FARK.com: (7445654) US patent chief to software patent critics: stop hitting me

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		US patent chief to software patent critics: stop hitting me (arstechnica.com)		15
		More: Unlikely, Trademark Office, midgets, business method patents, u.s. patent, AIA

• • •

4393 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Nov 2012 at 11:03 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7445654

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

Voting Results (Smartest)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results (Smartest or Funniest) or Return to comments

Archived thread

tgambitg		2012-11-21 12:22:11 PM

4 votes:

Ugh hit enter too fast... Anyway... What it's describing is this in electronic form:

img0.etsystatic.com

Imagine the little nub as the 'unlock image'... You maintain continuous contact with it, you interact with it to unlock, and you move it from a first predefined location, to a predefined unlock region.

Take out the words electronic device, and touch sensitive, and it's the same damn thing.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER		2012-11-21 01:26:23 PM

2 votes:

FTFA: "In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.

That's the very definition of broken.

Bender The Offender		2012-11-21 12:45:27 PM

2 votes:

Theaetetus: Evil Twin Skippy: The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

This isn't correct. Patents don't cost any more to hold now than they did in the '90s, beyond some very minor increases in maintenance fees to keep pace with inflation. You certainly don't litigators to hold a patent.
Now, to enforce a patent, you need some litigators, and yes, a couple guys in a garage can't really afford to front that cost... if only there were things like law firm contingency fees, or patent brokers, or lawsuit investors, or other such ways to pay for litigation, but since you have to pay every penny up front, I guess a tiny company like i4i can never afford to sue a giant company like Microsoft.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating.

That's not the intent of the patent system at all. It's all about encouraging public disclosure of inventions by eliminating the disincentives that encourage companies to keep trade secrets. And that's the same for small inventors and big industrialists.

At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

... and? Who's going to spend half a million dollars to sue a guy making $50k from products he builds in his garage? Patent damages aren't punitive... the most you can get are 100% royalties, and in reality, you're going to be closer to 1%. Is DuPont really going to send a lawyer after you for $500? And, at that point, wouldn't you just pay it for a full license, knowing that they can't ever come after you again?

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"
6 months.
A year.
How much are you willing to spend to keep spreading this FUD?

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled.

Why should one industry be exempt from patentability, even for the most novel and nonobvious invention in the world?

There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past.

Bet you don't know what that reason is, or why it doesn't apply anymore.

There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

What you don't realize is that the exact same argument has come up dozens of times in the past - airplanes are invented, and someone says "the entire airplane patent system needs to be dismantled." Television is invented, and someone says "the entire broadcasting patent system needs to be dismantled." Assembly line automation is invented, and someone says "the entire mechanical patent system needs to be dismantled." Why should computers be magically exempt?

I'll take " things that a patent lawyer tells themself to delude themself into thinking that they are useful and needed, not just a festering fecal-encrusted boil on the taint of society" for 200 Alex.

tgambitg		2012-11-21 12:10:03 PM

2 votes:

He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.

That right there is why it's broken you jackass....

"Our patent system is the envy of the world," Kappos said.

No, it's the laughing stock of the world as it currently functions. When it was first introduced, it was the envy.

Yes, we DO need qa patent system. I think we need to make it harder to get a patent for as much protection that it gives. And make it so ONLY individuals can own them, not corporations. And that they can't be transferred easily. With mandatory mediation before lawsuits. Removal of all software patents. This 'obvious idea that is in no way novel' and sticking 'on a computer/smartphone' (I'm looking at you, slide-to-unlock), needs to stop.

Evil Twin Skippy		2012-11-21 11:57:15 AM

2 votes:

nmrsnr: The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.

The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating. At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled. There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past. There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

fluffy2097		2012-11-21 11:49:11 AM

2 votes:

"Give it a rest already. Give the AIA a chance to work. Give it a chance to even get started."

If we give it a rest, you'll keep farking taking money to ignore the problem.

The ONLY way to get your lazy bribed ass to lift a farking finger is to hold a metaphorical gun to your head, and even THAT might not work.

imashark		2012-11-21 11:35:06 AM

2 votes:

I care about as much for the opinion of the head of the patent examiner's office right now like a fart in in a tornado.

Especially since he "...served in a variety of roles before taking his last position at IBM, including intellectual property law attorney in IBM's Storage Division and Litigation group, IP Law Counsel in IBM's Software Group, assistant general counsel for IBM Asia/Pacific, IBM Corporate Counsel and assistant general counsel. Kappos served on the Board of Directors of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and the International Intellectual Property Society." Link

//You're part of the problem, buddy

ProfessorOhki		2012-11-21 02:11:54 PM

1 votes:

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: FTFA: "In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.

That's the very definition of broken.

If not 'broken', then at least out-dated or insufficient. "This suit of armor can't stop a rifle round, but it's perfectly effective against arrows," let's outfit the Marines with them.

roc6783: I guess you are correct, it says hand-held device rather than computer.

That latch stuck to a piece of wood IS a "hand-held device," given sufficiently small wood.

The Voice of Doom		2012-11-21 12:55:03 PM

1 votes:

Theaetetus
that actually does describe a physical latch pretty well.[..] However, you're ignoring 95% of the limitations in the claim

From what you've removed, one can sum up those limitations pretty good:
"on a computer"

Well, "on a touchscreen".
Pardon me: "on a touch sensitive device" or someone could get away with using a notebook's touchpad instead of wiggling the mouse to wake up the notebook or make the screensaver disappear.

poisonedpawn78		2012-11-21 12:43:50 PM

1 votes:

So there is your answer to why this has gotten out of control. Someone let a patent troll RUN the patent office.

fluffy2097		2012-11-21 12:27:15 PM

1 votes:

Theaetetus: Durr.

you could replace every one of Theaetetus's posts with just that one word and nothing of value would be lost.

He's the new Linux_Yes.

How you doin Linux_Yes? You've really mellowed out lately.

nmrsnr		2012-11-21 12:14:54 PM

1 votes:

Evil Twin Skippy: nmrsnr: The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.

The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating. At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled. There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past. There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

I kind of see your point on barrier to entry, but I think the bigger problem is the speed of technology vs. the lifetime of the patent. Think back to the late 19th century, the first internal combustion engine that we'd recognize as essentially a car engine was invented around 1860. Nobody would question their right to patent the 4 stroke engine, but by the time Ford got around to mass producing them around 1900 any patent on a basic internal combustion engine would have well expired. Whereas today the analogy would be the guys invent he 4 stroke engine and now Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, etc. all have to license their hybrid cars to them because while technology has progressed leaps and bounds, the patent hasn't expired yet on the all-encompassing base patent.