News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Abstract Ideas Don’t Deserve Patents. Parent comment

Re:Abstract Ideas Don’t Deserve Patents by EGreg on Sunday March 30, 2014 @11:22PM (#7499407)
Chuck, if experts in their narrow field, such as myself, do not always know all the state of the art everywhere, what hope do the employees of the patent office have, who aren't experts in all narrow fields?

Why does it cost more to for the patent office to find out if there is an existing parent than there is to get one granted? Explain that one!

In short, we are getting more or less a coin toss when it comes to patents being granted. And then the cost shifts to legal proceedings, and sadly the threat of these proceedings causes many innovative startups to settle BEFORE any trial. The trolls then cite their success in obtaining licensees as they go and intimidate more small victims in a legal racket.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Abstract Ideas Don’t Deserve Patents by ChuckMcM on Monday March 31, 2014 @12:09AM (#7499560) 

   > In short, we are getting more or less a coin toss 
   > when it comes to patents being granted. And then the 
   > cost shifts to legal proceedings, and sadly the threat 
   > of these proceedings causes many innovative startups to 
   > settle BEFORE any trial. The trolls then cite their 
   > success in obtaining licensees as they go and 
   > intimidate more small victims in a legal racket.
I think we need a bit more evidence before we can make (or accept) the claim that granting a patent is a 'coin toss' (which for me implies that all patents are equally likely to be granted regardless of merit). My experience is that the number of "stupid" patents being issued, especially software patents, has consistently been reducing. Further the scrutiny that later software patents of which I'm familiar (two at Google, one at Blekko) were given a much more thorough going over than earlier patents I've been a part of. I attribute that to three things, one the number of examiners who are aware of modern technology is rising, two the image of the 'non practicing entity' as a leech is becoming accepted, and three politicians who supported a dysfunctional system have been made to look silly. All of those put pressure on the system to be better, as not to make people look silly or facilitate legal predation on small business.

Part of the reason this is coming to a head now is because we're at the opening of the great unravelling. The dot com boom, and the software patent equivalent of the Cambrian explosion occurred starting in 1995. The 20 year anniversary of which, and the maximum lifetime of any post GATT patent[1], is 2015. We will be seeing upwards of 10,000 patents a month expiring and that is only going to get faster. This leads to desperation on the part of NPEs to get some value out of their patent portfolio before it goes poof. Unlike copyright there will be lots and lots and lots of things that not only can you use them for 'free' but they won't be biting you in the behind later.

[1] http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/05/how-many-us-patents-are-...

[2] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm

[ Parent | on HN ]