[DoingIsLearning]

> For those holding software patents, they have to also list all ideas they have around that. > Because there are patent trolls who check for new patents, and then file patents around that, creating a mine field so tight that you cannot even use your own invention.

This is something I never understood. When someone submits those type of patents, the patent officer most certainly knows the 'prior art' original patent exists. So why is this not patent 'obviousness'?

[knorker]

Aside from how the patent office no longer checks for prior art, but lets court fight it out, there's also the fact that technically these are not duplicates of prior art.

Technically using a laser pointer to exercise a cat is a new invention. Technically after that exercising a dog is another invention.

But even when not as obvious as that, imagine that you file a patent for the phone, and immediately someone patents every "step two", like the phone exchange, the ring, etc, to the point where you can't actually use your invention without licensing the next step.

That's one reason patent applications can be vague. It's not that they are not going to do the next step, is that they are patenting step 1 now, and are "inventing" step two right after.

[thfuran]

Because the patent office now pretty much just checks if something is the same as prior art and let's the issue of obviousness or usefulness be settled in litigation.