[creamyhorror]

This seems wonderful. It's exactly the sort of practical solution that could really make a big dent in the patent problem, and to see it actually come into being with the cooperation of the USPTO and Google Patent Search is very, very heartening.

I hope folks here will take time to read this new site from time to time and raise any particularly problematic patent applications to their circles. There's the risk of reading a patent and then potentially being made liable for trebled damages, but hopefully any ridiculous patents will get filtered out by this system, reducing the risk of violation in the first place.

I see a two-tier system emerging: a group of "frontline" patent reviewers reading AskPatents regularly, and a wider group of people interested in patents within an industry. If only the really problematic patents are brought to the attention of the wider group, they won't have to worry so much about liability for trebled damages. The "frontline" people reading new submissions on AskPatents and trumpeting out the basket cases - they'll be the ones taking on the trebled-damages risk. I hope there'll be some among us who can play this role. (It'll probably end up being interested hobbyists or the patent-hunting departments of large corporations.)

edit: I wonder if there's any mechanism for discussion of approved patents? This might provide the seed material for patent reexamination, which in turn allows for patent invalidation. If people review approved patents and start offering prior art for some, any patent trolls intending to wield those patents might start having second thoughts, because it'll look like those patents are on shaky legal ground. This way, even after being granted, questionable patents could still be cast into doubt. Maybe I'm overoptimistic, but how far could Spolsky/the PTO push this?

edit2: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there's no "patent application stream" on AskPatents, so it's basically a bog-standard discussion board for patents right now. It might be more handy if it had an integrated feed from the patent application database (no need for an API, even an RSS feed would work).

[d2vid]

Regarding the treble damages for having read a patent - since these are patent applications, not granted patents, perhaps one could argue that one didn't know it was actually granted?

[macchina]

That wouldn't matter.

If you read an application, then you know the invention exists

If the application is rejected – it implies the invention is not novel. Whereas if it is granted, it implies the invention is novel.

Either way, you should not be seeking a patent on that particular invention — because you know that you're not the first to invent.

[jacalata]

It matters a lot in whether or not you should /implement/ your design, not whether you should try and patent it.

[cruise02]

I think it's fine to ask about and discuss already approved patents on Ask Patents. See the answer to: http://patents.stackexchange.com/q/191/288

> But you can still ask for or post prior art and potentially make a difference.

> Even though you can't just submit that for free on a granted patent, you make it a bit easier for the folks that do have skin in the game by sharing what you have on the problematic patent(s). That way, if someone is sued for infringing, they'll be armed with what they need to defend themselves.