throwawaykf05

12 ms·

61.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
Examiners do cite non-patent literature (NPL), and yes they can trust Google. I have seen rejections that literally have a screen-cap of Google search results. But yes, NPL is rarer than patent prior art citations ("Determinants of Pat
62.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> It's quite easy to show the ill effects thereof. I haven't found a study that does so convincingly. > It's harder to evaluate the beneficial effects... Agreed, but studies have attempted to do so. For instance, th
63.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> "Without license" is implied by "limit" -- that's the limitation. Again, what is limited by the license is the commercialization , not access to the knowledge or the technology . These are completely diff
64.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
That's not the most accurate interpretation of Alice, but it can be approximated as such. However, I cannot think of a comparable analogy in history to blockchains, so I don't know if Alice can be directly applied.
65.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
Actually here is what they are trying to claim (formatted for easier readability: 1. A system comprising: a memory operable to: store a customer account associated with a customer; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the
66.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
This is because you (and most people here) fundamentally misunderstand how patents work and what these patents actually cover. Essentially, there are an infinite number of applications, variations and implementations of any given technology
67.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> It is much cheaper to file the bogus patent yourself upfront then to be extorted later. No, it's much cheaper to publish your idea in sufficient detail where a) it can be easily found by examiner searches and b) a clear priority
68.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
As I understand it, that's not how it works. When the Federal Circuit issued its decision saying APIs are copyright eligible, Google appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the decision was incorrect. The Supreme Court, however, declin
69.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
Not a big fan of design patents either, but... 1. Not sure if something trivial (e.g. an empty circle for a button) would be eligible even for a design patent. 2. The solid and dotted lines are just to indicate the claimed design vs the res
70.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
No, it didn't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10807369
71.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> ... rounded corners were held to be enough to establish infringement. ... amongst other elements. This is what Apple's complaint stated: >"Closely comparing Apple's patented design with Samsung's products rein
72.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> So they don't limit access to knowledge or technology, they just limit commercializing of knowledge or technology "Without license." > If someone has a patent on X then there is no competition for the production of
73.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> Considering the lack of a control group without major confounding factors, it'd be quite difficult to have a study on the efficacy of a patent system at increasing the number of inventions made available. Yes, it is hard to show
74.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
I'd agree the '415 is not a good patent for other reasons too. It claims the result rather than the method in very broad terms.
75.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
The inaccuracy was that people believed that the patents were on the concept of "rounded corners". Just like people here seem to believe that it is a patent on a generic slider. Regarding the invalidated patents, if you read the b
76.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
Thing is, in the world of design patents even trivial changes are sufficient to avoid infringement.
77.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> If both Microsoft and Corel are aiming for an optimum spreadsheet, the UI of their applications should converge. This implies that UI design is constrained by a fixed, incontrovertible set of physical laws, leaving little room for cr
78.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
The flaw in this line of thought is that patents don't limit access to knowledge or technology. Quite the opposite, in fact. What they do limit is commercializing of knowledge or technology without license.
79.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> So, given that, we're doing what we would've wanted to be done if we were in their position. Actually, I'd rather get any connectivity I could get.
80.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> Is there any empirical evidence to the contrary? Do these studies show that the increased R&D spending, VC investments, etc., are there specifically due to patent protection, and would otherwise not happen without? Many of these
81.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
I guessed that would come up :-) Unfortunately, that book contains many fabrications and mischaracterizations of other work, which calls into question anything they say. A previous comment pointing this out: https://news.ycombina
82.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
That may actually make a convincing legal argument. I believe the appropriate doctrine would be "estoppel".
83.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
As josaka points out, this may be in retaliation to Corel's patent lawsuit: http://www.law360.com/articles/684098/microsoft-word-copy-pa... All the patents in this lawsuit, of which the EFF picked just the on
84.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
If you can show that those UI controls looked exactly like the designs in these patents, you may have found invalidating prior art.
85.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
I'd say UI design is an "useful Art". If somebody is forced to come up with their own designs rather than ripping somebody else's off, is that not progress? If there is no conceivable alternative way of doing a design (w
86.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
Which was also an equally inaccurate depiction of the patents in question.
87.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
>There's a very simple, constant-time, objective, mechanical algorithm to determine whether to grant a patent: "return false". There are several empirical studies that indicate this is wrong. Google and ye shall find. &
88.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
And the lawsuit is all about copying the aesthetics, not the functional aspects. In UIs, usability is more about the aesthetics, since it is all about the best way of presenting the underlying functionality, not the functionality itself.
89.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> If you are sued by a giant, the lawsuit will probably bankrupt you alone. Plus, that giant will come at you with multiple infringing patents, because chances are you are in fact infringing multiple patents. Actually, in practice this
90.
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
You are analyzing design patents as you would utility patents, which I doubt is correct. These patents are more about "look and feel". You don't break down a design into its components (else taken ad absurdum, everything woul

More ›