News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Stupid Patent of the Month: Microsoft’s Design Patent on a Slider. Parent comment

Re:Stupid Patent of the Month: Microsoft’s Design Patent on ... by tracker1 on Monday December 28, 2015 @11:29PM (#10805211)
Honestly, I'd just assume 90-95% of patents are outright rejected if they're too similar to existing concepts. Make the application fees cover real research, and leave it at that. Patents no longer protect the little guy, and they've actually been shown to be more harmful to the public lately (the opposite of the intended effect).

Design and process patents are ridiculous... most software patents are absurd. I work in software, and tbh, there's almost nothing I've seen in the past 20 years that doesn't specifically tie to a physical device in software that is deserving of patent protection, and even then not for 20 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stupid Patent of the Month: Microsoft’s Design Patent on ... by javajosh on Tuesday December 29, 2015 @12:32AM (#10805398)
>I'd just assume 90-95% of patents are outright rejected if they're too similar to existing concepts

I'm not sure how to look at this statistically, but isn't the OP a counter-example?

>Make the application fees cover real research

Not really sure what you mean here. How much is time worth?

Okay, so I have an invention right now that I think is really novel, and I'd like to build a business around it. I may just want to patent and license though. Roughly speaking, it might fit roughly in the "Mathematica" space - note the example of an inventor (Wolfram) making good money on his (software) invention! Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?

Here's another question: of all the innovation in the internet space, what, if anything, do you think is patentable? Is the Facebook feed novel? If nothing is, doesn't this leave the only businesses the ones that are social, the same ones that treat users as product not customers?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Stupid Patent of the Month: Microsoft’s Design Patent on ... by tracker1 on Tuesday December 29, 2015 @06:45PM (#10809848)
How it's supposed to work is for knowledge to advance... "useful arts and sciences" as the case may be. The real question becomes, would you still have created your "invention" without the patent system? Would you have enough of a first mover advantage to recoup your investment into the invention without the patent system.

The patent system is intended to allow for inventors to recoup investment and make money. It was started in a time where it would take literally years of R&D and a decade to even break even on hard, physical costs. Software and process ideas take minutes to come up with, and hours to develop... A single license/sale generally recovers any creative investment.

[ Parent | on HN ]