly for a short period of time is the only thing that promotes or gives companys an incentive to continue on with FDA approval. This, by the way, is no means or excuse for some of the shenanigans drug manufacturers take part in. It merely is one illustration of why a patent system should exist.