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 567737
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why
by Carewolf on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 18:46 UTC 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[4]: Why
by kwan_e on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 11:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Why"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

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

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[4]: Why
by Kochise on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 20:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Why"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Yeap, either it's just an application of mathematics and/or common sense. So in fact patents are just rewarding the first who filled the patent and de facto providing him with a monopolistic position. Thankfully, there is a twist to the patent system, what is called "fair use", you know, the stuff that allows a third party to "license" the technology at a bargain price.

There is patents, and copyrights. The later the worst. Disney characters should soon fall into the public domain ? Not so fast, let's trick the system, make new laws being voted, extend the copyright duration, etc... Even already public domain stuffs has been recently re-copyrighted due to these "extensions" that do not benefit the author's grandchilds, just the majors (music, books, ...)

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 5