Anyone else think the current world patent system is in need of a major overhaul - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 24, 2012, 09:55:48 pm
content: I read daily of one company suing another over the most trivial and stupid things. Apple's slide to unlock feature apparently was patented by someone else and resulted in a lawsuit. Motorola sued Apple because their iCloud service pushes emails to their users. Of course, Apple get a lot of recent news, but there is also Rambus, which sues anyone daring to integrate RAM into their IC. The list goes on and on and on.The intent of patents was never to stifle innovation, but now it seems to have fallen to that level. Anyone else tired of the patent wars?

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2012, 10:31:59 pm
content: i am aswell, personally i think the only way that would possibly be able to replace it would be a 7 year patent on electronic design, as by then most patented ideas have already been replaced by something newer,but i also feel user interface shouldnt be patentable, the actual source code copyrighted, but not the ui, its like patenting a led that flashes 1/3rd - 2/3rd instead of half on half off, it might be something slightly better to the user, but there are hundreds of ways to reach that outcome that dont even resemble the original code,

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 06:52:00 am
content: Patents should only be granted to persons and should be non-transferable.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 07:35:06 am
content: Yeah the worry is that patents are granted for superficial concepts, particularly for software algorithms, and mathematical expressions. But what really infuriates me is patents granted for natural sequence of genes. Right now, as we speak, there are corporate entities who hold patents on some parts of your DNA. Basically, in their minds, parts of your DNA is not yours, it's theirs. FUCK THAT.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 07:52:08 am
content: Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on February 25, 2012, 07:35:06 amAnd what really irritates me about software patents is they don't have to have actual working software, just a description of how something might work on some "computing device". If you implemented feature X in, say platform 1, you can word your patent in such a way that implementations of X in platform 2 would be in violation. WHAT THE FUCK! When the patent was granted, platform 2 did not even exist yet so how can there be legal protection for work that could not possibly have been done by the patent holder. Don't me get started. Don't get me started.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 08:10:42 am
content: anti-protonboy i feel i need to clarify on the genetic patents, they only patent the method used to discover that gene, which in turn means others can work it out, but generally much harder, and does limit genetic hobbiest (i wish i was kidding, people splice genes for hobbies)

author: kripton2035
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 09:09:49 am
content: the best way toavoid these wars is to force the patented to develop a commercial product with it within 5 yearsif no product gets out, the patent is out too and anybody can use itthis should stop most of these wars (but not all...)

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 04:21:53 pm
content: World patent system? Not until there is more robust international law court which today struggles to adjudicate genocide and maintain world peace, so how much more patents.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Court_of_Justice_casesThere are companies that exist today whose primary business is to buy patents and sue infringers, the patent trolls or more formally, non-practicing entities.The US system was recently reformed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2011

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 04:45:47 pm
content: Apple claim to have the patent rights to round corners and have stopped Samsung selling a phone in Germany due to it having said round corners. At present as I understand it ( explained to me by a patent lawyer when I took out a patent) if there is no patent on something you can patent it, under these conditions you cannot do a thing about prior use (prior art) but any further use you can prevent or demand royalties. So if you took a patent on doors and windows you could do nothing about existing ones, but next time Apple build a new office you could prevent them having doors or windows as long as your pockets are deep enough( this was the other thing explained by the patent lawyer) a patent is only as good as your willingness and financial ability to go to court. All this is UK patent law.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 05:06:24 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on February 25, 2012, 04:21:53 pmI wrote that as many of the patent lawsuits I've seen recently span the globe. All are very similar in nature and most have the same players involved.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 05:16:54 pm
content: The purpose of the patent system is to encourage invention, development and sharing of knowledge.The problem with the patent system is the value of a patent is defined by what people will pay to use the patent and to encourage invention, development and sharing the value only needs to be defined by the cost of invention, and development.For example intermittent (delayed) windscreen wipers is an invention people would be prepared to pay a few $ for on every vehicle sold in the world. Such a patent would be worth multi-million dollars. Anyone driving a car for half an hour in light rain would come up with the same invention so to true value of such a patent is a few hundred $ at most.I think patents should be filed with a claimed value representing the amount of time and money invested in invention and development. The patent holder would be required to sell full resellable and non-exclusive rights to anyone paying the claimed value. The claimed value would be open to legal challenge.That would get rid of most trivial patents while still allowing substantial claimed values for patents resulting from substantial R&D investment.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 06:28:31 pm
content: Yes, understand. I presume the discussion is just hypothetical.If a company has a US arm they can be sued in US courts for patent infringement for products that were designed, say in China. If a product violates patents or trademarks and doesn't have a US base, those products are banned from importation [ although, you maybe able to go through loopholes by buying it from a foreign country say from eBay.] Likewise, they can be sued in other countries on a per country basis, depending on their laws. There isn't a single 'world court' or world patent' system to go to AFAIK [ presuming that would be the UN!].By example, if Samsung's Galaxy is accused of violating Apple's patent, if Samsung loses they can be banned from importation into the US and even for damages, since Samsung has a USA branch.http://www.mobiledia.com/news/114093.htmlFolks who own patents need to enforce them, so lawsuits follow.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigationIf we look at how much is copied from products still in patent, trademark or copyright by owners, it clear the intellectual property rights system provides only a sort of 'timestamp' that you were first to file, but the burden of defense is on the owner. Given so much talent is around these days, patents are more rate limited by the muscle you have to defend your turf. It won't be easy if a violator is a big company like Ford and you are an individual inventor of an intermittent wiper.So, patents are mostly a show for lawyers: on both sides of the camp and the law that makes it possible. Its not likely a simplifying reform will come that can make it cheaper to patent and litigate because since lawyers are paid by the time it takes to litigate a case, the longer and more complex it is, the greater is a return.Even if you win, you could end up like Robert Kearns:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_KearnsQuote from: MarkS on February 25, 2012, 05:06:24 pm

author: Pat Pending
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 08:46:33 pm
content: Some FYI,Four years ago a licensed US patent attorney made from $130 to $170 an hour.You write the bulk of the application, while your attorney does the paperwork, some boiler plate editing and a half page of claims.There is almost always a work around that allows a patent to be practiced without infringing, so only 2% or less of patents will ever make a return for the patent holder.It is sometime better to keep methods/processes/recipes proprietary and unpublished i.e. Coca ColaYou may patent on top of patents thereby blocking the original holder from practicing an improvement to their own idea.But most importantly, patents are bargaining chips and make CEOs look great when approaching investors, board members and in SEC filings.

author: baljemmett
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 26, 2012, 12:02:16 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on February 25, 2012, 08:10:42 amWell, it's not so much a hobby as just a fun way to spend an evening, but then I'm not sure my method is patentable

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 29, 2012, 03:20:11 am
content: *SIGH!*http://news.yahoo.com/hey-yahoo-patent-shakedown-makes-look-desperate-215559456.htmlIronically, posted on Yahoo News...

author: Cristi
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 05, 2012, 06:20:40 am
content: As a design engineer, at my main job I often have to waste a lot of useful time searching and double checking if a certain topology or circuit implementation was not patented by some nerd even ever being used, just to avoid possible issues. Often we had to go around a straight, fair solution without using that just because a patent was issued to someone on that. Honestly speaking, in every field, not only electronics or software, there is a limited number of possible solutions for a given situation, task or problem, which will give optimum and efficient result. And most of them are patented. So, we can't use them. I'm not talking about paying them the right of usage, that will wipe us and 80% of the companies out of the market. We already use some IC's for which we pay royalty fee, which is something like 40-60% of it's total cost. More than half of the price in some cases. The most notable case was of a finished product which we had to recall just because we discovered that someone had filled a patent on a part of the circuit which was dealing with a redundant protection. We had to recall over one thousands of units, make some "minor" changes certify again, and resell. We lost several weeks for that, and xxxx$. At the time when the product was designed, there was no patent for that circuit, and we still suspect that some of he stuff sold the idea to someone who filled the patent. Without proves, cannot do nothing.Thus in my opinion the current patent system is against technical progress, but very a very useful tool for opportunism companies which seek a fast and easy way to get rich. See the countless numbers of $hitty companies, obscure, which fill a patent on something irrelevant then when a big company will use somewhere in a famous product, just sue them and ask for billions. recent case, Proview, some no-name chinese company sued Apple for iPad name. In fact they are bankrupted and that was the last desperate move to prevent sinking. But asking billions, is out of good sense or imagination. I wonder why somebody who perhaps patented the colors, haven't sued Apple yet for using white, silver and black colors on their products. Or the size, maybe someone has patented a shoe box with the same size as iPad, and must sue them for using his magical size.Kodak was bankrupted too and in the past few years relied only on it's patents on digital imaging. And the examples can continue forever.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2012, 11:58:56 am
content: Quote from: Cristi on March 05, 2012, 06:20:40 amI'll wager 90% of patent searches are done not to learn how to do something (which is what the patent system is supposed to provide), but, to determine which of the ways you already know to do something doesn't infringe someone's patent.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2012, 12:55:09 pm
content: I agree fully, but a common technique is first call the patent holder and ask for the cost of the license. Is usually a percent of income. Recall, they have to spend to litigate against your company to collect, they also have to find out that your company violated their patent which means reverse engineer your design to find the problem. Is iit worth it to them? It depends on how big and visible your company is.In the XXXX$ amount, instead of your company losing time to redesign, that XXXXX$ could be used to 'pay off' the license fee. If the license fee <= XXXXX $, you're fine, if not, then is it still worth it to redesign or budget off the license fee?Other options: deploy the patent violating devices as V1.0 and pay the fee, redesign V2.0 to the second roll out.This is usually the job of the suits upstairs rather than the EE floor, so leave that to themQuote from: Cristi on March 05, 2012, 06:20:40 am

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2012, 01:26:19 pm
content: Quote

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2012, 03:20:57 pm
content: Yes, again let the your admin folks and lawyers worry about prior art when your product has a patent item but it was made before the patent was granted.Most patent processes are based not who did it first, but who filed first. Then, the filer has to defend his rights.Did Marconi invent 2-way radio, or Tesla?Did Bell invent the telephone, or Meucci?Did Eckert and John Mauchly invent the digital computer, or Atanasoff?.. and the list goes on.If you read any of these cases on Wikipedia, its a story of prolonged court battles but if you like history of invention, many of the names that have been honored are likely part spin doctoring on their part or legal wrangling, than fact.

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2012, 10:21:58 pm
content: The patent system favors those who already have lots of money (for the patent, the search, and the enforcement), so the answer is: yes, it needs to be overhauled. Is the world a better place yet?

author: vk3yedotcom
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 09:58:49 pm
content: (bump)A study of recent Australian patents granted showed that they are given for trivial things and rarely require inventiveness.http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/patents-are-only-inventive-sometimes/4902102

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 10:33:48 pm
content: Technology patents are one thing ... but design patents, those are truly atrocious.I recognize that ripping off a design and just changing a couple things is devastating to artists ... but the ability of Apple to patent round corners for a product class simply because they had first mover advantage is devastating to the entire electronics industry and to all consumers.Even more than software the amount of money and resources which goes into creating design patents is very small ... the amount of damage they cause stands in no relation, they are so clearly a net negative to society.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2013, 10:46:15 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on March 05, 2012, 03:20:57 pmPriority is such a bloody mess too ...I doubt there are many here who will not agree that first to publish is the least problematic way to handle priority ... what do we get instead? First to invent (lie in your labnotes for the win) and first to file (can't publicly discuss your invention until you file). Lawyers are unanimous in saying that first to publish is untenable, because in their eye the inventive step can only be truly described in legalese ... that's how fucked up their thinking is, when truly patents are just lawyers talking to lawyers and a bunch of idiots in Texas rolling dice.And still they pretend that good construction of the patent claims is oh so important ... yeah, I'm sure the people too stupid to avoid jury duty are going to be very impressed by your zero information content claims ...

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 25, 2013, 12:23:22 am
content: It's a sad day when you scan places like free-patents-online and find doofuses with 1000+ submissions, many juststupid things like "how to arrange 4 transistors to make an inverter" and dumbass cr@p like that.If it ever happens to me, I'm going the hessian bag and boat trip route :-) Idiots

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2013, 01:30:37 am
content: Quote from: vk3yedotcom on August 24, 2013, 09:58:49 pmInterestingly many patents are not researched at all so chances are an invention has been patented before, is too generic or already exists. Not to mention the huge amount of bogus patents which would require different laws of physics to make what they describe work.Sometimes I look through patents and often you can find at least 5 patents which cover the exact same invention. So who is the inventor?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 25, 2013, 02:10:14 am
content: The biggest problem (certainly in the USA) with the patent system is the fact that the US PTO has specifically stated that if an application comes in for something that does not exist in the prior art, they will grant a patent - and "prior art" means existing patents. That means that if something is very obvious or has been done for years, but is not patented, someone can come along and patent it.Case in point, there is a company in California called Radiantz that holds the patent on "a plurality of surface mount LED's mounted on a flexible substrate".They patented mounting SMT LED's on a flexible PCB. Firstly, there are dozens of patents existing prior that use that technique, but which do not actually spell it out that way - and secondly, it's obvious to anyone skilled in the art. By definition it is not patentable, but a patent was granted and exists. I know a guy who got sued for violating it. It cost him well over $100k to defend the suit, the result of which was that some parts of the patent was overturned.The USPTO's stance is they will grant any patent that has not been granted, and let the market fight it out (in court).Another case in point - a company in the USA has a patent on using PWM to control the brightness of an LED light used on automotive lighting. Once again, it is incredibly obvious to anyone skilled in the prior art, and car companies have been doing it for years and years before the patent was issued.These stupid patents that are granted by technically illiterate examiners cost businesses countless billions of dollars to fight, make a nice living for worthless patent attorneys, and clog up the court systems.The system is irreversibly broken. They really need to start over from scratch. What we have now does not work. At all.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2013, 02:18:27 am
content: The USPTO has to work with the means and boundaries set by the government and jurisprudence ... they don't have a lot of time per patent and jurisprudence basically doesn't allow them to judge obviousness at all even if they were qualified, sure there are tests but they all basically boil down to prior art again.Fundamentally obviousness is subjective and can only be judged by domain experts, hindsight be damned ... yet patent lawyers maintain they can define an objective test for it ... there is the problem, laws are being written and judged by people who are insane (or disingenuous).

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 25, 2013, 06:33:50 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 25, 2013, 02:18:27 amThe PTO is not hamstrung by government.They could open up patents for discussion amongst industry experts prior to issue - they don't now. Sure, they technically publish some applications and if people happen across them, they can submit info for consideration, but it's extremely arduous.There are hundreds of thousands of willing and interested parties they could lean on for information and assistance, but they do not.They are culpable and negligent in the whole mess.

author: Mike Warren
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 29, 2013, 04:50:11 am
content: A bit of good news from a small corner of the world:http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/28/new-zealand-bans-software-patents/

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2013, 12:25:01 am
content: The European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 52, paragraph 2, excludes from patentability, in particulardiscoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;aesthetic creations;schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; [emphasis added]presentations of information."Good thing there are 29 countries here, and it is impossible/impractical to make patents in each of them. I can just laugh on those US patents online. I have some suggestion though. The readability of the patents could be better, so it could be much easier for the rest of the word to copy it. Something like application notes.