7 ms·

This is a fairly bad ruling. Patents should be thought of as invalid by default, especially considering the rubber stamp methodology used by the USPTO. None of

This is a fairly bad ruling. Patents should be thought of as invalid by default, especially considering the rubber stamp methodology used by the USPTO. None of this is addressing how trivial it is to get trivial patents, then use them for monetary gain against those who actually build things. 70 year olds making tech policy is just scary. This is a major boon to "troll" companies and probably sets back any reform movement several years if not decades.

Zigurd 11y ago
The presumption of validity is ingrained in the patent system. Otherwise, what would a patent grant mean? I've been involved with my own patents and other patents long enough to see the patent office become relatively less rigorous than when I first started patenting things. The response could be to weaken the meaning of a patent grant. Maybe the answer is for the government to offer a bounty to overturn grants of patents. But that implies the patent office would be any better at filtering challenges to patents than they are at filtering applications.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >Otherwise, what would a patent grant mean? Exactly what it is: a government protected idea untested by the courts. If its still untested, it should be assumed invalid. I don't see what's wrong with that. If there is ever a bounty system, it should be via a 3rd party mediator, not the very same USPTO that gives out invalid patents, many often with trivial prior-art or questionable logic like appending "on a touchscreen device," to an ancient computer science concept.
  - alienasa 11y ago
    > Exactly what it is: a government protected idea untested by the courts. If its still untested, it should be assumed invalid. I don't see what's wrong with that. On that assumption, why bother having the USPTO at all? If something "untested by the courts" is invalid, you're effectively appealing to the court as the arbiter of all innovation. However, the court system is not equipped to be evaluating innovation claims, either in terms of time or expertise. I suspect the outcome would be worse.
    - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
      >why bother having the USPTO at all? Because 18th century economic theory dictated a patent process because back then information moved so slowly it was easy to copy a design and market it as your own with consumers unaware that it was a copy. How this remotely connects to software in the information age is beyond me. I don't see a need for the USPTO at all, outside of trademark protection.
    - Retric 11y ago
      It's a barrier to entry. Even if the court assumes the patent is invalid without the USPTO it would be easy to bring unlimited trivial nuisance suits with a clear incentive for 3rd party's to settle. It also acts as a clear timestamp. The USPTO patent being assumed invalid is simply to avoid spamming patents until something gets though.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Relevant: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/06/proper-presumption-validity.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/06/proper-presumption-valid... ("According to Justice Breyer’s concurrence, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, the presumption of validity only provides protection against factual elements of an invalidity challenge. That concurrence, and the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., suggest that the presumption of validity has no application to purely legal bases for invalidity.")
- anomaly_ 11y ago
  Assumption of validity isn't the only path. In Australia there is no assumption of validity; the court essentially re-examines the patent when a suit is brought. This doesn't necessarily increase costs/time either, the Federal Court (has patent jurisdiction in Australia) exercises pretty decent case management to ensure that frivolous suits are quickly dealt with.
monochromatic 11y ago
The USPTO is far from perfect, and examiners make bad calls sometimes... but it is by no means trivial to get a trivial patent issued. And the idea of a presumption of invalidity (as opposed to, say, no presumption one way or the other) is so ludicrous that it doesn't bear response.
- Retric 11y ago
  It seems reasonable for courts to avoid injunctions or punitive damages for periods prior to a patent being tested in court. Calling this invalid or no presumption is more or less the same concept.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    No, it isn't. The presumption goes to how hard it is to assert a patent in court.
    - Retric 11y ago
      That's a good thing in this case. Start with 100 junk patents to the USPTO > one gets though. Now take that one and threaten a company. Company says the is a BS patent. Take company to court demand injunction + damages. Company responds it's invalid! Q: Does the court force an injunction anyway? If it does there is huge incentives to settle even if it’s a BS patent.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  Of course it is not trivial to get a patent application threw, but that is the reason, big corporations have highly paid lawyers for that. The whole thing is a shadow-industry of it's own (starting at the patent office, that earns money by issuing patents).

Zigurd 11y ago

The presumption of validity is ingrained in the patent system. Otherwise, what would a patent grant mean? I've been involved with my own patents and other patents long enough to see the patent office become relatively less rigorous than when I first started patenting things. The response could be to weaken the meaning of a patent grant. Maybe the answer is for the government to offer a bounty to overturn grants of patents. But that implies the patent office would be any better at filtering challenges to patents than they are at filtering applications.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>Otherwise, what would a patent grant mean? Exactly what it is: a government protected idea untested by the courts. If its still untested, it should be assumed invalid. I don't see what's wrong with that. If there is ever a bounty system, it should be via a 3rd party mediator, not the very same USPTO that gives out invalid patents, many often with trivial prior-art or questionable logic like appending "on a touchscreen device," to an ancient computer science concept.
- alienasa 11y ago
  > Exactly what it is: a government protected idea untested by the courts. If its still untested, it should be assumed invalid. I don't see what's wrong with that. On that assumption, why bother having the USPTO at all? If something "untested by the courts" is invalid, you're effectively appealing to the court as the arbiter of all innovation. However, the court system is not equipped to be evaluating innovation claims, either in terms of time or expertise. I suspect the outcome would be worse.
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    >why bother having the USPTO at all? Because 18th century economic theory dictated a patent process because back then information moved so slowly it was easy to copy a design and market it as your own with consumers unaware that it was a copy. How this remotely connects to software in the information age is beyond me. I don't see a need for the USPTO at all, outside of trademark protection.
  - Retric 11y ago
    It's a barrier to entry. Even if the court assumes the patent is invalid without the USPTO it would be easy to bring unlimited trivial nuisance suits with a clear incentive for 3rd party's to settle. It also acts as a clear timestamp. The USPTO patent being assumed invalid is simply to avoid spamming patents until something gets though.
rayiner 11y ago
Relevant: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/06/proper-presumption-validity.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/06/proper-presumption-valid... ("According to Justice Breyer’s concurrence, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, the presumption of validity only provides protection against factual elements of an invalidity challenge. That concurrence, and the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., suggest that the presumption of validity has no application to purely legal bases for invalidity.")
anomaly_ 11y ago
Assumption of validity isn't the only path. In Australia there is no assumption of validity; the court essentially re-examines the patent when a suit is brought. This doesn't necessarily increase costs/time either, the Federal Court (has patent jurisdiction in Australia) exercises pretty decent case management to ensure that frivolous suits are quickly dealt with.

monochromatic 11y ago

The USPTO is far from perfect, and examiners make bad calls sometimes... but it is by no means trivial to get a trivial patent issued. And the idea of a presumption of invalidity (as opposed to, say, no presumption one way or the other) is so ludicrous that it doesn't bear response.

Retric 11y ago
It seems reasonable for courts to avoid injunctions or punitive damages for periods prior to a patent being tested in court. Calling this invalid or no presumption is more or less the same concept.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  No, it isn't. The presumption goes to how hard it is to assert a patent in court.
  - Retric 11y ago
    That's a good thing in this case. Start with 100 junk patents to the USPTO > one gets though. Now take that one and threaten a company. Company says the is a BS patent. Take company to court demand injunction + damages. Company responds it's invalid! Q: Does the court force an injunction anyway? If it does there is huge incentives to settle even if it’s a BS patent.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
Of course it is not trivial to get a patent application threw, but that is the reason, big corporations have highly paid lawyers for that. The whole thing is a shadow-industry of it's own (starting at the patent office, that earns money by issuing patents).