[robotys]

Why on earth i did not have read anywhere about USPTO officials return a letter to this so called patent troll with simple reply: "Explain this pattern in layman language."

USPTO officials should have the power to inquire pattern applicants about their pattern until complete understanding, not to work alone and try to understand it by them self. It is hard to understand something technical, and it is utmost difficult to try understanding technical stuff with only 'lawyer' language as interface.

The fact is, many of this pattern applicant try to hide their 'Obviousness' of their pattern behind lawyered up and jargon filled language that proven to be hard to understand and open to misinterpretation.

[dropit_sphere]

Worse, patent obfuscation is baldly contrary to the purpose of patents, which is to make the knowledge contained in them available to the public.

Were someone to start a startup where users got paid-by-the-view for making educational videos, that would not be too far off from the original intent of patents.

[PythonicAlpha]

Most of today's patents don't contain any valuable knowledge that could be useful for the public. Also the invention does not. <irony>So it is not that bad.</irony>

Of course, there are some patents that could contain some valuable information, but today's patent attorneys are drilled to hide any valuable information from public.

[cushychicken]

That is actually part of the purpose of a patent attorney - to mention enough information about how the idea works that shows it's novel, but not enough that you can build a competitor. (According to a patent attorney I discussed this with a long time ago.)

Bass-ackwards, I know.

[pbhjpbhj]

If the information as to how the invention is performed isn't disclosed then the application lacks sufficiency - ie it doesn't support the claims - and so should be rejected according to most patent laws.

Remember that the document is directed to a skilled proponent in the relevant art and not to the public per se.

[yebyen]

You can completely describe a crucial innovation without which your product would not be original or compelling, without completely describing your product and giving an instruction manual to start from nothing and build a better competitor to your business.

In that case your "whole" business process or product would not be protected, but it is possible that by identifying the one thing you do better than your potential competitors and by patenting it in time, you could still stifle competition altogether or force your competitors to license your technology (without actually producing a really useful document for anyone who might have wanted to read it once the patent expired.)

[darkmighty]

I really doubt that in 20 years something would not be reversed engineered or trivial by then. Moreover, patents are usually functional specifications, not algorithmic. In the rare cases where the description is vital, like perhaps crypto or coding patents, the published software already allows reverse engineering.

Isn't the actual intention of patents to publicize the invention after the 20 years has gone by?

[PythonicAlpha]

I also have my information from real patent attorneys.

This little example just shows, how distorted the whole patent system has already become. (and it is not the only example)

[cushychicken]

Wasn't trying to indict your point - just elaborating.

Agreed - the system appears pretty broken.

[rcthompson]

Why doesn't this run afoul of the enablement requirement?

[wyager]

>Were someone to start a startup where users got paid-by-the-view for making educational videos, that would not be too far off from the original intent of patents.

What makes you say that this was the "original intent" of patents? I've never seen anything to suggest this. See the U.S. Constitution:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

Sounds like, even back then, it was more about incentivizing innovation by granting monopolies.

[chc]

It explicitly requires that there must be time limits. That isn't required if all you want to do is reward innovation. The time limits are required because the ultimate purpose is to enrich everyone, which means that everyone gets access once the inventor has gotten a fair shake. For patents in particular, it is well-established in the law (though poorly followed in practice) that a patent ought to serve as a guide to replicating the invention, with the inventor being assured that no one can do so without his permission until the patent expired.

[bad_user]

Unfortunately the time limits are useless if they are allowed to grow them indefinitely. In the US, the copyright length has extended from 14 years (with another renewal for 14 years) to life + 70 years. There's nothing fair in Life + 70 years.

On patents - they were meant to replace the need for trade secrets, unfortunately most patents that pass these days is for things that can be replicated without looking at the patent's application. And while I understand somewhat the need for patents in the health-care industry (only to a certain extent, since on the other hand access to quality health-care should be a basic right), the situation we are in is completely ridiculous.

In the end, the inventor already benefits by being first to market and a patent is only morally justified if the research costs were too big, allowing the inventor to recover those costs in the face of potential competition that may replicate the results and for which those costs weren't an issue. On the other hand, if patents would disappear tomorrow, I'm pretty sure that people would still go on, building and inventing things. So the benefit to society at large is questionable.

[benjiweber]

The intent was to incentivise /publishing/ of inventions/mechanisms rather than keeping them a secret. Thus allowing others to build on top of that knowledge.

One way to incentivise this is to grant a /temporary/ monopoly, and require people to publish in exchange. When the temporary monopoly expires everyone else can fully benefit from the invention.

[robin2]

> What makes you say that this was the "original intent" of patents?

The original meaning of the word "patent" might be a bit of a clue here.

The problem that patents tried to solve was of people keeping their innovations secret (in order to maintain an edge on their competitors), and that when they died their secrets died with them. Encouraging people to make public work they were doing anyway way, in the first instance, the way the patent system promoted progress.

[twic]

Sounds like a good site. You could call it Patently Obvious. A squatter (or at least absentee landlord) already has patent.ly, sadly.

[pbhjpbhj]

Re your last sentence - how do you know, they could be using it for email or for a private internet app, VPN, or something. You don't have to use domains for public web services.

[twic]

Simple, they're not using it for what i want it used for, so i am badmouthing them.

[Kliment]

Instead of badmouthing them, contact them and see if they like the idea.

[DanBC]

Here's a clue:

http://imgur.com/FcyIc4P

(I wonder if the HN traffic spike drives up the "value"?)

[TophWells]

Almost certainly. Supply, demand, and so on.

[PythonicAlpha]

The problem is deeper. The USPTO just does not want to ask further questions.

The reason: It is funded from granted patents. If patents are not granted, the funds are down. And no director will like it to say at the end of the year, that US companies are less innovative than in the last year -- or worse, less innovative than ... (name a country).

[xroche]

Exactly. They have incentive in accepting any possible ridiculous patent (money) and they do not take any legal risks accepting these bogus patents (can you sue them if you can prove the patent was bogus ? short answer: NO). Why on earth would they become "ethical" and "good" (and other kind of nonsensical adjectives) and refuse the money people want to give them ? It's like asking a prostitute not to accept money based on a client reputation.

[dec0dedab0de]

A simple solution would be to charge the same amount to apply regardless if it was granted or not.

[andrewfong]

They sort of do. Each patent has both a description, written in more or less understandable terms (and often including diagrams) and the claims, which is what the post references (e.g. "a system or method ..."). The point of the legalese in the claims is to explicitly define the boundaries of the patent. By way of analogy, imagine if you had to describe the boundaries of a piece of land you owned, but the land wasn't a regular shape and you couldn't rely on a map.

[beepp]

Agreed! A huge part of what you can do to help is just parse the legalese into human language, so that any knowledgable person can see right through it.

[pbhjpbhj]

The problem with that is that if you remove the legalese, like say "fixing means" from a claim to make it clearer then you limit the range of prior art that will render the claim obvious/anticipated. Better probably for knowledgable people to get used to reading claims if they wish to take part in patent killing.