So, apparently Apple patented square?

[Trixie]

So from now on, anything with four corners in in violation of Apple patent. You can read the story here (http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners), just give your monitor good kick first into non-infringing shape to respect this piece of innovation :smallcool:

[Anarion]

Amusing, but I'd be surprised if it ends up being valuable. The article you linked points out that the patent would probably be invalidated if anyone ever sued over it, and I think that's probably right. I'd suggest that Apple's own prior designs render it invalid because Apple has been making devices of that shape for years and the Steve Jobs biography even calls it out as being his signature shape. If it was his signature shape at least 20 years ago, there's no way the patent is good.

On top of that, design patents only get infringed if an ordinary observer with knowledge of other similar products would be confused when selecting amongst competing products. And I doubt anyone is going to get confused just because a bunch of different devices are all shaped similarly. The ubiquitous nature of that design shape actually means that it's nigh-impossible to infringe and I'd personally only find an infringement if someone else made a device of the exact same proportions.

[Tonal Architect]

Why innovate, when you can litigate?

This patent sounds more than ridiculous.

[Acanous]

Most patents are ridiculous. Did you know that Medicinal Marajuana is patented by the US Government?

For serious. Look it up.

It's actually a stroke of fridge genius, as anyone using the excuse "For medicinal reasons" can still be shut down by the US Gov't. For copyright violation.

Edit: As an aside, I am reasonably certain one cannot copyright geometric shapes.
Brb copyrighting "Pentagon". :p

Also, when I first saw this thread title, I thought it was Apple and Squaresoft in a copyright dispute. Which would have been Awesome terrible.

[Anarion]

Most patents are ridiculous. Did you know that Medicinal Marajuana is patented by the US Government?

For serious. Look it up.

It's actually a stroke of fridge genius, as anyone using the excuse "For medicinal reasons" can still be shut down by the US Gov't. For copyright violation.

Edit: As an aside, I am reasonably certain one cannot copyright geometric shapes.
Brb copyrighting "Pentagon". :p

Also, when I first saw this thread title, I thought it was Apple and Squaresoft in a copyright dispute. Which would have been Awesome terrible.

For clarity, copyright refers to the ownership of creative works (generally artistic or literary works) while patents are for useful things like inventions or processes.

Apple here has a design patent, which is sort of borderline. You get design patents for the designs of industrial goods that are also useful. Useful designs can't be copyrighted because they serve a function in addition to being artistic.

[Trixie]

Amusing, but I'd be surprised if it ends up being valuable. The article you linked points out that the patent would probably be invalidated if anyone ever sued over it, and I think that's probably right.

Maybe. But on the other hand, seeing incompetent jury awarded non-existent damages (that even Apple agreed was invalid) to Apple in last trial I won't be holding my breath.


I'd suggest that Apple's own prior designs render it invalid because Apple has been making devices of that shape for years and the Steve Jobs biography even calls it out as being his signature shape. If it was his signature shape at least 20 years ago, there's no way the patent is good.

I'm pretty sure company's prior art can't be used to invalidate patent, otherwise being late with patenting anything would automatically kill that patent. Btw, US patents IIRC require the applying to supply all possible instances of prior art they are aware of. In case of Apple, that obviously had been at least all of their previous devices, and if patent was granted, these were not considered damaging prior art.


On top of that, design patents only get infringed if an ordinary observer with knowledge of other similar products would be confused when selecting amongst competing products. And I doubt anyone is going to get confused just because a bunch of different devices are all shaped similarly. The ubiquitous nature of that design shape actually means that it's nigh-impossible to infringe and I'd personally only find an infringement if someone else made a device of the exact same proportions.

Can you confuse these two devices (http://techcentral.my/archives/2012/10/25/it_news/SamsungApple2.jpg)? :smallconfused:

Because they have been ruled infringing already.

How about these two (http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4fb15a956bb3f72d31000000-400-300/according-to-apple-best-buy-told-samsung-that-its-customers-were-returning-galaxy-tab-tablets-because-they-realized-it-wasnt-an-ipad.jpg)? Never mind the iPad is 4:3 and designed to be held vertically, while Galaxy Tab is widescreen and has UI designed to be oriented horizontally (just look at logos - Apple is vertical on the back, Samsung's horizontal at the front, because devices will spend most time in that position). Guess what the verdict on this one was?

You know, had the iPhone looked like the prototype (http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5011df266bb3f76f13000006-590/theres-even-a-prototype-of-an-8-sided-iphone-that-was-never-released.jpg) I'd agree it is distinct design that could be patented due to its characteristic, one of a kind look. But when most Apple patents look like this (http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/slide-to-unlock-550x403.jpg), well... IMHO, patenting rectangle, or even rectangular device, then lying in the court about competitor when your 'design' is just border around the screen is definitely not ok. What is competition supposed to do, when different screen ratio and horizontal UI won't do? Make pentagonal tablets? Paint them neon pink just to be different?

[Anarion]

I'm pretty sure company's prior art can't be used to invalidate patent, otherwise being late with patenting anything would automatically kill that patent. Btw, US patents IIRC require the applying to supply all possible instances of prior art they are aware of. In case of Apple, that obviously had been at least all of their previous devices, and if patent was granted, these were not considered damaging prior art.



Can you confuse these two devices (http://techcentral.my/archives/2012/10/25/it_news/SamsungApple2.jpg)? :smallconfused:


This is a bit awkward, but I'm actually under a non disclosure agreement relating to this case, so I can't really respond to your points. It is okay to bring up that, in general, the above statement is wrong. All prior art can invalidate a patent including stuff from the same company. Courts review the stuff even if the PTO has looked at it, and it's a perfectly legitimate argument to say that the PTO made a mistake or missed something even though it was submitted to them.

[Yora]

Also, how can you patent something that is a rippoff of something that was designed 20 years earlier?

http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Star-Trek-PADD.jpg
See, rounded corners.

[Elemental]

That's just a waste of time. It's a shape. A shape with rounded corners.

Simply ridiculous.

[Trixie]

This is a bit awkward, but I'm actually under a non disclosure agreement relating to this case, so I can't really respond to your points.

Hmm, ok.


Also, how can you patent something that is a rippoff of something that was designed 20 years earlier?

http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Star-Trek-PADD.jpg
See, rounded corners.

Or this:


http://www.duhaime.org/Portals/duhaime/images/Sumerian_Beer-Tablet.jpg
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T389/PictographSumerian.jpg

Tablet with corners designed only 5200 years earlier :smallamused:

[Fragenstein]

Tablet with corners designed only 5200 years earlier :smallamused:

Not only that, but it's clearly a partial walkthrough of some early Super Mario level.

[Anarion]

For anyone that has some free time and wants to try and understand what's going on here, you should read the following case. It has basically all the background for how patents like this Apple rectangle work.


Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15514217710328300214&q=Egyptian+Goddess,+Inc.+v.+Swisa,+Inc.,+498+F.3d+ 1354&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&as_vis=1)

[Karoht]

I'm now going to patent the 5 platonic solids. And sue anyone who ever sold them, ever. Or related paraphenalia. Or any RPG system which uses them without my consent, which is all of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BluePlatonicDice.jpg
But I'll leave the D10 as free content. You know. To create the impression that I'm not completely heartless.

This exercise in absurdity is brought to you by the letter purple, the color 5, and today's shape is the dodecahedron.

EDIT:
Samsung needs to patent the 3 sided screen. Just to make Apple strongly consider blocking them by grabbing the patent for the 2 sided screen. And while Apple is wasting time on that, samsung will complete work on their top secret 21-sided screen!

Sorry, this topic needed more absurdity.

[Traab]

I'm now going to patent the 5 platonic solids. And sue anyone who ever sold them, ever. Or related paraphenalia. Or any RPG system which uses them without my consent, which is all of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BluePlatonicDice.jpg
But I'll leave the D10 as free content. You know. To create the impression that I'm not completely heartless.

This exercise in absurdity is brought to you by the letter purple, the color 5, and today's shape is the dodecahedron.

EDIT:
Samsung needs to patent the 3 sided screen. Just to make Apple strongly consider blocking them by grabbing the patent for the 2 sided screen. And while Apple is wasting time on that, samsung will complete work on their top secret 21-sided screen!

Sorry, this topic needed more absurdity.

"Introducing Samsungs new 21 sided monitor! When used in tandem with our 27 processor computers, it allows everyone in the family, (limit of 8 members) to use the computer at once! No longer must we argue over who gets to play what. Buy now! http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m95l5offqr1rvdroro2_1280.jpg

[Dr.Epic]

Will the game of baseball every be the same?

[Karoht]

Will the game of baseball every be the same?
Second Base moves a bit to the right.
Shortstop turns into Third Base.
Third Base turns into Fourth Base.
Home Plate is still Home Plate.
Foul lines remain as is.
Shorter distances between 1st-4th bases might equal more bases stolen.
And grand slam home run hits are WAY more damaging. Might be harder to 'load' 4 bases than it is three. Hard to say.

Makes less of a square and more of a gem shape diamond.

[Dr.Epic]

Second Base moves a bit to the right.
Shortstop turns into Third Base.
Third Base turns into Fourth Base.
Home Plate is still Home Plate.
Foul lines remain as is.

Makes less of a square and more of a gem shape diamond.

A-HA! We found a legal loophole! Turn all them squares a little bit to the side!

[Ravens_cry]

A-HA! We found a legal loophole! Turn all them squares a little bit to the side!
It worked for the Shreddies marketing team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shreddies#Canada).:smallamused:

[Karoht]

The bottom of the phone is usually rounded anyway.
Make the screen have a similar bottom edge.
3 sides and a curve?
Unthinkable said Apple.
And while they spend time in trying to sue for that, Samsung can respond by presenting their patent for that precise angle of curve.
And then sue for any road corners which follow such a curve.

By this point I'm sure that Anarion is probably getting rather upset with the absurdity being presented by someone who is ignorant about the legal system, so I'll stop.

[Anarion]

By this point I'm sure that Anarion is probably getting rather upset with the absurdity being presented by someone who is ignorant about the legal system, so I'll stop.

No, not all all. I was enjoying the humor. Don't let me stop you. :smallwink:

[Trixie]

Meanwhile, Apple invents something even more goundbreaking (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/16/tech/innovation/apple-page-turn-patent/)! :smallamused:

Prior art? What prior art? -.-

[Anarion]

Meanwhile, Apple invents something even more goundbreaking (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/16/tech/innovation/apple-page-turn-patent/)! :smallamused:

Prior art? What prior art? -.-

Hahaha. That patent actually looks to me like it's pretty good. The one they had for the bounce-back feature (where your screen pops back like a spring if you scroll past the end of a page) was super strong.

If you don't like the virtual page turn, you need to take the position that all software patents are bad and should never be granted (which, to be fair, might be true).

[Trixie]

Hahaha. That patent actually looks to me like it's pretty good. The one they had for the bounce-back feature (where your screen pops back like a spring if you scroll past the end of a page) was super strong.

Except, Linux was doing it only 6 years earlier...

Yes, it was obscure distribution GUI upgrade with group-designed feature, but it was there before any of Apple's efforts.


If you don't like the virtual page turn, you need to take the position that all software patents are bad and should never be granted (which, to be fair, might be true).

No. I'm on position that frivolous patents, like slide to unlock, or page turn, should never be awarded. That's not innovation, it's staking the obvious and it's patent-trolling at its worst. You want to patent something, find something really innovative, like at least at level of Microsoft's 'Metro' and 'Ribbon' attempts at redefine the UI, not something three year old child used 50 years ago, just in digital form.

[Traab]

Hahaha. That patent actually looks to me like it's pretty good. The one they had for the bounce-back feature (where your screen pops back like a spring if you scroll past the end of a page) was super strong.

If you don't like the virtual page turn, you need to take the position that all software patents are bad and should never be granted (which, to be fair, might be true).

Patenting software is one thing, I shouldnt be able to take a copy of the coding you designed and use it for my own profit, but if I come up with a different variation of the page turn, say it looks like a flurry of pages when you bend a paperback and let the pages slide past, then thats MY software design, not yours. What next, will they try to patent the hourglass icon that shows up when something is loading? Or better yet, "HEY! We thought of using monitors for our computers FIRST! (ok, we only patented the idea first, and just last week, but still) So knock it off you darn dirty thieves!"

[thubby]

im wondering if maybe its the shape combined with the size ratio.
i.e. you can't make something that is the size and shape of an ipad.

[Dr.Epic]

It worked for the Shreddies marketing team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shreddies#Canada).:smallamused:

That, or we just adjust two of the angles to be 91 and 89 degrees.

[TSGames]

I'm now going to patent the 5 platonic solids. And sue anyone who ever sold them, ever. Or related paraphenalia. Or any RPG system which uses them without my consent, which is all of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BluePlatonicDice.jpg
But I'll leave the D10 as free content. You know. To create the impression that I'm not completely heartless.


Forget the RPGs, you should sue the casinos! They've been making TONS OF MONEY® off of your patent for HUNDREDS OF YEARS®!!! Also, I own the copyright to that idea, so if you do sue the casinos for infringing on your patent, you have violated my IP and I expect compensation.

All contents of this post are copyrighted and not to be reproduced without express written consent as defined in form 246-12f, to be filled out and submitted in sextuplicate at least 6 weeks prior to the date requested for reproduction of the text. A 3 to 6 week turnaround should be expected. Also, the shape of this post is patented.

[Anarion]

Patenting software is one thing, I shouldnt be able to take a copy of the coding you designed and use it for my own profit, but if I come up with a different variation of the page turn, say it looks like a flurry of pages when you bend a paperback and let the pages slide past, then thats MY software design, not yours. What next, will they try to patent the hourglass icon that shows up when something is loading? Or better yet, "HEY! We thought of using monitors for our computers FIRST! (ok, we only patented the idea first, and just last week, but still) So knock it off you darn dirty thieves!"

So actually, you can't patent software code. You can copyright it, and if someone steals your exact code it's considered the same as Xeroxing somebody's book without asking permission.

The patent is for the thing it does, not the code that makes it do it. That's why I think it might be a fair idea to disallow all software patents. Getting a computer to make a pretty graphic or respond to a set of inputs in a certain way is not innovation in the classic sense and people would do it with or without a patent.


im wondering if maybe its the shape combined with the size ratio.
i.e. you can't make something that is the size and shape of an ipad.

Shhh, stop being rational, you'll ruin people's plans to take over the casinos.


Forget the RPGs, you should sue the casinos! They've been making TONS OF MONEY® off of your patent for HUNDREDS OF YEARS®!!! Also, I own the copyright to that idea, so if you do sue the casinos for infringing on your patent, you have violated my IP and I expect compensation.

All contents of this post are copyrighted and not to be reproduced without express written consent as defined in form 246-12f, to be filled out and submitted in sextuplicate at least 6 weeks prior to the date requested for reproduction of the text. A 3 to 6 week turnaround should be expected. Also, the shape of this post is patented.

I know you're joking, but I'm basically making it my personal mission to try and get people to at least use the terms correctly, so
1. You can't copyright an idea, ever.
2. You can't copyright short phrases
3. The little R in a circle is for registered trademarks, which are a totally different kind of intellectual property than either patents or copyrights.

[Traab]

Yeah I know, even though the difference was explained earlier on, I still get the two terms, copyright and patent, confused. Thats why im not a very good lawyer. Or a lawyer at all really.

[Trixie]

What next, will they try to patent the hourglass icon that shows up when something is loading?

Actually, Apple already did (http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/24/apple_awarded_dynamic_hybrid_cursor_utility_patent ) just that :smallamused:

Silly human, our patents will blot out the sun Celestia!

[Dr.Epic]

I'm just gonna patent the letters "P," "A," "T," "E," and "N." Then I'll win!:smallwink::smalltongue:

[Anarion]

I'm just gonna patent the letters "P," "A," "T," "E," and "N." Then I'll win!:smallwink::smalltongue:

Nah, you'll lose out to the cave man that holds the patent on "systems of communication whereby an implement is used to create symbols that convey sound or meaning."

[Dr.Epic]

Nah, you'll lose out to the cave man that holds the patent on "systems of communication whereby an implement is used to create symbols that convey sound or meaning."

Well then I'll just patent the part of the human brain designed for language and communication. Then I'll really win!:smallwink::smalltongue:

[grimbold]

this is almost as bad as the guy who patented the stick as a method to exercise dogs...

[Trixie]

im wondering if maybe its the shape combined with the size ratio.
i.e. you can't make something that is the size and shape of an ipad.


Shhh, stop being rational, you'll ruin people's plans to take over the casinos.

Rational? :smallconfused:

I'm sorry, I really don't see how 16:10 horizontal ratio is identical to 3:4 vertical. Can someone enlighten me?

They are so different that Apple had to defiantly photoshop both tablets (http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Apple+Caught+Photoshopping+Galaxy+Tab+101+t o+Look+Like+iPad+for+Lawsuit/article22459.htm) and phones (http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Caught+Using+Photoshop+to+Fake+More+Pics+in+ Lawsuits/article22500.htm) made by Samsung in order to make them similar to Apple products, including outright removal (http://sammyhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tab-ipad.jpg) of Samsung's horizontal logo (and, as you can see on the pic, they replaced Samsung's main UI with widgets with alternative vertical UI in another attempt to make it more similar to iPad) - and this somehow didn't caused Apple attempt to be immediately thrown out of the court and punitive damages slapped on them, it won them the case, in fact.

Maybe I'm just not rational, but if it's the case I'm not going to feel sorry for long.

[Story Time]

Maybe I'm just not rational[...]

...maybe you're speaking Trixiese? :smallbiggrin:

More seriously, why is it so important? Okay, this strange and moderately bad thing has happened, but, is focusing on it intently worth our time? Is there some lesson to be learned here about the quality, or lack there of, in the judicial persons and process that allowed the patent?

I don't mean to be rude or offensive. I...just want to ask the question. "Can we make a difference? If not, is thinking about these events the best use of our time?"

[Trixie]

Why bother? :smallconfused:

Maybe disliking Apple is my hobby, you know.

But seriously, one and only thing stopping companies from engaging in dubious and unethical behaviour is potential customers hearing about it and reacting to these. Maybe posting this on the forum won't change much, as you say...

But not posting it is indifference that won't solve anything, only will make matters worse. Maybe, just maybe, a lot of people pointing out to others that it is in our best interest to see world where people fight with inventions, not with troll lawsuits, is in out best interest.

Yes, pretty stupid hope, I know.

Otherwise, we will wake up in a world where we don't have choice, because big companies with troll patents can kick out any innovative startup out of business. And you know what? I actually saw such world. Up until 1989, my area of the world had only one brand of everything on the shelves, with competition being officially forbidden. Guess how cool these days were for potential customers?

One example - why sell chocolade bars, when you can have similar profit selling chocolate-like product made from margarine? I see Apple going in pretty much the same way (only with computers) with all speed they can muster, and I don't care for reliving the experience, TYVM.

[Dr.Epic]

this is almost as bad as the guy who patented the stick as a method to exercise dogs...

Yeah, I know. That guy totally forgot that wood already had a patent so he couldn't do that. Come on people! You got to think these things through1

[Anarion]

I'd like to be serious for a second. Thubby was being rational because that's the way the law works. The governments of most nations of the world have given them the right to sue other people that made designs similar to their designs.

Those same governments put a system in place to protect people's inventions and industrial designs and they made part of that system work by awarding legal rights and monopolies to people that file first unless someone else can show evidence that the invention or design isn't really new.

So, yeah, Apple got some pretty ridiculous-looking design patents. But a lot of lawyers got paid a lot of money to come up with any evidence that someone else had made similar designs. And they failed. If you think that's messed up you either need to argue that the whole system is messed up, or that somewhere along the way some people made really serious mistakes (judges, lawyers, patent examiners, all of the above).

If you don't think anyone messed up and you don't think the system is wrong, I don't get how you can argue that Apple is being bad.

[tyckspoon]

If you don't think anyone messed up and you don't think the system is wrong, I don't get how you can argue that Apple is being bad.

I happen to believe both are true- the system is designed to grant and protect incorrect patents, and the process of patent litigation allows for *staggering* amounts of both malfeasance and simple human error that grants such patents a value ridiculously greater than they could possibly truly be worth. I have absolutely no problem saying Apple is Doing It Wrong, along with nearly every other part of the patent system.

[Story Time]

Maybe disliking Apple is my hobby, you know.
[...]
I see Apple going in pretty much the same way (only with computers) with all speed they can muster, and I don't care for reliving the experience, TYVM.

Ah. I see. Maybe we should share notes. I don't really like the Apple legacy either.

If it'll put your mind at ease, I probably won't be buying any technology from that company. :smallsmile:

[Togath]

The view that such as thing as these patents is necessary is moronic.
A patent on a decorative design such as this is pointless, it would be like patenting a painting. in a similar note; would not patents like this encourage such idiocy as the patents on parts of the human genome!? Do humans truly wish to live in a world ruled by tyrants, and live without thinking as human sheep?
Order needs chaos to exist properly, some patents might prove to do some good some day, but their existence encourages many more people with dishonorable intents to create patents such as the ones this thread is about.

[Anarion]

I happen to believe both are true- the system is designed to grant and protect incorrect patents, and the process of patent litigation allows for *staggering* amounts of both malfeasance and simple human error that grants such patents a value ridiculously greater than they could possibly truly be worth. I have absolutely no problem saying Apple is Doing It Wrong, along with nearly every other part of the patent system.

Well, that's a totally fair stance. I think there is a lot of theoretical opposition and "sky if falling" fears from people that are invested in the continuation of the patent system, but if you got over that, you and I would agree that the whole system likely needs an overhaul.


The view that such as thing as these patents is necessary is moronic.
A patent on a decorative design such as this is pointless, it would be like patenting a painting. in a similar note; would not patents like this encourage such idiocy as the patents on parts of the human genome!? Do humans truly wish to live in a world ruled by tyrants, and live without thinking as human sheep?
Order needs chaos to exist properly, some patents might prove to do some good some day, but their existence encourages many more people with dishonorable intents to create patents such as the ones this thread is about.

Collective action problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action)

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Goofy patents; the "frivolous lawsuits" of the 2010s. Come 2018 and people will be sick of talking about it. You heard it here first, guys.

[Togath]

Goofy patents; the "frivolous lawsuits" of the 2010s. Come 2018 and people will be sick of talking about it. You heard it here first, guys.

ah, good point, with luck it'll end up like that

[lesser_minion]

As far as I'm aware, the US patent office is basically sitting at the bottom of a dogpile and has no hope in hell of actually inspecting a patent to verify that it's legitimate. It's basically assumed that that's acceptable because the courts (outside of Texas) will scrutinise a patent properly if it's ever used.

That said, large and reputable business companies generally have much better things to do with their time than the patent trolls.

[Zrak]

Considering that Apple made the argument that "tap to unlock" is a "slide to unlock" with a slide length of zero, I think the problem is not the lawyers failing to find evidence of a design feature existing prior to Apple's patent, but that Apple was able to successfully litigate based upon a patent that is too broad to be meaningful. It's arguable whose fault that is, but the point is less about Apple creating the design than it is the design patented being too generic to be reasonably enforced, yet being enforced nonetheless.

[Karoht]

Forget the RPGs, you should sue the casinos! They've been making TONS OF MONEY® off of your patent for HUNDREDS OF YEARS®!!! Also, I own the copyright to that idea, so if you do sue the casinos for infringing on your patent, you have violated my IP and I expect compensation.

All contents of this post are copyrighted and not to be reproduced without express written consent as defined in form 246-12f, to be filled out and submitted in sextuplicate at least 6 weeks prior to the date requested for reproduction of the text. A 3 to 6 week turnaround should be expected. Also, the shape of this post is patented.

Hey, if it gets me a cut of casino profits and RPG money, I'll gladly compensate.
While we are at it, we should sue for emotional trauma caused by the very idea that someone else was using those shapes without our permission or knowledge.
I feel violated knowing that my dice were in the hands of total strangers, being thrown around on tables or in randomizers or in cups. Ugh. How terrible.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I've decided that I need to patent innovation.

[Karoht]

I've decided that I need to patent innovation.I need to litigate your particular innovation as opposed to iterate on it further. :smallwink:

I need to place a patent on patenting things. Somehow this will solve all problems!

[Mikhailangelo]

U.S Patent law scares me.

As far as I'm aware though, we still have specific legislation over here that actually stops insane American copyright, corporate and patent law being argued in inter-jurisdictional disputes. I'm running off of possibly outdated hearsay on that one though - Private International Law isn't really my thing

[Anarion]

I need to place a patent on patenting things. Somehow this will solve all problems!

I hate to break it to you, but that one's already been filed. (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-patents-the-patent,11868.html)

[Elemental]

Society has clearly failed us...

[Karoht]

I hate to break it to you, but that one's already been filed. (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-patents-the-patent,11868.html)
Gosh darnit.
Hmmmm.
Yeah, that settles it. Don't wanna live on this planet anymore.

[Zrak]

Society has clearly failed us...

Yes, yes it has.

[Trixie]

Those same governments put a system in place to protect people's inventions and industrial designs and they made part of that system work by awarding legal rights and monopolies to people that file first unless someone else can show evidence that the invention or design isn't really new.

But it's backwards. The system is supposed to protect inventions - good. But now, the system is really loose on what you could patent and burden of proof you did not infringe lies on the accused. It's a bit as if we had presumption of guild and the prosecution could give anything as evidence, no matter how dumb. The burden on proof should rely on accusing party.


So, yeah, Apple got some pretty ridiculous-looking design patents. But a lot of lawyers got paid a lot of money to come up with any evidence that someone else had made similar designs. And they failed. If you think that's messed up you either need to argue that the whole system is messed up, or that somewhere along the way some people made really serious mistakes (judges, lawyers, patent examiners, all of the above).

Why it needs to be binary? :smallconfused:

Why I can't say system is theoretically good, and people work as good as they can, but it is the way people are picked for it that skews things?

Leaving for a second concept of jury, which is IMHO ridiculously flawed (why 12 random people are better in deciding the case than a judge that had to work his ass off to get a difficult degree - why they are even needed?) the problem lies in how quickly technology base grows and diversifies.

Consider, for example, this photo (http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/21379_large_iPad_v_Galaxy_Tab_Faked.png). We touched the matter of Samsung pad on it being false. Both me and you can grasp the concept - Photoshop is nothing new to us. But, both judge and jury who doesn't see shopped photos daily might greatly overestimate how hard it is to doctor such picture and treat it as a proof, even subconsciously. Someone who see, though, can look at iPad photo to the left, notice faux glare (as this photo was probably pulled from iStore), then conclude it's doctored as thoroughly (albeit for marketing reasons) as Samsung.

In short, neither device is "real", both are manipulated images. It should be immediately rejected out of hand as proof of anything - but how many judges know this? How many juries? Even if they do, what abound finance cases? Medicine? Etc? These people try to do well, but the truth is, they're more and more under-qualified for the job, and even if system was perfect, it would warp it. And so it was accepted as damning proof.


If you don't think anyone messed up and you don't think the system is wrong, I don't get how you can argue that Apple is being bad.

This is how (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/trolls-filed-40-of-patent-infringement-lawsuits-in-2011/). Patents means money. Big corporations have a lot more money than patent tribunals or courthouses... Then why not throw a few thousands of patents at the wall, see what sticks, and threaten others with your newly gained nuclear weapons? Once patent sticks, it's a threat, even if it would be easy to demolish it court battle might cost so much it's easier to pay... And that's why in 2011 40% of lawsuits were troll ones, plus probably several times that in victims settling without going to trial. This rampant monetization of patents is corroding the economy, even if system was good.

Let's look at this (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/chicago-options-market-goes-nuclear-files-525-million-patent-suit/) - rapid patentization of competition is threatening to destroy stock market exchange in USA. Another might cause net encryption illegal without paying (http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/11/patent-suits-target-google-intel-hundreds-more-for-encrypting-web-traffic/) - meaning, someone might be conceivably able to tax the entire internet and a big chunk of world economy alongside it. Do you think this is normal? :smallconfused:


Order needs chaos to exist properly, some patents might prove to do some good some day, but their existence encourages many more people with dishonorable intents to create patents such as the ones this thread is about.

Sad thing is, patents are needed. But, IMHO, only patents for true innovations, not a few ambiguously worded sentences that might be used in plain violation of their spirit to extract revenue and kill innovation.

[Story Time]

...please be careful, Trixie. I, at least, wouldn't want to see you eject a spring.

Spinning one's wheels builds unreleased stress. :smallfrown:

Obviously, I'm not going to argue against the above points. Most are correct from an ethical or philosophical perspective. But I'd like to ask a question. "What can we do to improve the situation?"

[Elemental]

...please be careful, Trixie. I, at least, wouldn't want to see you eject a spring.

Spinning one's wheels builds unreleased stress. :smallfrown:

Obviously, I'm not going to argue against the above points. Most are correct from an ethical or philosophical perspective. But I'd like to ask a question. "What can we do to improve the situation?"

We band together as a small group of heroes to save the world and bring down crazy corporations RPG style.

[Anarion]

But I'd like to ask a question. "What can we do to improve the situation?"

This is my question as well. Some people say throw out the whole system. I don't agree with that one. Since Trixie says it's theoretically good, I'm guessing we agree there.

I've heard a lot of other proposals. Some people suggest that patents should only be for a finished invention, meaning the actual physical thing (or computer program or production process) that you can show someone. Anything else that's similar wouldn't be protected.

Some people think they should just be more strict: patents are supposed to only come out for novel stuff and if the invention is "obvious" then it's not supposed to get a patent. Right now "obvious" only means that two or more older things could be combined to get the new thing and there was some reason to think to put those things together. But it could mean what we normally think the word "obvious" means and then we could say that rectangles with rounded corners are obvious.

There are also proposals for changes to how patents are read or what evidence is accepted in trials, as both of those are really strict right now.


It's really hard though because some industries that depend on patents are so big. Imagine you were the one that had to make the call on sweeping changes, and you realized that if you make a big mistake, maybe you ruin a $100 billion industry. It's really scary.

[Togath]

If you ruin an industry to do good. So be it.

[Karoht]

"Monetize the product, not the idea"
...is a phrase I've heard a lot.
Thoughts?

[Anarion]

If you ruin an industry to do good. So be it.

I don't think "good" really enters it. Some of the stuff is absurd, sure, but these are almost all big multibillion dollar companies suing other big multibillion dollar companies.


"Monetize the product, not the idea"
...is a phrase I've heard a lot.
Thoughts?

Good idea in general. Troublesome when the cost of a product is all in the R&D. Pharmaceuticals are the archetypical example: it costs ~$100 million to develop a working drug, but once it's out, someone can analyze the chemical composition and start mass-producing it to compete with you unless you have a patent on the compound or the production process.

[Dr.Epic]

Has anyone thought to patent the fruit apple?

[Zrak]

Monsanto, probably.

[Elemental]

Has anyone thought to patent the fruit apple?

I don't believe that can be done as they are a naturally occurring product of nature*, and if anything, Nature would own the patent. Which is something we shouldn't go into because a discussion would involve religion.

However, you could patent a variety or cultivar of apple produced by selective breeding or genetic modification. And you can definitely patent apple products and apple accessories.


*At least, I don't think you can patent things that occur in nature.

[Mutant Sheep]

I don't believe that can be done as they are a naturally occurring product of nature*, and if anything, Nature would own the patent. Which is something we shouldn't go into because a discussion would involve religion.

However, you could patent a variety or cultivar of apple produced by selective breeding or genetic modification. And you can definitely patent apple products and apple accessories.


*At least, I don't think you can patent things that occur in nature.
Well, as certain corporations have shown, if you created the specific genetic organism, you DO own it. See Exelon owning types of corn. So you COULD try and make a claim to that. Would be hard though.

[Trixie]

Good idea in general. Troublesome when the cost of a product is all in the R&D. Pharmaceuticals are the archetypical example: it costs ~$100 million to develop a working drug, but once it's out, someone can analyze the chemical composition and start mass-producing it to compete with you unless you have a patent on the compound or the production process.

Then make separate patent law for pharmaceuticals. Software patents, where 5 year old code is considered ancient, barely sell-able outside very specialised cases, and often doesn't run on current generation of PCs/tablets/phones/whatever shouldn't enjoy the same degree of protection as medicine that barely entered 'popular' stage and is at height of sales. It is also much easier to produce proof-of-concept in software as long as you have programming team - you don't need multi-million machines to even start considering pharmaceutical synthesis.

I say proof-of-concept because yes, sometimes making product takes too long and you could use protection before wealthier competition outraces you. Proof would also show what you had in mind, you couldn't argue deliberately broad wording covers million other things, too, and it would also serve as proof in trial, instead of wholly fabricated photos.


Imagine you were the one that had to make the call on sweeping changes, and you realized that if you make a big mistake, maybe you ruin a $100 billion industry.

While damage to small companies and some sectors of industry could be big, and would require caution, Apple wouldn't even notice not being able to monetize dubious patents. In fact, not spending money on trying to get million dubious patents and legal wars might actually see it spent on real innovation.

Also, speaking of bad people in the system, here is example of one judge who doesn't understand mathematics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/oct/02/formula-justice-bayes-theorem-miscarriage), and lets his lack of knowledge warp trials. If he doesn't get something that can be taught in high school, well...

[grimbold]

Well, as certain corporations have shown, if you created the specific genetic organism, you DO own it. See Exelon owning types of corn. So you COULD try and make a claim to that. Would be hard though.

this is where patent laws break down and get scary :smalleek:

[Anarion]

David Kappos the undersecretary of commerce for IP and head of the United States Patent Office just recently gave a speech about software patents and how he thinks IP works. It's quite supportive of the current system. I don't agree with some of what he says, but I thought I'd post it here and let everyone judge for themselves.

Link to original (http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2012/kappos_CAP.jsp)

Speech (long spoiler)
Under Secretary of Commerce for IP & Director of the USPTO David Kappos

November 20, 2012

Center for American Progress

Keynote Address

Thank you, Winnie, for that kind introduction. Good morning, everyone. It’s great to be here at the Center for American Progress. I’m pleased to be able to talk about intellectual property and the role that intellectual property rights play in enabling innovative goods and services to come to market. And specifically, I’m going to focus my remarks on software patents and the so-called smartphone “patent wars,” which have become front page news in the last year or so.

It is increasingly clear that intellectual property, or IP, is a key driver of economic growth, exports, and job creation. IP rights are the global currency for creating value for products and services, for all innovators, in all markets. And the protection provided by patents is critical to the innovation ecosystem. In fact, last spring, the U.S. Commerce Department released a report that found IP-intensive industries support at least 40 million jobs and contributes more than $5 trillion to our economy, accounting for 35 percent of America’s gross domestic product. So it is in this context that we are seeing multi-billion dollar acquisitions of patent portfolios and a number of high profile patent lawsuits, involving some of the most innovative companies on the planet, who are producing some of the most popular technologies ever created.

The competition for market share in high-value sectors like smartphones and tablets is nothing new. These devices can have many patented components and features, containing a blend of software, hardware, and design patents. Yet software patents have tended to be the focus of controversy and some critics go so far as to argue that software shouldn’t be patentable at all.

Now, when we talk about software patents, what exactly do we mean? Let me be clear: patents aren’t issued merely for lines of code. Patents are issued for process and apparatus, which are determined to be novel and non-obvious. Patents are not granted for abstract ideas. But they are available to protect innovations, such as those enabling—automated language translation, voice recognition, and video compression, all involving major technological advances, all of which can be implemented in software. Because many breathtaking software-implemented innovations power our modern world, at levels of efficiency and performance unthinkable even just a few years ago, patent protection is every bit as well-deserved for software-implemented innovation as for the innovations that enabled man to fly, and before that for the innovations that enabled man to light the dark with electricity, and before that for the innovations that enabled the industrial revolution. Every bit as well-deserved. But it is equally important that patent protection be properly tailored in scope, so that programmers can write code and engineers can design devices without fear of unfounded accusations of infringement. And we know that inconsistency in software patent issuance causes uncertainty in the marketplace and can cause threats of litigation that in turn can stifle innovation and deter new market entrants.

At the USPTO, we recognize this as a serious concern, but we also observe that the various dire reports and commentary have omitted a critical component—the facts. So we decided to get the facts, undertaking our own study to look at the U.S. patents involved in some of the highest profile litigation among major firms in the smartphone industry. We found that in the vast majority of these cases, over 80 percent, the courts have construed the software patents at issue as valid. And an ongoing look at statistics in USPTO bear out a similar conclusion—rejections in software patent applications taken to our appeals board are upheld at a slightly higher rate than for the office as a whole, and those few decisions appealed to the Federal Circuit are affirmed 95 percent of the time. So to those commenting on the smart-phone patent wars with categorical statements that blame the “broken” system on bad software patents, I say—get the facts—they don’t support your position.

Now in fairness, we’ve struggled over the years at the USPTO with patentability determinations for software-implemented patent applications. And while the courts have consistently upheld the patentability of software as a general proposition, it is fair to say they have struggled as well, at all levels, and for many years, with various tests for patent eligibility and functional claiming and inventiveness standards. So with all of these challenges, should we treat software differently than hardware when it comes to patentability? No. Absolutely not and for several reasons.

Look at just a few of the incredible innovations this nation's inventors have produced in recent years in which patented software played a role, equally as important as the hardware with which it interacts. We all take GPS for granted now; in fact, most of us rely on our smartphones for that service. Like the smartphone in which the technology is now housed, GPS technology involved many innovations integrated in hardware and software. Or take the da Vinci Surgical System: it’s a robotic arm that mimics a surgeon’s hand movements to the finest detail, allowing tiny incisions that ensure reduced tissue damage and quicker patient recovery. Thousands of these devices are in use today, and more than 200,000 surgeries have been performed with them.

These breakthrough products rely heavily on innovations in both hardware and software. Why would we tell the team working on a clamp that holds a scalpel their innovation is worthy of protection, but tell the programmers whose algorithm guides that clamp with unerring precision their innovation is not? And what amount of venture capital would that team of innovators raise if half of their innovation was free to be lifted by their competitors the moment they put it in the marketplace? Discrimination against a form of innovation that is increasingly critical to technological advancement, indeed that in many areas dominates technological advancement, makes no sense. So to those reporting and commenting on the smart-phone patent wars as if to suggest that the system is broken: let’s move beyond flippant rhetoric and instead engage in thoughtful discussion.

Software patents, like all patents, are a form of innovation currency. They are also ecosystem enablers, and job creators. The innovation protected by software patents is highly integrated with hardware. All of it must remain eligible for protection. The current software patent “war” is hardly the first patent war—and unlikely to be the last in our nation’s patent history. Whenever breakthrough technologies come onto the scene, market players find themselves joined in the marketplace by new entrants. The first instinct of the breakthrough innovators is to bring patents into play. This is not only understandable, it is appropriate. Those who invest in breakthrough innovation have a right to expect others to respect their resultant IP. However, in the end, as history has shown time and time again, the players ultimately end up agreeing to pro-consumer solutions via licenses, cross-licenses or joint development agreements allowing core technologies to be shared.

We saw this in the middle part of the 19th century with sewing machines. We saw it later in the 19th century with the telegraph and electricity. We saw it in the first part of the 20th century with airplanes. And we are seeing it again now with consumer electronics devices including not just smartphones, but tablets and game consoles. So I’ve explained why it’s important to have IP protection to encourage innovation in the highly integrated information technology area where many innovations include algorithms implemented in software. And I’ve provided a bit of history on how past patent conflicts have sorted themselves out.

So does that mean we’re done? End of speech? Should we just accept the problems, given the importance of the innovation and the illogic of discriminating against great technology that happens to be implemented in software? Of course not. The right point of inquiry is quality. By getting that right, we grant patents only for great algorithmic ideas worthy of protection, and not for everything else. This administration and its innovation agency understand that low-quality patents do no good for anyone. Low quality patents lead to disputes, uncertainty, and lost opportunity. Quality is central to our mission. All of this especially for software.

So we’ve been working on the underlying drivers for software patent quality from the beginning. Knowing that you get what you measure, starting in the summer of 2009 we assembled a taskforce to devise a comprehensive new set of quality metrics. That work culminated in 2010, when we rolled out the most complete, broad, objective patent quality measurement system on the planet – seven metrics, which we report eagerly to the public. The Lexus of quality metrics. And what do those metrics show? Patent quality isn’t broken at all. In fact, our decisions on both allowances and rejections correctly comply with all laws and regulations over 96 percent of the time.

Also in 2010, we strengthened our guidelines used by patent examiners to determine which inventions are eligible for patent protection. These are our so-called 101 Guidelines, which apply especially heavily in the software area. In 2011, we published our first ever comprehensive guidelines for review of claim clarity—an issue that comes up regularly with software patents. These so-called 112 Guidelines have measurably improved the clarity of patents in the software area. In fact, our nine-month review of these guidelines showed a 20+ percent increase in Section 112 rejections, even while an increased number of those issues have been resolved informally through a record 170,000 hours of interviews conducted with patent applicants in the last financial year. We’ve also given all of our examiners more time to review every patent application. This improves quality across the board, including of course for software patents. We have also reached out to experts in the software industry to provide technical training to our patent examiners, so they are up to date on the latest developments. More than 17,000 hours of technical training was provided to examiners in FY2012 alone, including 32 software-related courses presented by academic and industry experts.

Outreach will be even easier now with our Silicon Valley satellite office. We've recently hired a leader for that office, a renowned intellectual property attorney who is well-known and widely respected in Silicon Valley in the software field and beyond, Michelle Lee. So that’s what we at the USPTO have been doing to improve software patent quality.

And the courts are doing their part to improve quality as well. In particular, we have benefited greatly from the seminal 2007 Supreme Court case, KSR v. Teleflex, as well as subsequent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. KSR and later Federal Circuit cases have strengthened the legal doctrine of obviousness. In other words, they narrowed what is considered patentable. Software experts have long observed that programming is incremental in nature, with modest improvements not worthy of patent protection. KSR gave us the ability to recognize this valid observation and incorporate it in our examination process.

While we’ve made progress through court decisions, USPTO’s reexamination process is another method for challenging software patents. The reexamination process has proved to be a particularly effective tool in weeding out invalid patents with much less expense and disruption than litigation. It allows market participants to determine which patents merit a challenge, and, for these patents, the process provides a cost-effective resolution with the benefit of USPTO’s technical expertise. On two occasions during the last 3½ years we have taken a rather extraordinary step—conducting Director-ordered reexamination of issued patents. Both were software patents, and both were rejected upon re-examination. So these are steps we’ve taken over the past three-plus years. But now that the America Invents Act, or AIA, has gone into effect, we are empowered to do a lot more.

On September 16th of this year, we implemented most of the final rules for the AIA. Signed into law by President Obama a year earlier, the AIA is the most significant reform to the U.S. patent system since 1836. Many of its provisions are extremely well suited to software patents. For instance, third party submissions of prior art. Given the enormous amount of prior art information now available and its innumerable sources, it can be challenging for a patent examiner to find all the relevant prior art for every patent application. Worse still for software, where much prior art is in the form of previously written software, which is difficult to find and more difficult to understand unless you wrote it. And worse yet for software, where shifting terminology results in near-endless synonyms that frustrate even the most diligent searcher.

But now, under the AIA—for the first time in the history of our patent system—third parties can submit prior art to our examiners, referencing a specific application and including an explanation of how the prior art relates to the application. So now anyone can participate in the patent system and contribute to higher patent quality. We’re already seeing those third-party submissions coming in just two months after implementing this provision of the AIA. As of last Tuesday, we had received nearly 150 third-party submissions covering all types of technologies, including software.

And we are pleased to see innovative private sector efforts emerge to leverage this new AIA provision to further improve patent quality. One such initiative has already begun crowdsourcing searches for software prior art. It’s called Ask Patents and is an online network hosted by Stack Exchange, where software experts engage in robust discussions of possible prior art for given applications, then submit the best prior art along with helpful commentary. And finally, for all cases in which we receive third party submissions, we’re giving our examiners extra time in the examination process to carefully consider the submitted prior art and commentary. So the third-party submission provision of AIA has every prospect to improve the software patent landscape going forward. But what about patents already issued over the past 20-odd years?

The AIA gives us three new procedures to help manufacturers, service providers, and patentees confirm the validity of issued patents while weeding out overly broad ones. All three are handled by our new Patent Trial and Appeal Board, made up of administrative patent judges with phenomenal legal and scientific pedigrees. The new proceedings are known as post-grant opposition, inter partes review, and covered business method patents review. To start, each proceeding is statutorily mandated to complete in one year, which will save many millions of dollars in litigation costs and ensure resolution far faster than was possible previously either in the USPTO or district courts. One of those proceedings—post-grant opposition—allows third parties to challenge an issued patent on any ground, including basic eligibility and clarity, two areas of particular concern with software patents.

Another of the new proceedings focuses on business method patents. Since many of the more problematic software patents issued during the last two decades were drafted broadly to cover not just specific algorithms but the business problems they solve, we expect the business method review procedure to be very useful in addressing overbroad software patents issued in the past. In our rulemaking process, we implemented this provision to ensure its availability for just these kinds of patented software-implemented business processes. Moreover, since the business method review procedure sweeps in all grounds of patentability including statutory subject matter and clarity—areas of the law that have been tightened by the courts in recent years—it gives us the opportunity to address patents that would not have been granted under the current law.

So I think it’s fair to say the USPTO has done, and is doing a lot under the AIA and our own management processes, to address the challenges posed by problematic software patents. And bear in mind that the key provisions of the AIA have just gone into effect two months ago, and our initiatives within USPTO are just newly effective as well. So to the commentators declaring the system is “broken” I say: give it a rest already, and give the AIA a chance to work. Give it a chance to even get started. But we’re not done. Not nearly.

For starters, there are fresh legislative suggestions circulating. One suggestion, made by those who believe the USPTO should have more tools to review existing software patents, is to expand covered business method patent review process to include all software patents. Another legislative proposal aims at curbing speculative patent suits that leverage litigation cost to extract settlements based on borderline frivolous infringement claims. The SHIELD Act, legislation introduced in Congress earlier this year, would seek to deter such law suits by requiring the loser of an infringement case to pay court costs and attorney fees for the winner.

Beyond legislation, there remain gaps within the regulatory system that still need to be addressed. A root cause of problems with our current environment for software patents—and indeed all patents—is simply deciphering ownership. At the heart of a well-functioning innovation environment is accurate information about who owns what assets, so that license rights can be confirmed or sought, and unproductive effort simply avoided. By analogy, if you want to build a house on a piece of land, you check property records to determine who owns the land, so you know who to contact about purchasing or leasing the land. Of course, the same goes, in theory, for patent properties. But in our current environment, it can be a real challenge for those who find themselves facing a possible infringement suit to determine the owner of the patent they may be infringing.

This is especially true in the software area, where innovation is extremely diverse and broad-based among large and small entrants everywhere, and where patent applications and patents are frequently bought and sold. USPTO is working to solve this problem as well. Last year we issued a call for comments on the possibility of the agency requiring disclosure of the real party in interest for published applications and issued patents. And taking those comments into account, we’re moving forward. On January 11th, the USPTO will be hosting a roundtable event at our headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, on proposed requirements along these lines. We hope to see many of you at this roundtable, and we welcome your feedback and suggestions on this important initiative.

The completeness of the patent record, including ownership, is essential to a functioning innovation market. Transparent and accurate markets attract investment, and repel gaming. It’s time for the patent system to man up. And the benefits for the software area will be substantial. There are other areas where we’re working on projects that will help further improve our handling of software patents. The cooperative patent classification system will enable us to find software prior art from the U.S. and other countries much more effectively. It launches in just over a month, January 2013. A new information technology system featuring state-of-the-art search capabilities for our examiners is under development, and it will also assist greatly in finding software art. And there’s more, but we’ve already covered a lot of ground today, and I want to leave time for discussion. I hope I’ve been able to shed a little light on a subject that has mostly generated heat over the past year.

You know, the history of software patents is not a perfect one, although things are improving. Some of the most troublesome patents have expired; others can be challenged with new post-grant proceedings; and newer patents are quantifiably clearer, and aligned with current legal standards. But it’s important to note that, during the so-called smartphone patent wars, innovation continues at breakneck pace. A system like ours, in which innovation is happening faster than consumers can keep up, cannot fairly be characterized as “broken”. Nor can it be said that the U.S. is just a receiver of all this innovation. Most of the innovation is taking place right here. Broken? What?

The fact is, the explosion of innovation—and follow-on litigation—that we see across consumer electronics hardware and software is a direct reflection of how our patent system wires us for innovation. It's both natural and reasonable that in a fast-growing, competitive market, innovators would seek to protect their breakthroughs using our patent system. While our IP system is not perfect, it is the envy of the world. It’s the strongest in the world, by far. That strength encourages investment and provides assurances to entrepreneurs as they enter the U.S. and global markets. At the same time, our focus on quality in the patent examination process overall ensures that patents are granted for true innovation, and not otherwise.

But for the evolving American patent system to realize its potential, the public needs to be an engaged stakeholder as well. I’ve outlined this morning some of the ways third parties can directly participate in the patent process. It doesn’t cost a dime to submit prior art; just thoughtful consideration of an application of interest, and use of our online tool. And the cost of pursuing a post-grant proceeding with our Patent Board is far cheaper than challenging a patent in court.

For those who feel more needs to be done, we encourage you to keep reaching out to us at the USPTO, as well as to other actors who also have an important role to play. The USPTO administers the laws, while Congress and the courts write the laws and interpret them, respectively. Working together, we can find the right balance for software patents. We can find a balance that ensures market certainty, encourages investment and research and product development, and guarantees that patents issued going forward are appropriately tailored.

Looking at the bigger picture, our nation has had a 230-plus year love affair with innovation. Our founding fathers enshrined patent rights in our Constitution, an affirmative right here, that in other countries is only issued grudgingly. It’s one of the few, if not only, clauses in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to create personal property. A right of the people, not an exception taken at the discretion of the government. Pretty central to our democracy. Open-ended. Maximally inclusive. This love affair with innovation has produced the strongest innovation environment the world has ever seen.

The questions raised over the last year aren’t about software patents. They’re about the basic premise of any patent system. Our patent system is our country’s investment plan—a giant 401k through which we pay a little extra now for more great innovations in the future. So the question for our innovation society is simple: do we demand today’s innovation on the cheap—via a weaker patent system that excludes subject matter and risks under-incenting innovation—or do we moderate today's consumption with investment in a strong patent system so our children will enjoy even greater innovations?

While that question may be simple, the solutions to such complex challenges rarely are. Software patentability is a case in point. But the U.S. patent system is great because it struggles with complex challenges. For more than 200 years, when faced with challenges to the core of our patent system, we have not chosen the easy way out. We have chosen to struggle with complex challenges. Our courts have been asked—begged—repeatedly for generations to give up on software patents, and declare some simple rule. Congress the same. Both have chosen the wiser path, to continue struggling instead. And we are a better country—with a better patent system—as a result.

Thank you for your time today. I am happy to take questions.

[tyckspoon]

David Kappos the undersecretary of commerce for IP and head of the United States Patent Office just recently gave a speech about software patents and how he thinks IP works. It's quite supportive of the current system. I don't agree with some of what he says, but I thought I'd post it here and let everyone judge for themselves.

I think it'd be more accurate to say it's supportive of the *changes* they're making to the system, and fwiw if the things he discussed actually end up working the way he says they will they sound like they'll go a pretty long way to fixing currently damaged parts of the system- tightening the requirements for a patentable piece of software, opening the review system to some outside input (so you don't just have the applicant's word for it and the examiner's limited time and expertise to verify a patent), and providing a means to challenge a patent aside from dragging it through the entire litigation process all stand to potentially be significant changes for the better.

[Anarion]

I think it'd be more accurate to say it's supportive of the *changes* they're making to the system, and fwiw if the things he discussed actually end up working the way he says they will they sound like they'll go a pretty long way to fixing currently damaged parts of the system- tightening the requirements for a patentable piece of software, opening the review system to some outside input (so you don't just have the applicant's word for it and the examiner's limited time and expertise to verify a patent), and providing a means to challenge a patent aside from dragging it through the entire litigation process all stand to potentially be significant changes for the better.

I think this is an accurate characterization. The changes have mostly been enacted for a year or two, but they are just now being implemented, so he's basically suggesting that we shouldn't worry because everything is on the way up (at least in some important respects, even if it's still not perfect).

I personally think the reexamination system won't be used very often because of its very limited evidentiary requirements, but it will get some patents, so it's not a waste. The KSR decision he cites approvingly is more troublesome. It's a 2007 case, and in the last 5 years the Federal Circuit has appeared to mostly ignore it. The appeal from the Apple v. Samsung decision will probably be an important moment in deciding what the doctrine will actually look like.

[Story Time]

Speech (long spoiler)

:smallannoyed:

No-thing polite comes to mind to say. :smallmad:

[Kallisti]

I hate to break it to you, but that one's already been filed. (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-patents-the-patent,11868.html)

...I think IBM wins patent law. Maybe even literally, depending on how this application turns out.

[Trixie]

Sort of followup to this thread, since I didn't wanted to make another too similar.

So, I researched the matter further a bit, and while you can patent square or manipulate protections so your fictional character never enters public domain, you can actually at the same time engage in one huge fraud by lying to customers they are getting goods from producer who spent generations or even whole centuries building up his reputation, letting unscrupulous forgers steal something far more valuable than squares. Simply, there are no laws prosecuting false regional labels and forged foreign trademarks. The article chain starts here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/04/12/foods-biggest-scam-the-great-kobe-beef-lie/), I'd recommend at least glancing through most of them, as they look at the matter from different perspectives. I guess it's not hypocrisy as long as the Kali does it, eh?

[Don Julio Anejo]

So in a bit of good news, one of Apple's ridiculous "let's register the obvious so everyone else has to pay us money" patents finally looks like it's going to be repealed.

Gizmodo link here. (http://gizmodo.com/5966835/apples-flagship-multi+touch-patent-has-been-tentatively-invalidated)

Patent wording: "touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics."

Now, it's not actually dead, but the tl; dr version is that US Patent Office rejected Apple's claims on the patent saying it's invalid, and a reexamination has been requested that may potentially completely cancel it.

[Anarion]

Sort of followup to this thread, since I didn't wanted to make another too similar.

So, I researched the matter further a bit, and while you can patent square or manipulate protections so your fictional character never enters public domain, you can actually at the same time engage in one huge fraud by lying to customers they are getting goods from producer who spent generations or even whole centuries building up his reputation, letting unscrupulous forgers steal something far more valuable than squares. Simply, there are no laws prosecuting false regional labels and forged foreign trademarks. The article chain starts here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/04/12/foods-biggest-scam-the-great-kobe-beef-lie/), I'd recommend at least glancing through most of them, as they look at the matter from different perspectives. I guess it's not hypocrisy as long as the Kali does it, eh?

That's true for characters and patents as well. If you only get your patent in the US, it doesn't apply in Europe or Japan, although they've made systems to allow you to register in one country and then get them in other countries and pretend that you filed earlier than you actually did.

But, yeah that's a big failure of trademarks that's related to the fact that we live in countries and not in some sort of united world government, and therefore all laws of a country cease taking effect outside of that country.


So in a bit of good news, one of Apple's ridiculous "let's register the obvious so everyone else has to pay us money" patents finally looks like it's going to be repealed.

Gizmodo link here. (http://gizmodo.com/5966835/apples-flagship-multi+touch-patent-has-been-tentatively-invalidated)

Patent wording: "touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics."

Now, it's not actually dead, but the tl; dr version is that US Patent Office rejected Apple's claims on the patent saying it's invalid, and a reexamination has been requested that may potentially completely cancel it.

Oh man, that reminds me of the patent for "searchable, hierarchically arranged lists" that got struck down last spring. Hilarious.

[tillmanwoods]

Are you serious?? Patent on square!! What did they think before doing this. There are several devices of similar shape, how can one patent the shapes!!

[Velaryon]

Also, how can you patent something that is a rippoff of something that was designed 20 years earlier?

http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Star-Trek-PADD.jpg
See, rounded corners.

That's nothing. The FDA sometimes grants marketing exclusivity agreements (effectively the same as a patent as far as taking competition off the market) to companies for things they didn't even invent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine#FDA_approval), which have in fact been around for nearly 200 years.