They pointed this out on NPR's Planet Money.  If you were going to build a smart phone, you would need to apply or pay for nearly 200,000 patents, hence the reason all this patent lawsuit crap is never ending.

FTFA:

so it doesn't look like Cupertino will be letting this go any time soon.

Of course they won't. So fark 'em.

Not "patent judge", Subby, but an Examiner at the USPTO.

Theaetetus: Not "patent judge", Subby, but an Examiner at the USPTO.

Good thing that guy has civil service protections, otherwise he'd be gone.  They're SUPPOSED to close their eyes, approve the patent, and let the patent lawyers sort it out at $1000 an hour.

stuhayes2010: They pointed this out on NPR's Planet Money.  If you were going to build a smart phone, you would need to apply or pay for nearly 200,000 patents, hence the reason all this patent lawsuit crap is never ending.

Which is why it seems like public sentiment, the courts, maybe now the patent office and even some major competitors are leaning the other way these days. Going 'thermonuclear war' on the patent bullshiat is just bad business these days. Apple  will be the last company to see it that way.

Marcus Aurelius: Theaetetus: Not "patent judge", Subby, but an Examiner at the USPTO.

Good thing that guy has civil service protections, otherwise he'd be gone.  They're SUPPOSED to close their eyes, approve the patent, and let the patent lawyers sort it out at $1000 an hour.

Since there's around a 95% rejection rate on patent applications, they're apparently all doing it wrong, then.

So uh...how do you win damages from a violation of a patent that hadn't even been issued? Or was it issued then reviewed again? I'm obviously ignorant of the inner workings of that office.

Theaetetus: Not "patent judge", Subby, but an Examiner at the USPTO.

not to be too pedantic but examiners as reexaminations now are handled by a group of three examiners who all must be primaries

HotWingConspiracy: So uh...how do you win damages from a violation of a patent that hadn't even been issued? Or was it issued then reviewed again? I'm obviously ignorant of the inner workings of that office.

The latter - patent was issued by USPTO; Apple filed suit in California; Samsung filed a request with the USPTO to reexamine the patent; Apple wins suit; USPTO rejects patent in reexam.

Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: So uh...how do you win damages from a violation of a patent that hadn't even been issued? Or was it issued then reviewed again? I'm obviously ignorant of the inner workings of that office.

The latter - patent was issued by USPTO; Apple filed suit in California; Samsung filed a request with the USPTO to reexamine the patent; Apple wins suit; USPTO rejects patent in reexam.

Gotcha.

So say Samsung had already paid out on that trial, and then this new ruling dropped. Would they have any recourse to recover their money?

sdd2000: Theaetetus: Not "patent judge", Subby, but an Examiner at the USPTO.

not to be too pedantic but examiners as reexaminations now are handled by a group of three examiners who all must be primaries

True dat.

HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: So uh...how do you win damages from a violation of a patent that hadn't even been issued? Or was it issued then reviewed again? I'm obviously ignorant of the inner workings of that office.

The latter - patent was issued by USPTO; Apple filed suit in California; Samsung filed a request with the USPTO to reexamine the patent; Apple wins suit; USPTO rejects patent in reexam.

Gotcha.

So say Samsung had already paid out on that trial, and then this new ruling dropped. Would they have any recourse to recover their money?

Having exhausted all their appeals? Probably not. It may not be the equitable decision, but it's the pragmatic one - say you sue someone for patent infringement on day one when the patent issues, and there's a lightning fast trial and you win and they pay out within a year... then, say, 15 years later, you sue someone else for patent infringement and  they file the reexamination request and the patent is invalidated. Should that first person be able to come after you, 15 years later? Should you have been required to sit on their cash in an escrow account until the patent expired before you could spend it?

Generally, once a judgement is final (having exhausted or waived all your appeals), you're liable and have no recourse, regardless of what happens further.

That said, it's not as shocking as you'd think - Samsung can stay their appeal pending the outcome of the reexamination, so it's not like they're the party in that hypothetical above - and honestly, that hypothetical, while theoretically possible, probably never occurs, since the initial party would request reexamination and stay their appeals.

HotWingConspiracy: So say Samsung had already paid out on that trial

I would be flabbergasted if they had already paid that judgement. Even the reduced amount.

Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: So uh...how do you win damages from a violation of a patent that hadn't even been issued? Or was it issued then reviewed again? I'm obviously ignorant of the inner workings of that office.

The latter - patent was issued by USPTO; Apple filed suit in California; Samsung filed a request with the USPTO to reexamine the patent; Apple wins suit; USPTO rejects patent in reexam.

Gotcha.

So say Samsung had already paid out on that trial, and then this new ruling dropped. Would they have any recourse to recover their money?

Having exhausted all their appeals? Probably not. It may not be the equitable decision, but it's the pragmatic one - say you sue someone for patent infringement on day one when the patent issues, and there's a lightning fast trial and you win and they pay out within a year... then, say, 15 years later, you sue someone else for patent infringement and  they file the reexamination request and the patent is invalidated. Should that first person be able to come after you, 15 years later? Should you have been required to sit on their cash in an escrow account until the patent expired before you could spend it?

Generally, once a judgement is final (having exhausted or waived all your appeals), you're liable and have no recourse, regardless of what happens further.

That said, it's not as shocking as you'd think - Samsung can stay their appeal pending the outcome of the reexamination, so it's not like they're the party in that hypothetical above - and honestly, that hypothetical, while theoretically possible, probably never occurs, since the initial party would request reexamination and stay their appeals.

Righto, makes sense.

Theaetetus: Marcus Aurelius: Theaetetus: Not "patent judge", Subby, but an Examiner at the USPTO.

Good thing that guy has civil service protections, otherwise he'd be gone.  They're SUPPOSED to close their eyes, approve the patent, and let the patent lawyers sort it out at $1000 an hour.

Since there's around a 95% rejection rate on patent applications, they're apparently all doing it wrong, then.

And I bet the 95% they reject are real doozies.

Good. Patents are not supposed to be about meaningless shiat "we patented the circle!".

nocturnal001: Good. Patents are not supposed to be about meaningless shiat "we patented the circle!".

In this case it was a bouncy ball.

nocturnal001: Good. Patents are not supposed to be about meaningless shiat "we patented the circle!".


You know... for kids!

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: Good. Patents are not supposed to be about meaningless shiat "we patented the circle!".

[aoghs.org image 475x297]
You know... for kids!

I understand figures 1 and 5 (well, no, I don't understand that bizarre skirt in figure 1). I think I understand figure 4. But what the heck are figures 2 and 3 illustrating? Wormholes?

I don't really "get" the patent system. I understand it serves to protect invention and innovation. The stuff that winds up in court doesn't really seem like legitimate innovation, though. I feel like it's at a point where it's starting to stifle the process it was originally designed to support. But like I said, I don't really "get" it so whatever. It just works!

casual disregard: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: Good. Patents are not supposed to be about meaningless shiat "we patented the circle!".

[aoghs.org image 475x297]
You know... for kids!

I understand figures 1 and 5 (well, no, I don't understand that bizarre skirt in figure 1). I think I understand figure 4. But what the heck are figures 2 and 3 illustrating? Wormholes?

Cross sections.

I don't really "get" the patent system. I understand it serves to protect invention and innovation. The stuff that winds up in court doesn't really seem like legitimate innovation, though. I feel like it's at a point where it's starting to stifle the process it was originally designed to support. But like I said, I don't really "get" it so whatever. It just works!

Bear in mind that, by definition, a patent can't end up in court until after it's issued, and it can't be issued until after it's examined, and it can't be examined until it's sat through the backlog at the patent office... So any patent you're seeing in court is, by definition, "old" technology, which means it's going to look obvious in hindsight because we've all been using it for years.

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: Good. Patents are not supposed to be about meaningless shiat "we patented the circle!".

[aoghs.org image 475x297]
You know... for kids!

Excellent reference.

casual disregard: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: Good. Patents are not supposed to be about meaningless shiat "we patented the circle!".

[aoghs.org image 475x297]
You know... for kids!

I understand figures 1 and 5 (well, no, I don't understand that bizarre skirt in figure 1). I think I understand figure 4. But what the heck are figures 2 and 3 illustrating? Wormholes?

I don't really "get" the patent system. I understand it serves to protect invention and innovation. The stuff that winds up in court doesn't really seem like legitimate innovation, though. I feel like it's at a point where it's starting to stifle the process it was originally designed to support. But like I said, I don't really "get" it so whatever. It just works!

There are two (I don't think more than 2) types of patents. Utility patents and design patents.  Utility patents cover the way things actualy work (how a microchip does the 1s and 0s maybe) where a design patent is about, well design.  Utility patents are very "strong" and provide solid protection.  Design patents are more vague and I think these are part of the patent troll bread and butter.

edit, looked it up and there are also plant patents that cover plant hybrids

I wonder if that juror who tainted the previous trial still has all his AAPL stock.

nocturnal001: Utility patents are very "strong" and provide solid protection.  Design patents are more vague and I think these are part of the patent troll bread and butter.

Actually, other way around... Most of the patent trolling is with utility patents. Design patents are stronger (and tougher to invalidate), but much, much narrower: you pretty much have to have something that looks exactly like what's in the pictures, or you don't infringe, so there's none of this "I came up with an invention 15 years ago for transferring media, and now I'mma sue Youtube."
Design patents are typically used when it's not a troll, but a developer or manufacturer who makes a product, and a counterfeiter or knock-off maker comes along and tries to make a cheap look-alike version. They're basically the same as trade dress in scope, except that a design patent has to be novel and nonobvious, but doesn't have to be well recognized by consumers, while trade dress is the opposite. But both cover a specific look and feel and are usually applied against a direct counterfeiting competitor.

 
etc.

lewismarktwo: I wonder if that juror who tainted the previous trial still has all his AAPL stock.

I wonder if that English judge who forced Apple to post a public apology to Samsung is still employed by Samsung.

Theaetetus: lewismarktwo: I wonder if that juror who tainted the previous trial still has all his AAPL stock.

I wonder if that English judge who forced Apple to post a public apology to Samsung is still employed by Samsung.

So how much AAPL do you own?

lewismarktwo: Theaetetus: lewismarktwo: I wonder if that juror who tainted the previous trial still has all his AAPL stock.

I wonder if that English judge who forced Apple to post a public apology to Samsung is still employed by Samsung.

So how much AAPL do you own?

None, actually. How much 005930 do you own? Or is this some new sort of one-sided "shill" trolling?

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: Utility patents are very "strong" and provide solid protection.  Design patents are more vague and I think these are part of the patent troll bread and butter.

Actually, other way around... Most of the patent trolling is with utility patents. Design patents are stronger (and tougher to invalidate), but much, much narrower: you pretty much have to have something that looks exactly like what's in the pictures, or you don't infringe, so there's none of this "I came up with an invention 15 years ago for transferring media, and now I'mma sue Youtube."
Design patents are typically used when it's not a troll, but a developer or manufacturer who makes a product, and a counterfeiter or knock-off maker comes along and tries to make a cheap look-alike version. They're basically the same as trade dress in scope, except that a design patent has to be novel and nonobvious, but doesn't have to be well recognized by consumers, while trade dress is the opposite. But both cover a specific look and feel and are usually applied against a direct counterfeiting competitor.

[www.toptenz.net image 400x299] [media.onsugar.com image 550x290]
etc.

Really, hmm.

I guess I've been thinking of it in terms of aquiring a patent.  My limited knowledge of the whole thing is based on working with a lawyer many years ago while attempting to patent something.  Perhaps I'm mixing up the strength of a patent with the ease of aquiring the patent.  Now that I am typing it out, I think that is exactly what I was doing.

Good stuff.

nocturnal001: Perhaps I'm mixing up the strength of a patent with the ease of aquiring the patent.  Now that I am typing it out, I think that is exactly what I was doing.

True dat... Design patents are very, very easy to get, but that's because they're also so narrow. I make a Coke bottle design, you make a Pepsi bottle design... My design patent isn't invalidated by your bottle design, but you also don't infringe it, and vice versa. To invalidate one, the prior art has to be confusingly similar... and conversely, to infringe, you have to be confusingly similar. So, in practice, they're wicked cheap and easy, but will only stop counterfeiters and knockoffs.

... which is not a terrible outcome, honestly.

Same absurdly misleading lie in every thread.  Yes, most patents are 'initially rejected'.  It's part of the game of examiner/tards trying to slow down the process because they have no concept of how to evaluate actual innovation.  Allowance rate is like 60% and rising, even as the number of blindingly obvious interferences increases.  It's pathetic.

Bacontastesgood: Same absurdly misleading lie in every thread.  Yes, most patents are 'initially rejected'.

... so, as you admit, absolutely correct and not a lie at all. Thanks for your verification.

And before you sputter and have that vein on your forehead get all bulgy, the point is that contrary to the repeated assertions of people like you, Examiners don't simply rubber-stamp patent applications as allowed. If over 90% of applications are initially rejected, as you admit, then there's no rubber-stamping going on... or if there is, it's a big fat "rejected" stamp.

It's part of the game of examiner/tards trying to slow down the process because they have no concept of how to evaluate actual innovation.

Or, because (i) the Examiners understand the law, unlike you, and realize that their job is to issue substantive rejections supported by evidence, and (ii) practitioners attempt to file the broadest possible claims initially, with the expectation that they'll be rejected, because it's always possible to narrow a claim but not always possible to expand one.
This reduces the amount of needless continuations and overly narrow patents, which I would think that someone like you would appreciate. Or you would, if you had any understanding of what was actually going on.

Allowance rate is like 60% and rising, even as the number of blindingly obvious interferences increases.  It's pathetic.

You're right, you are pathetic:
FY2007 - 59 interferences
FY2008 - 66 interferences
FY2009 - 55 interferences
FY2010 - 52 interferences
FY2011 - 64 interferences
FY2012 - 56 interferences
See, unlike your earlier "absurdingly misleading lie," this one actually  is false, as shown by the actual data.

Shiat, you want to reach back even farther?
FY99 - 91 interferences
FY00 - 136 interferences
FY01 - 124 interferences
FY02 - 109 interferences
That's right. Contrary to your assertion, the numbers of interferences have dropped by more than half since a decade ago, and now hold steady at around 50-60 per year.

... which raises a more fundamental point: who the fark cares? Why the fark did you bring up interferences? There are over half a million applications filed a year, and interferences amount to .01% of those. Talk about a red herring. Or, if I was to be less charitable, talk about an  absurdingly misleading lie.

Sorry that your being an incompetent bothers you so much.  Leaving out the word 'initially' makes it a lie.   Half of patents are granted, that's the fact, you were trying to mislead people as you have so many times before to make it sound more like examiners are capable of doing anything.  The number of interfering inventions is thousands of times more than what end up in interference proceedings.  Anyone can figure out the reality here, but your job here is to obscure as much as possible because your career depends on the crap system continuing.  I have more respect for used car salesmen, at least they know when someone is onto their shtick and stop trying to bs and just move on to the next customer.