News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on White House responds to Patent Petition. Parent comment

Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by JVerstry on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @02:04PM (#3183288)
Have you actually read this document (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-2841.pdf)? Because it gives clear guidelines applicable to new and existing patents. It DOES cover most issues raised against software patents. It CLEARLY provides means to defend against crap and broad patents. Meaning: unscrupulous lawyers and trolls WON'T be able to play on ambiguities anymore. Presumption of validity is worth zero against most cases covered by this document. Just read it, because it could put a smile of your face !!!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by brlewis on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @02:24PM (#3183382)
I had not read that. Thank you. Those guidelines, if followed, will address some issues with software patents, but not the problems I mentioned. This is understandable, because the problems I mentioned are intractable.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by jheriko on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @01:29AM (#3185574)
The key problem you mention, of not having enough specialist knowledge, applies to /all/ patents. Actually, like every other field, 99% of engineers will understand 99% of patents. The specialist areas are the small minority. I'm sure I can find 100 UI or web patents for every sound or graphics one... for instance. So I agree this is an intractable problem, but I disagree that its a serious one...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by brlewis on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @08:08AM (#3186290)
It's not a problem of understanding the patents. The problem is determining novelty and non-obviousness. There are so many open-source jQuery plugins coming out all the time that a web/UI patent's novelty is going to be very hard to determine. Similarly, this ongoing flood of progress will help give new ideas to ordinary skilled programmers, rendering lots of potential "inventions" obvious.

I still contend that this is a serious problem in a legal system that includes presumption of validity.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by john_b on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @02:50PM (#3183515)
I only had time to briefly skim this, but I didn't catch anything about reforming the compensation system for patent examiners, which incentivizes the granting of patents without giving them sufficient review. Anyone else find any info of this nature in the PDF?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by JVerstry on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @03:02PM (#3183581)
This is not the purpose of this document.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by raphman on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @04:56PM (#3184105)
What are these incentives?

(I recently learned that examiners at the European Patent Office have no direct incentives for granting a patent and may internally bill more working time if they reject a patent application instead. However, as rejecting an application requires a lot more research than granting a patent, examiners still might have an incentive to just grant a patent.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House responds to Patent Petition by dhume on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @05:02PM (#3184129)
From what I've heard, it's combination of time restrictions for reviewing a patent and penalizing rejections that later get overturned when the applicant appeals the decision.
[ Parent | on HN ]