[EdHominem]

I'm sure in your patent you've covered the five or ten possibilities you came up with - moving the goalposts from "sudden[ly] the idea is not so obvious" to "and suddenly coming up with an n+1th solution on the spot wasn't so easy." Well sure, after you've specifically ruled out all the obvious, direct, ways to do it, that came to you in minutes after the basic idea...

The proof of it is that you say " I filed a patent for the automatic calculation of legal fees based on information contained in a charging document". That's not a method, it's a result. You abused the system to own a result, as opposed to specific way to achieve that result.

[will_brown]

>The proof of it is that you say " I filed a patent for the automatic calculation of legal fees based on information contained in a charging document". That's not a method, it's a result. You abused the system to own a result, as opposed to specific way to achieve that result.

You are correct it is not a method...it is a description for purposes of the thread. Do you think a patent application can be granted without specific claims or as you call it the specific way to achieve that result? That is not how the law works, I don't own the result and I didn't file a 1 sentence patent application seeking to protect a result to abuse the system so I can sue someone if they figure how to accomplish my result.

My application is ~10-20 pages and fully details the claims/methods to produce the result and if granted it is those claims/methods that will be protected, that is how the law works. Nevertheless, if the methods used to achieve my result are so obvious (or I justed added n+1 to some obvious ways) I welcome you to explain how I achieve the result or even some of those obvious/direct ways to do it. No offense, you won't, why do I know that? When I tell seasoned lawyers (people familiar with the industry/prior art) about my invention they don't believe it is possible to achieve my result, much less believe it is just some added step on a obvious way. Even when I showed my invention in action, the partner and associate who filed my application (obviously both attorneys but also EE and CS backgrounds) couldn't figure out my methods (how it is done) I had to explain it.

I find the people who typically rail against the current patent system have never: a) filed a patent, b) been sued by a patent troll, or c) had an original idea/invention stolen by a big company. I am not suggesting reform isn't needed and that bad outcomes don't happen, throughout the thread I highlight Apple's rectangle with rounded edges I was against (I even have old HN posts where I rail against that patent before USPTO over turned it), but what do you honestly believe has happened more often: patent troll lawsuits or big companies stealing inventions?

[EdHominem]

> You are correct it is not a method...it is a description for purposes of the thread. Do you think a patent application can be granted without specific claims or as you call it the specific way to achieve that result?

Right, but the way you refer to it shows that you think you have a good claim on the entire result, not just one or two methods.

> That is not how the law works, I don't own the result

No, you just own all the ways you came up with to achieve that result. If you named all the obvious ones, then you effectively do.

Otherwise you'd have said "I have a patent on using NLP techniques to do XYZ" or something.

> I welcome you to explain how I achieve the result or even some of those obvious/direct ways to do it. No offense, you won't, why do I know that?

That's what you would say. If it's true, your patent is one in a million.

If there is a non-obvious element in any given patent it's almost always the result. Once your boss tells you to automatically calculate pricing from charging docs you have the same tools as everyone else.

> I find the people who typically rail against the current patent system have never: a) filed a patent, [...]

Well, my company's lawyer filed my patents... But I still think it's an entirely counterproductive system.

I've always been ordered not to read any patents, except ours. Any theoretical gain to society from information sharing is obviously not happening in practice.

> Apple's rectangle with rounded edges

That's more akin to a trademark though. That is supposed to cover a result, not the technique of achieving it.

> what do you honestly believe has happened more often: patent troll lawsuits or big companies stealing inventions?

A better question than mere frequency would be, which do I think has been more harmful - All patent trolls, or all "stolen" inventions.

And an even better question would be, which one do I think we could fix, and with how much incidental damage.