Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by spolsky 5015 days ago
It is definitely true that a lot of companies over-protective legal departments have persuaded their engineers never to read patents.

I don't think that you should optimize for the case where you've actually lost a patent suit. First of all, that's a pretty rare case. But more importantly, it's cowardice. It's the moral equivalent, in my mind, of carefully crossing to the other side of the street when you see the neighborhood bully approach. Yeah, it's "the most logical course of action," but the better course of action is to get your own gang together and shut them the f* down!
1 comments
njl 5015 days ago
We're not going to shut them down by invalidating them one at a time. You're not plugging a few leaks in a dike; you're trying to splash the ocean back with teacups.
link
d2vid 5015 days ago
How many teacups we talkin here?

In 2011 there were about 500K utility patent applications: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm Many of those are not software related.

There are about 1.3M programmers in the US alone: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/19720/where-c...

So 20 teacups each to have each patent looked over 10 times? Sounds doable to me.

link
fpp 5015 days ago
some patents take days to review - some have to be reviewed in context with other patents etc.

So maybe 200 teacups each but the direction is definitely right.

link
d2vid 5015 days ago
I just went on to AskPatents and tried my hand at it: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/197/prior-art-for...

I'm not doing anything close to as good a job as a patent examiner would do, but with about an hour of work I (hopefully) was able to start pointing to some prior art that could get an examiner quickly up to speed on what the state of the art is.

I agree the amount of work involved to comprehensively invalidate a patent would be days - hopefully a group can do the same with shorter time contributions.

link
fpgeek 5014 days ago
Unless the rules are different for this process, every piece of prior art that you point to now that an examiner doesn't agree with / understand is a piece of prior art that can't be reused further down the line (e.g. in a trial).
link