How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent

Re:How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent by CamperBob2 on Sunday August 12, 2018 @05:52PM (#17746615)

Seems to me that intentional infringement should be the only path available to plaintiffs. If the next person who has the same problem arrives at a similar solution without needing to refer to the patent's teachings, then society arguably obtained no benefit from granting the first person a temporary monopoly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent by euyyn on Sunday August 12, 2018 @06:01PM (#17746660)

Hard to prove that I didn't read a document that is intentionally made publicly available.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent by CamperBob2 on Sunday August 12, 2018 @06:05PM (#17746682)

Very true, but that doesn't invalidate the point in the slightest.

Given that intentional infringement awards are trebled, plaintiffs have a huge incentive to accuse defendants of it. If any patent attorneys are reading this, can you cite any statistics regarding what percentage of cases end up with a finding of intentional infringement?

[ Parent | on HN ]