Patent Trolls - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 11:32:03 am
content: I knew it was bad, but this THIS bad?Seriously America,

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 11:35:14 am
content: More:

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 11:54:47 am
content: And fought them and won, which sounds great, until you realise he didn't

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 12:28:50 pm
content: EE everywhere should join EFF as they are one of the few organizations battling patent trolls at the Federal level. EFF is basically a bunch of lawyers on "our" side, if you agree to what the EFF stands for.https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 12:32:28 pm
content: He seems to be a good natured fellow who does not deserve this shit, nor does anybody else for that matter, he gets my vote for what it's worth.I suspect that the occupants of those law offices are all out to lunch, what do disgusting parasitic maggots eat anyhow ?.

author: botcrusher
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 12:40:26 pm
content: Wait, wouldn't the patent office's database be violating the patent too?

author: Augustus
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 12:44:50 pm
content: I don't understand why Google doesn't stop this shit. They have an army of well payed top-lawyers at their disposal to stomp these scammers into the ground

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 01:00:39 pm
content: I know the patent system and US legal system is pretty screwed-up, but SURELY there's conflict of interest rules regarding a judge hearing trials his son personally benefits financially from?PS. Not to have a go at the Yanks or anything, here in England our screwed-up libel laws cause similar behaviour....

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 01:16:31 pm
content: I have personally been involved in US law suits on both sides and though I can handle things well as an engineer. Well was I wrong! Once you are in the courthouse in front of the jury, it has nothing to do with logic and what is right. Although I have won every trial I was in, it was horrible in every case and even when I won a case, ALL the money went to the attorney.In this case, I also thing that Google should step in and protect the content creator of their store.The American legal system is just screwed up !

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 01:17:05 pm
content: Quote from: Augustus on June 09, 2016, 12:44:50 pmYeah, listening to those other videos, you hear names like Microsoft and Apple too. Why don't these giants set their lawyers on these trolls? Imagine the good publicity they'd get!

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 01:49:20 pm
content: $3M to defend ? how about "Go fuck yourself", and fold & restart a new company?I'm sure there is plenty of scope to string these idionts along given some imagination.Not to mention that Google ought to be indemnifying its users against this sort of crap. Maybe users should start filing suit against Google?

author: botcrusher
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 02:03:40 pm
content: Has anyone tried informing google?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 02:28:00 pm
content: That district is known to attract patent litigationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Texas#Patent_litigation

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 02:36:08 pm
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on June 09, 2016, 12:32:28 pmThey are deliberately empty shelf companies, so that if anyone does challenge them and wins (as they certainly would if they had the money to fight), you can't get them to pay the legal fees because they just declare bankruptcy on the shelf company.Financially, it's 100% unwinnable.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 02:44:48 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 09, 2016, 01:49:20 pmDo you have to declare bankruptcy to do that? (that's bad)Perhaps they can still come after you personally as a former director unless you do declare bankruptcy?You'd want to get really sound legal advice on that one.The problem with law suits is that anyone can get sued at any time for anything at all, and it doesn't matter if you got rock solid legal advice you are in the clear, if you tick them off then they can come after you personally, or instantly come after new company or whatever.I'm told there are laws in Australia for example that prevent you from transferring assetsaftera case has been filed to avoid having assets that can be touched. e.g if a company director gets sued for something, they can'tthengo put the house in their partners name to safeguard it.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 02:56:00 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 09, 2016, 02:36:08 pmI wonder if there is scope to play them at their own game - operate your company as a shell so whenever a suit comes in, you fold it and they have to file all over again.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 03:08:50 pm
content: Patent trolling isn't the only game going on. Here in California, the bread and butter of the legal industry is ADA Compliance (Americans With Disabilities Act). A lawyer drives around town looking for businesses that are not yet in compliance. Then he shakes them down for a few thousand bucks and gets paid because it is cheaper to buy off the lawyer than defend against a no-win lawsuit. You can't make a case for non-compliance in front of a jury.Among MANY other articles:http://overlawyered.com/2016/05/california-restrict-ada-lawsuits/Look in the Yellow Pages (business listings), there are more lawyers than doctors and dentists combined.Here's the problem: Almost every politician is a lawyer first. When they write the laws, there always take care of other lawyers first.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 03:22:59 pm
content: Closing a business "after" you receive the law suit will not help at all.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 03:46:02 pm
content: A large part of what is wrong with the American legal system is the fact that the loser of a lawsuit does not pay the other party's legal costs.The 'English rule' is used by almost every other Western democracy and acts as a major deterrent to patent trolls and other frivolous litigation.Curiously enough, a lot of American lawyers vociferously argue that 'loser pays' is un-American, and therefore a terrible idea...

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 04:23:25 pm
content: Another troll litigation story, just in a other dimensionhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/06/printer_craigslist/

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 04:49:36 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on June 09, 2016, 03:08:50 pmThis is the most hated one, mentioned frequently on Armstrong and Getty. It's about extraction of money, not about fixing non compliance.http://americasmostrotten.blogspot.com/2016/04/attorney-scott-johnson-is-crippled.htmlEdit:http://calwatchdog.com/2011/07/08/democrats-kill-abusive-lawsuit-bill/

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2016, 05:40:35 pm
content: California made a half-hearted attempt to reign in the frivolous lawsuits but it is doubtful that it will help any small business owner:http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/latest-california-ada-lawsuit-reform-10405/The thing about the ADA is that it didn't come with standards. When the feds passed to law, they intended that standards be created through litigation. It is a piece of junk legislation often called "The Trial Lawyer Full Employment Act".

author: apomerleau
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 12:56:23 am
content: Here is another editorial about the East Texas patent litigation phenomenon:http://classicrock961.com/why-is-east-texas-home-to-so-many-patent-trolls/This caught my eye as it was posted by a Texas classic rock radio station. This was a nice summary that included one of Austin Meyer's videos and some words from John Oliver.The bar code industry has always seemed particularly litigious (litigatious??). In the mid-2000s a company called Cognex fought back in court against a couple of different trolls. One case was a classic patent troll going after users of a bar code symbology (http://www.cognex.com/CognexInfo/PressReleases/PressRelease.aspx?id=3008). Another case was against the Lemelson foundation (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040126005454/en/Cognex-Wins-Landmark-Ruling-Lemelson-Partnership-Court) who used continuing patent applications to attempt to extend a 1956 patent well beyond reasonable. Most of the trolling was against end users with settlement offers that seemed to be just a little less than what a going to trial would cost. Cognex realized it was in their interest to fight them and I think they had at least quiet support from other bar code reader manufacturers in the industry. Their suits were not in Texas though.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 01:16:03 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 09, 2016, 02:56:00 pmI suspect that would be a difficult model to operate a real business under were you produce products or offer services. The troll shelf companies work because they produce no product or services.

author: imidis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 02:02:51 am
content: Personally if it were me, I'd just ignore it. It's civil not criminal. Same with copyright trolls. And give them the GFU attitude.Had a friend with a 3.5 Million (default settlement against them because they couldnt afford to go to court) originating from Cali, meh.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 02:18:31 am
content: IP laws in general are screwed up, they are way too strict and too easy to abuse and use against others. A non tech example, music artists get sued all the time because a song sounds similar to another, it's retarded. It's bad in America, but even here in Canada they keep passing "modernization acts" which basically is a fancy word for meaning making them worse. I just hope it never gets as bad as America. America's IP system has jurisdiction over most of the world though, so the fact that their system is ridiculous is bad for everyone even if not living there.It seems these days if you want to produce anything, whether it's a product, or a work of art, you pretty much need a fleet of lawyers to avoid losing your shirt.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 02:19:32 am
content: Quote from: imidis on June 10, 2016, 02:02:51 amMany recommend doing just that, simply ignoring them, and it's said 9 times out of 10 they won't bother pursuing you.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 02:25:32 am
content: Quote from: imidis on June 10, 2016, 02:02:51 amThe problem is if you ignore a suit, even if you did not even know you got it (ex: went in your spam folder or you thought it was a scam) you are automatically found guilty and have to pay HUGE bucks. There's this guy that buys stuff from craigstlist, then sues the seller because the item does not work. It happened this this guy over a $40 printer:http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/06/06/he-sold-40-printer-then-he-sued-indiana-30000/85219140/Freaking ridiculous that this is even a thing.

author: imidis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 03:16:02 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on June 10, 2016, 02:25:32 amThey can't force you to pay, you won't go to jail.He asked a local judge for advice, guess what his advice was?

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 03:43:55 am
content: If you do not pay a judgement against you, then liens can be attached to your property. It isn't smart to hide your head in the sand.On the other hand, some people who like to abuse the system manage not to have anything owned in their name.QuoteNo. You must be served in person in most cases. Email is not a valid means of notifying someone of a lawsuit.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 04:11:39 am
content: Even though lawyers are in principle a good thing, and they occasionally do good things, and though I have relatives and friends in the legal profession it is almost impossible for me to say anything good about the profession. For the simple reason that abuses like those reported here and many others go on, and are accepted and even justified by the "good" members of the profession.As a result of the abuses of many, many lawyers there is a huge body of lawyer jokes expressing the disdain huge numbers of people have for the profession.Such as the variant on the old expression that a few bad apples spoils the whole barrel. For lawyers it goes - 99% of lawyers spoil it for the rest of the profession. Or the one that asks the difference between a lawyer and a catfish. The answer is that one is a slimy, bottom dwelling scumsucker and the other is a fish.The US has the most lawyers per capita in the world, and it is harming our society in many ways, not just in IP.

author: imidis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 05:16:14 am
content: Quote from: helius on June 10, 2016, 03:43:55 amEither way you are screwed. I'm doubful they could put a lean on it especially if it's a in a different state.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 02:04:45 pm
content: Quote from: imidis on June 10, 2016, 03:16:02 amWon't they garnish your wages or something? Or in the case of not living in the US, they'd probably extradite.

author: imidis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 07:42:19 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on June 10, 2016, 02:04:45 pmI can say with 100% certainty that a country will not extradite for a civil suit.Worst case scenario, bankruptcy is an option for a civil suit judgment.A likely scenario for any of these cases -Someone lets say living in Tennessee gets a lawsuit for patent or copyright infringement from Texas. Generally the target of the troll lawsuit would not even be able to go to the state the suit was filed spend money on lawyer, hotel etc.In the mean time, the patent or copyright holder (troll) it comfortably at home, and if you research chances are the same lawyer and judge have worked on many similar cases, with oddly favorable outcome from the judge.Quite a few times default judgment is awarded because the defendants can't even afford to go through the motions.For most normal people, 100k or 3.5 million is the same thing, it's an unpayable amount of money for them - the ones who showed up get a judgment of 100k against them, the ones who don't 1 to 4 million.So, if they decide to really really pursue it, bankruptcy clears it.And the trend is usually the holder is also a lawyer, I do wonder if barring them from filing their own suits would help alleviate the issue.

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 09:28:08 pm
content: ----Such as the variant on the old expression that a few bad apples spoils the whole barrel. For lawyers it goes - 99% of lawyers spoil it for the rest of the profession. Or the one that asks the difference between a lawyer and a catfish. The answer is that one is a slimy, bottom dwelling scumsucker and the other is a fish.-----Don't forget to add that lawyers can typically jump safely into shark infested waters. They sharks leave them alone as a professional courtesy.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 09:56:35 pm
content: Or the difference between a lawyer and a vulture? The vulture can't remove his wing tips.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2016, 09:57:37 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on June 10, 2016, 02:25:32 amThat guy needs to get thrown in jail for his flagrant abuse of the judicial system, and the emotional and financial stress he's placed on all of the innocent people he's brought lawsuits against. We really do need to implement a rule that civil suits, if found in the defendant's favor, require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover the defendant's legal fees. It's the only way to shut this shit down.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 02:34:25 am
content: Q: You are in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden, and a lawyer. You have a gun and two bullets. What is the moral course of action?A: Shoot the lawyer twice.

author: richnormand
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 02:50:29 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on June 10, 2016, 02:25:32 amAnd, according to the article ("lost because he had thrown away the evidence (the printer), court records said.")in the first instance. So we do not even know if the printer was actually defective in the first place either....(wrong drivers, OS, etc...)?

author: botcrusher
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 05:14:55 pm
content: Makes you wonder how it got passed pretrial...

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 05:24:04 pm
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on June 09, 2016, 01:16:31 pmIt's actually the US Patent Office that created this situation, they will patent any old retarded idea as "unique"Quote from: imidis on June 10, 2016, 02:02:51 amI believe in America if you don't turn up for trail, the suit is awarded to the plaintiff.feel free to correct, but that's what I read somewhere.

author: imidis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 07:24:35 pm
content: Quote from: bitslice on June 12, 2016, 05:24:04 pmIt's both really, the patent office shouldn't award the patents, but also lawyers and judges should not be able to practice such tactics. The reason you are screwed either way, whether you show up or not and if you look at the history of lawsuits of the trolls, generally a lawyer who holds the patent/copyright, there will likely be 20+ cases with 1 dismissed maybe, and probably 1/4 settled, and 3/4 default judgment (awarded by the judge for those that don't show up).The judge enables and seems to give quite favourable outcomes to the troll no matter what. And in the original linked video, it's not cheap to fight stupid suits either. It's a pretty screwed up system.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 08:24:40 pm
content: Quote from: botcrusher on June 12, 2016, 05:14:55 pmThat's the problem with lawsuits, I think they're civil, and civil cases can bypass all due process. Chances are the printer was not actually broken, the guy just says that so he can sue. That whole system really needs a whole revamp.This whole system is what is really stopping me from getting any motivation to make something that I market, whether it's software or hardware or even something simple. There is always the chance of getting sued for some stupid thing like a patent I did not even know existed. Rather not take the chance and just keep working for the man. You can work hard for something and have it all taken away with you in a single instant by some troll.

author: richnormand
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 09:49:48 pm
content: That is the whole point that patent trolling kills innovation and feeds crooked lawyers.Just look at cable and telco and cars and oil and pharma and so many other fields where established companies will do everything to eliminate innovation and competition that would affect their profits.They work for the betterment of themselves not society. Just like patents, copyrights and companies initially used to get a "licence" to help make society just and better in a capitalist system, but obviously this is not the case now as most are better described a sociopaths in their behavior.

author: imidis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 10:05:58 pm
content: Lots of crazy crap here.https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=patent+troll

author: sakhmatd
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2016, 11:52:32 pm
content: Quote from: bitslice on June 12, 2016, 05:24:04 pmHaving been involved in a few legal proceedings here in the US, I can confirm that it is indeed true. Not showing up in court results in a default judgment against you, i.e. you lose. The reverse is also true if the plaintiff doesn't show up, but in that case the plaintiff has two weeks to restart the trial.There is no real way out of a patent troll, you lose either way because the system is rigged that way.The cheapest way out would be the out of court settlement, where you still lose and unless you lawyer'd that one too they can send another lawsuit right after.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 12:02:41 am
content: I wonder if there's anything that can be done to push the government to stop this nonsense. I have a feeling that no, because they probably somehow benefit from it too.

author: imidis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 01:38:35 am
content: Some more videos:(John Oliver)https://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll?language=en(ted talks)(Adam Corolla)note: Adam Corolla spent 600k+ and they could still sue again.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 06:17:23 am
content: I liked the thing about Samsung paying to build an outdoor ice skating rink right outside the courthouse in Marshall Texas. I can't think of a more appropriate gesture.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 07:18:13 am
content: A classic case of patent trolling is Monster cables when they tried to sue Blue Jean Cables:http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/Monster didn't count on the owner of Blue Jeans cables being a former patent trial defence lawyer

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 07:54:37 am
content: IMO there's a good argument that having no patent system at all would be better than the current system.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 08:03:28 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 13, 2016, 07:54:37 amIn the late 19th/early 20th century several countries created and tore down patent systems multiple times. From what I have read about the results its not clear which regime was working best for them.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 11:35:35 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 13, 2016, 07:18:13 amReally? You can patent a shroud for a phono plug?I need to get me some patents. In east Texas, obviously...

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 12:35:19 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 13, 2016, 07:18:13 amThat was a nice readingInterestingly that all those Monster patents are "Design" patents and not utility patents.Any Artist can get a "Design"Patent

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 01:03:06 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 13, 2016, 07:54:37 amEvery time I argue with patent defenders who work on the legal side I run into the same thing.I make the obvious argument that obviousness is a subjective property which can only be judged by a jury of domain experts ... they maintain that an objective metric HAS to exist for the patent system to work and thus their metrics which are just prior art with a lot of obfuscation are a good way to judge obviousness (any objective metric will always boil down to prior art for obvious reasons). The inmates are running the asylum law wise.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 01:13:50 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on June 13, 2016, 01:03:06 pmNo. The lawyers are running the legal system, and running it very very well.... for themselves.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 01:58:55 pm
content: I really do despise the legal profession. It is entirely parasitic, self-serving and self-created.We only need lawyers because there are lawyers.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 02:06:19 pm
content: Coincidently, I was just reading a Rod Elliot article on mixed-mode voltage/current drive amplifiers (aka variable output impedance amps), something he has been playing with and writing about for years. In a footnote, he bemusedly says that some company recently applied for a patent on this technique,referenced HIS work on the subject in their application,and got the patent awarded!http://sound.westhost.com/project56.htm

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 04:45:25 pm
content: Patents are generally awarded on the application of an idea, not just an idea in its own right.So, it may well be that someone has previously invented a kind of thing - but nobody has yet applied for a patent on the use of that particular type of thing to solve a specific problem.Imagine, for example, you've invented a round object with an attachment point in the middle that can rotate. You call it the "wheel", and get a patent on it. You make a great living building and selling horse carts.Later on, someone else comes along, attaches a steam engine to the axle on one of your carts, and creates an entirely new device that requires no horse. They can patent theuseof a "wheel" as a means of transmitting force from a steam engine to the ground, because nobody has used a wheel that way before. In your product, it's used merely as a means to support the weight of the cart and its load, not to transfer power.A lot of patents work this way. They don't describe a thing; they describe a way to achieve useful objective X by method Y.Provided method Y hasn't been used to achieve objective X before, then the patent can be granted - even if method Y is well known from other areas of industry.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 04:56:35 pm
content: Cheers for the explanation, Andy.Can patents ever be "overturned"? As in re-evaluated and then thought, "hang on, this is a load of bollocks, you can't patentsthat!"?

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 05:18:22 pm
content: Yes, they can, but you need to demonstrate that the patent should not have been granted in the first place.You can do this by showing 'prior art', which is an example of the patented thing existing in public before the date the patent application was filed.So, suppose I filed an application today for a "wheel", and thanks to the mind-numbing incompetence of the Patent Office, managed to get it granted.I could then cheerfully go around suing every manufacturer of cars, bikes, shopping trolleys, roller skates, and anything else that I think might infringe on my patent.I might start by suing small companies whom I figured were unlikely to be up for a fight, and they might agree to an out of court settlement on the basis that it's less costly for them to give in and pay up than it is to rack up legal costs with no guarantee of success.But, in this case, a defence would actually be quite easy. Just present as evidence your own car, or any other specific example of a machine that has wheels, and which pre-dates my patent.With prior art established, it should then be possible to overturn my patent, and once that's happened, I can't use it to extort money from anyone else either. So if I think you might have a car, or be aware that they exist, I'll probably shy away from suing you for patent infringement on the grounds that I may lose the patent entirely. Instead, I'll go after someone else who lives in a part of the country where cars aren't commonly known about.ps. if you've been making and selling, say, roller skates since before the date on my patent, then you can present your own product as prior art too. It doesn't have to be someone else's; any example of the patented thing being 'out there' earlier than the date on the patent will do.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 05:25:26 pm
content: QuoteThanks AndyC_772, that was my general perception of the patent system as well. I came up with an idea that would solve several technical problems all at once, took ten minutes to build a prototype, it works !! Spent months writing and re-writing a patent application. Application submitted, examiner not happy, submit another application, same again, examiner not happy. Eventually we got there somehow, I left the company and a few years later I had to sign some patent documents, more changes. I went and looked it up the other day, I think Figure 1. is the only part that matches my original application, (drew it using Orcad) but the text has completely changed, maybe there were other objections from the examiner.QuoteI had used method Y to achieve objective X, and as far as I know that had never been done before and hence the patent was granted. But the patent in it's current form is not what I had submitted, now that I am older and wiser I would have perhaps written the original application differently.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 05:25:57 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on June 13, 2016, 04:45:25 pmAll true. But if you have the time and money to fight you might well discover pedal cars as prior art transmitting force. Or with more time and clever lawyers show that the pottery wheel was used to transmit force from the feet to the point of pot shaping. It is totally different than technical people think of it. We say "Do you want to achieve objective X?" If you come up with ten ways before lunch to do that, and select two to prototype, none of those ideas would be patentable. They are obvious to a practitioner of the art. If six months after the question an idea for an eleventh way to do it pops into your head, and you look around and find no evidence that anyone has done that before it might be patentable.In the US at least we are rapidly transitioning to a spoils economy. Instead of growing crops, building things or otherwise creating value, we are spending our time and energy fighting over the value that already exists. Lawyers and politicians (a largely overlapping collection) are the leaders in this activity.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 05:36:59 pm
content: It may differ a bit by country, but I'm reliably informed that the bar in terms of obviousness is set lower than most engineers think. This probably explains why there are so many low grade patents out there.Something is 'obvious' if a person with essentially no creative capability would be able to combine existing ideas to come up with the 'new' one. If they'd need to have what you or I might think of as 'an idea' of their own, then it may be deemed 'not obvious'.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 05:37:20 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on June 13, 2016, 11:35:35 amYou'll get the patent, whether it can make you money depends on the Texas casino.Apple fans will often say it was an exaggeration Apple patented rounded corners, it was not. That was EXACTLY one of the design patent they were suing Samsung with, a rectangle with rounded corners, nothing more.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2016, 05:48:41 pm
content: A random thought just popped into my mind, Google, good with search engines and AI, and Google patents as well, oh dear

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2016, 12:25:05 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 13, 2016, 07:54:37 amReally I think the system is practically useless, it's only purpose is to give one person/company monopoly over a concept. I understand some R&D goes into stuff, but if another company wants to make a similar product they still need to actually put money and R&D into it too, especially if they both worked independently. If anything patents should only last like a year at most.If anything they need to completely revamp the system. There should be a set of rules as to what can actually be patented, and it should not last very long.There are some completely ridiculous patents out there, like I recall one having to do with a way of storing information in a database. I can't remember what company decided to patent that, but it basically makes most existing software illegal. They never persued any of it but if they wanted to they could legally shut down most forums. It had to do with storing usernames with an ID and then everything else referencing the ID, or something like that.Or just look at Apple and silly patents like rounded corners. Trivial stuff like that should not even be patentable.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2016, 12:34:21 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 13, 2016, 07:18:13 amMonster's antics went much deeper than that. They even got to the point of suing any other company that had "Monster" in the name for trademark infringement, even companies that had been established long before Monster Cable came around.