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'.
Thread beginning with comment 567729
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why
by Soulbender on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 17:04 UTC in reply to "Why"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

To invalidate a patent, you have to read it. If you read a patent and CANNOT invalidate it, you may now be in willful infringement, which triples the damages.


That's just...fucking INSANE. Please, for the love of all that is holy, that can not be how it works. Did the devil design the patent system? Ok, that's perfectly possible that he did but that's still crazy even for the devil.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Why
by Carewolf on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 18:46 in reply to "RE: Why"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

No, it is not true. It more than triples the damages. Being in good faith by never reading patents EVER is much more valuable than that. Remember if you did a patent search and did not find the patent, you have to prove you didn't find it (not so easy). So it is better never to do a patent search at all.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Why
by Kochise on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 09:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Why"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

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 ?

It leaves me quite puzzled. Patent system explained by Dolph Lundgren :

"-I come in peace...
-You'll leave in pieces !"

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Why
by JLF65 on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 18:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Why"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

This craziness is why patents don't fit the software industry. Most devs NEVER look for or at patents in their field at the behest of their company, so they routinely "reinvent" the solutions every day. If so many people can reinvent something without access to the patents, the things they cover shouldn't be patent-worthy. Some people may point to things like MP3 as complex software deserving of a patent, then I'll point to a reinvention in the same complexity, not violating the patents, and unpatented itself - Ogg-Vorbis. Programmers will make the most complex software you can imagine for reasons that have nothing to do with patent protection, fully aware that the lifespan of their invention may be as small as six months. That's why big software houses have patent lawyers filing for patents instead of the engineers.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Why
by kwan_e on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 03:08 in reply to "RE: Why"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Did the devil design the patent system?


Even worse: it was designed by committee.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Why
by orfanum on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 11:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Why"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

The committee members being Satan, Beelzebub and Baphomet, chaired by Mammon.

Reply Parent Score: 6