8 ms·

This is a great idea. If you want to demonstrate just how much software patents suck, you need to be able to point out examples. Yet I've seen many people who t

This is a great idea. If you want to demonstrate just how much software patents suck, you need to be able to point out examples. Yet I've seen many people who try to do so get shutdown with remarks like "you're not a lawyer", "you don't understand patent claims", "if you read this in a Lawyer-Approved Fashion (tm) it turns out this IS a good patent claim", etc. It'll be a lot harder to dismiss examples of shitty patents if their shittiness is endorsed by the legal expertise of the EFF.

isaacdl 12y ago
Wow, this a thousand times. It's so incredibly frustrating to have discussions about stuff like this with people who don't have the same knee-jerk mistrust of the patent system that I do. I'm not saying my reaction is right, just that it'll be nice to have something to point too and say "told ya so...". Of course, the people I know who don't think that the patent system is broken are probably the people who don't necessarily know/trust the EFF.
- ArtDev 12y ago
  Junk patents like this one are are a real threat to innovation, progress and small business in America.
  - auxbuss 12y ago
    Junk patents are a threat to innovation, progress, and small businesses globally.
- aptwebapps 12y ago
  They don't have to trust the EFF blindly - they do a pretty good job of explaining what's wrong with this patent.
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    Many (most?) people believe in authority more than they believe in explanations. They watch TV everyday, and TV displays a tremendous amount of authority (all those expert guests in suits). "Patents sucks" is a contrarian opinion in this environment. Without a proper-looking authority to back that up, no amount of explanation will ever convince those people. They will just assume there "must be a reason" for this, even if they don't understand it. The alternative is to teach them how to think. This will take time.
zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
> This is a great idea. Not really: you don't condemn an entire system by pointing out individual bad examples of it. This is like picking a bad article linked on Hacker News and saying "Hacker News is broken and needs to be abolished". You're not going to convince anyone with this kind of cherry picking. Besides, the title made it sound as if the EFF was filing stupid patents.
- shmerl 12y ago
  No. Exactly by providing examples which are explained clearly, one can argue that the system is broken if it passes such examples through. Saying that it's broken with theoretical explanation is not enough. Practical examples demonstrate what is broken.
  - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    All you're doing with the cherry picking is showing that the system isn't perfect, not that it's broken.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      Each "cherry" survived for years of (re)examinations. They should have been inspected at least as well as this fruit [1] and tossed if bad. [1] http://kotaku.com/two-melons-just-sold-for-us-15-730-in-japan-509988661 http://kotaku.com/two-melons-just-sold-for-us-15-730-in-japa...
      - axman6 12y ago
        Do you honestly think that it even possible that examiners spend years examining cases? I can tell you with 100% certainty they do no, and the cost to the tax payer of doing so would be astronomical. Most bad patents are rejected, but you never hear any news about that do you? Selection bias is clearly at play here, and only idiots would think that examples of a few poor partents are evidence the system is broken. There are definitely issues with the system, but the system is not completely broken as some who have no knowledge of the issue would have you believe.
dhimes 12y ago
Is there a patent review person in charge of the patent at the PTO? That is, is there a name of a PTO person that we can attach to these to say "John Doe approved/accepted/submitted on behalf of... this patent?" If so, I would like to see EFF attach the name. Maybe public ridicule will make them a little more careful.

isaacdl 12y ago

Wow, this a thousand times. It's so incredibly frustrating to have discussions about stuff like this with people who don't have the same knee-jerk mistrust of the patent system that I do. I'm not saying my reaction is right, just that it'll be nice to have something to point too and say "told ya so...". Of course, the people I know who don't think that the patent system is broken are probably the people who don't necessarily know/trust the EFF.

ArtDev 12y ago
Junk patents like this one are are a real threat to innovation, progress and small business in America.
- auxbuss 12y ago
  Junk patents are a threat to innovation, progress, and small businesses globally.
aptwebapps 12y ago
They don't have to trust the EFF blindly - they do a pretty good job of explaining what's wrong with this patent.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  Many (most?) people believe in authority more than they believe in explanations. They watch TV everyday, and TV displays a tremendous amount of authority (all those expert guests in suits). "Patents sucks" is a contrarian opinion in this environment. Without a proper-looking authority to back that up, no amount of explanation will ever convince those people. They will just assume there "must be a reason" for this, even if they don't understand it. The alternative is to teach them how to think. This will take time.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago

> This is a great idea. Not really: you don't condemn an entire system by pointing out individual bad examples of it. This is like picking a bad article linked on Hacker News and saying "Hacker News is broken and needs to be abolished". You're not going to convince anyone with this kind of cherry picking. Besides, the title made it sound as if the EFF was filing stupid patents.

shmerl 12y ago
No. Exactly by providing examples which are explained clearly, one can argue that the system is broken if it passes such examples through. Saying that it's broken with theoretical explanation is not enough. Practical examples demonstrate what is broken.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
  All you're doing with the cherry picking is showing that the system isn't perfect, not that it's broken.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    Each "cherry" survived for years of (re)examinations. They should have been inspected at least as well as this fruit [1] and tossed if bad. [1] http://kotaku.com/two-melons-just-sold-for-us-15-730-in-japan-509988661 http://kotaku.com/two-melons-just-sold-for-us-15-730-in-japa...
    - axman6 12y ago
      Do you honestly think that it even possible that examiners spend years examining cases? I can tell you with 100% certainty they do no, and the cost to the tax payer of doing so would be astronomical. Most bad patents are rejected, but you never hear any news about that do you? Selection bias is clearly at play here, and only idiots would think that examples of a few poor partents are evidence the system is broken. There are definitely issues with the system, but the system is not completely broken as some who have no knowledge of the issue would have you believe.

dhimes 12y ago

Is there a patent review person in charge of the patent at the PTO? That is, is there a name of a PTO person that we can attach to these to say "John Doe approved/accepted/submitted on behalf of... this patent?" If so, I would like to see EFF attach the name. Maybe public ridicule will make them a little more careful.