4 ms·

I second the parent. The typical inventor thinks the description and drawings are important, while they are really secondary to the claims which are what is le

by jbronn 17y ago

I second the parent. The typical inventor thinks the description and drawings are important, while they are really secondary to the claims which are what is legally protected. Unfortunately, writing a good set of claims is an art that can only be mastered through a lot of experience and research into what has been effective with the USPTO in addition to what has been upheld in court. While this is not out of reach of the HN audience, your time would be better served by innovating and letting a good IP law firm handle the patent. This will be expensive -- costs are at least $10K, and software patents typically will cost more because prosecution (arguing with the USPTO why your invention is patentable) will be longer. IMHO, the whole process is soul-sucking and why I no longer practice patent law. However, if you do wish to proceed the best play to start would be with the official Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP): http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm

nostrademons 17y ago
One of the curious things about the system is how infrequently large companies actually own the patents that make up the core of their business. PageRank is owned by Stanford, not by Google. The original Lisp Machine patents were owned by MIT, not by Symbolics. Same with Akamai's core patents. The original ideas behind EBay and online auctions were never patented, because Pierre Omidyar had a day job and his employer probably would've owned it anyway. I guess the takeaway for new entrepreneurs is to focus on making money, not patents. Because once you have money, you can hire good people, and then you'll own the patents that they produce. It's kinda odd that giant corporations own huge patent portfolios, but almost never the patents on the inventions that spawned the companies. I guess it makes sense when you consider employment law and the need to earn a living, though. If it works for Google, E-bay, Akamai, etc, it ought to be good enough for us.

by jbronn 17y ago

nostrademons 17y ago

One of the curious things about the system is how infrequently large companies actually own the patents that make up the core of their business. PageRank is owned by Stanford, not by Google. The original Lisp Machine patents were owned by MIT, not by Symbolics. Same with Akamai's core patents. The original ideas behind EBay and online auctions were never patented, because Pierre Omidyar had a day job and his employer probably would've owned it anyway. I guess the takeaway for new entrepreneurs is to focus on making money, not patents. Because once you have money, you can hire good people, and then you'll own the patents that they produce. It's kinda odd that giant corporations own huge patent portfolios, but almost never the patents on the inventions that spawned the companies. I guess it makes sense when you consider employment law and the need to earn a living, though. If it works for Google, E-bay, Akamai, etc, it ought to be good enough for us.