6 ms·
In my startup we are knowingly violating two other companies patents and it scares me. The patents are stupid (tagging a photo--ie. circle part of a photo to hi
by josho 12y ago
In my startup we are knowingly violating two other companies patents and it scares me. The patents are stupid (tagging a photo--ie. circle part of a photo to highlight where something is, and the second is adding GPS data to a record, so that you can find it later).
One of the companies is even litigious having field two patent suits this year. The only thing saving us at this point is we are a Canadian company and haven't entered the US market yet.
So, here is a concrete case of patents discouraging innovation and competition. We want to enter the US market because the competitors are selling backward solutions. We have an alternative that is 10x better, yet our company could be killed in an instant through one of these patents.
- ChrisAntaki 12y ago> adding GPS data to a record, so that you can find it later You might want to nominate this patent
- smokinn 12y agoIf that's your most pressing concern about expanding the business you should probably consider challenging the validity of the patent if it's truly as obvious as it seems. http://info.legalzoom.com/challenge-patent-21969.html http://info.legalzoom.com/challenge-patent-21969.html
- jfoutz 12y agoOr just abandon the US because the regulation is a pain in the ass. It's not Josho's obligation to keep the US from turning into a technological ghetto.
- fleitz 12y agoNo, don't challenge the patent, minimize infringement, amass cash. Challenge it after being sued hopefully with enough cash to defend yourself.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y agoOr maybe, don't infringe the patent and innovate by creating your own approach to the problem?
- spacemanmatt 12y agoPoor solution when the USPTO allows people to toll the public domain of obvious solutions.
- bronson 12y agoYou didn't read the article, did you?
- mistercow 12y agoIf the patents really are as josho characterized them, what kind innovations would those be? How do you "innovate" storing GPS data in a database?
- zak_mc_kracken 12y agoLet's start with concrete facts: what patent are we talking about exactly? A simple link to the USPTO web site will do. Then we can brainstorm and see if we can innovate.
- josho 12y agoI appreciate your offer to help, but I won't be providing that detail. But, for the spirit of the discussion assume that it is similar to what the EFF described in their article. But, to make the exercise a bit more fun!? Don't read the EFF's summary, go read the patent and try to make sense of it. If you were an e-health company how would you work around that patent?
- shawn-furyan 12y agoWouldn't a database be prior art? If a general solution to an entire problem domain exists (in this case, databases solve the general problem of adding computer representable data to a record) and predates a patented application of that general solution to a specific instance, then the general solution seems like a very good candidate for prior art. At least it seems to stand to reason that applying a general solution to a specific domain can't be considered novel. The novel solution is the general one, if it exists. Since the oldest databases have existed much longer than 20 years, it would be impossible for an active patent for a solution within this problem domain to not have prior art.
- fleitz 12y agoJust go ahead and do yourself a favor right now and delete this comment. 'knowingly violating' is not a phrase you want attributed to you in court.
- smokinn 12y agofleitz makes a very good point. You'll be getting hit with treble damages which you definitely don't want.
- JoshTriplett 12y agoWhile I definitely agree that making a statement like that makes no sense, if the 1x damages would already bankrupt your company, tripling that really matter all that much. In that case, your only hope may be invalidating the patent.
- bronson 12y agoIt makes sense if you want to demonstrate -- concretely -- how the system is broken. Heroes do what's right despite potential personal risk.
- josho 12y agoWe are examining the patent in detail and finding ways that we can workaround the claims. The claims are wrapped in industry jargon and detail, so we feel we can add or remove steps to get around it. But, the core point is the patent did nothing to further the state of the art, nor does it provide information that someone in the field would use to implement the patent. As I understand those are the two reasons for the patent system, so by that standard the patent is worthless. I wonder if patents in other industries are actually useful, eg would a chemist ever refer to older patents to further their own lab work?
- ghshephard 12y agoPlease listen to the parent and delete all your comments in this thread. Also look up, "Willful Infringement" to understand why you need to erase your comments here.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago> So, here is a concrete case of patents discouraging innovation It seems to be just the opposite, though: the patent system is telling you "You are copying something that exists, instead you should innovate and create something new". So why don't you innovate instead of copying something that already exists?
- shmerl 12y agoWhat the patent system should say in theory is very different from how the patent system is used by patent abusers. Which directly indicates that the patent system itself requires a reform, since otherwise it would have prevented such abuse to begin with. If something is obvious, it should have been unpatentable. If the patent system says that it is patentable - the patent system is broken.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y agoYou are changing the subject, patent trolls are a totally different matter. Here, we have an example of a company that is knowingly copying something that exists instead of coming up with their own solution to the problem, so I'm claiming that in this particular example, software patents are encouraging innovation. The company in question is simply choosing the easy way out of copying instead of innovating.
- shmerl 12y ago> You are changing the subject, patent trolls are a totally different matter. Patent abuser can even produce something useful. But if the patent is bad (obvious, abstract, claims a function, etc.) then such producing entity can ban all kind of competition which should exist because that thing should not be patentable in the first place. Because of that, term "troll" can be extended to any abuser. Not necessarily NPE. Even PE one. Copying is a natural thing in many cases. Preventing copying by patenting abstract ideas is crooked and should not be allowed. Not to mention cases, when some things were developed independently (so obviously not copied), but still are banned by patents.
- 12y ago