Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 15:31 UTC
Legal Joel Spolsky killed a Microsoft patent application in just a few minutes - he found prior art and submitted it, and the USPTO examiner rejected the patent because of it. "Micah showed me a document from the USPTO confirming that they had rejected the patent application, and the rejection relied very heavily on the document I found. This was, in fact, the first 'confirmed kill' of Ask Patents, and it was really surprisingly easy. I didn't have to do the hard work of studying everything in the patent application and carefully proving that it was all prior art: the examiner did that for me." This is all under the umbrella of 'Ask Patents'.
Permalink for comment 567770
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why
by kwan_e on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why"
Member since:

I don't quite well understand the under"lying" problem : you mean that when you "invent" something, you mustn't do a prior art or already patented research and just rely on depositing your own patent and leave the system handle the rest (at your own cost) or just sell you product, jeopardizing a future patent infringement ?

Devs aren't recommended to read patents for prior art search. Lawyers can though, I'd think. So the companies that can afford to have lawyers on hand have an advantage over those that don't.

The system keeps lawyers employed, keeping them out of political life for a while. Don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Reply Parent Score: 5