Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Jul 2011 21:34 UTC, submitted by sb56637
Legal Blah blah Apple whines about a bunch of software patents again. Go cry in a corner, Jobs. Either find a strategy that counters the rise of Android, or just suck it up and be a man about it. Oh, HTC is the target this time around. Again. Whatever.
Thread beginning with comment 480389
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ..good !!
by kaiwai on Tue 12th Jul 2011 07:00 UTC in reply to "..good !!"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Which makes me wonder whether there should be a limit of 3 months - you have 3 months to file a claim against a company and their products whom you think have violated their patents, failure to do so means that you're not allowed to sue that company. Then add onto of that products must ship within 6 months of the patent being filed and the failure to do so will mean said technology goes into public domain (people who generate patents that don't result in products in the marketplace will cease milking the system).

Those two I believe will resolve the issue but I doubt it'll happen.

Edited 2011-07-12 07:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ..good !!
by vodoomoth on Tue 12th Jul 2011 08:46 in reply to "RE: ..good !!"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

It won't happen because it's not practical:

1- you can't know everything of all products that may infringe upon your patents, even with the best will and the best "watchers" monitoring the industry's, activities, publications, releases, product launches, etc.
2- afaik, the time needed for having a patent granted after the filing is not constant and as such, it can't be predicted when the patent will be obtained. Thus, you can't reckon with that filing-granting time and plan product shipping ahead.
3- even if reason 2 could be dismissed/solves/bypassed/or else, the time to market a patented "thing" might take more time than the six months you suggest: what about very small teams in startup companies? Think about a brand new technique for frequency decomposition invented by one person. Finding the funding, raising money, convincing investors, hiring people, coordinating developments into a product with a high-enough quality to not look like crap in these ever-demanding times we're living in... that would take more time than a few months, probably years, even with an unlimited supply of money. The situation might well be even more complicated in case it takes a prototype or working artifact to apply for a patent (can someone confirm this?)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: ..good !!
by JAlexoid on Tue 12th Jul 2011 22:25 in reply to "RE[2]: ..good !!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

3- even if reason 2 could be dismissed/solves/bypassed/or else, the time to market a patented "thing" might take more time than the six months you suggest: what about very small teams in startup companies?

Let me quote my newest acquaintance in the IP law profession: Startup companies don't have time and money to file for a patent. In US actual costs of filing are in $X0'000(tens of thousands) and in EU, slightly cheaper, at over €10'000.

Think about a brand new technique for frequency decomposition invented by one person. Finding the funding, raising money, convincing investors, hiring people, coordinating developments into a product with a high-enough quality to not look like crap in these ever-demanding times we're living in... that would take more time than a few months, probably years, even with an unlimited supply of money.


The patents that I reviewed in 2006 and 2007 have only just been granted in US. And that is for a major US corporation with basically an army of patent lawyers on it's retainer.

The situation might well be even more complicated in case it takes a prototype or working artifact to apply for a patent (can someone confirm this?)

There is no need for a working prototype.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ..good !!
by elsewhere on Wed 13th Jul 2011 02:12 in reply to "RE: ..good !!"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Which makes me wonder whether there should be a limit of 3 months - you have 3 months to file a claim against a company and their products whom you think have violated their patents, failure to do so means that you're not allowed to sue that company. Then add onto of that products must ship within 6 months of the patent being filed and the failure to do so will mean said technology goes into public domain (people who generate patents that don't result in products in the marketplace will cease milking the system).


There is the concept of laches, which is sometimes used as a defense against submarine patents, that is similar to what you're suggesting. That is, if a patent holder sits on a patent knowing that it is being infringed and waiting for an optimum time to strike and maximize their return, they could very well lose their right to receive relief for that infringement.

It's not as straight-forward and clear cut as trademark law (protect it or lose it), and the time frames are in years and not months, but at least the conceptual framework is there and has been applied by the courts in the past.

But I don't think that will change anything either.

Reply Parent Score: 2