The whole problem here to me is that the USPTO grants patents, then invalidates them later after challenges. We need a better patent system that gets it right the first time. But since this is a government beauracracy that obviously can never happen, not in a million years.
Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.
Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.
I think it's that they game the system now to get them approved in the first place. Ever curious why a patent applied for in say 2009 or even earlier doesn't get approved until 2014?
Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.
That would cost too much. USPTO actually makes money unlike other government offices. They charge for patents and they charge even more to review them when contested as well. The more reviews the better from their perspective.
I think it's that they game the system now to get them approved in the first place. Ever curious why a patent applied for in say 2009 or even earlier doesn't get approved until 2014?
The Siri '604 patent was tweaked nine times before finally being approved.
"After patent 8,086,604 was first rejected in 2007, Apple’s lawyers made small adjustments to the application, changing the word “documents” to “items of information” and inserting the phrase “heuristic modules” to refer to bits of software code. A few years later, the inclusion of the word “predetermined” further narrowed Apple’s approach....Though submitting an application repeatedly can incur large legal fees, it is often effective. About 70 percent of patent applications are eventually approved after an applicant has altered claims, tinkered with language or worn down the patent examiners."
The Siri '604 patent was tweaked nine times before finally being approved.
"After patent 8,086,604 was first rejected in 2007, Apple’s lawyers made small adjustments to the application, changing the word “documents” to “items of information” and inserting the phrase “heuristic modules” to refer to bits of software code. A few years later, the inclusion of the word “predetermined” further narrowed Apple’s approach....Though submitting an application repeatedly can incur large legal fees, it is often effective. About 70 percent of patent applications are eventually approved after an applicant has altered claims, tinkered with language or worn down the patent examiners.<span style="line-height:1.4em;">"</span>
They likely got invalidated due to an "anonymous" claim being filed to have them thrown out. Wouldn't surprise me a single bit if the anonymous party was someone with ties to Scamsung.
Apple will just appeal and have the decision reversed and the patent will stand, just watch.
The USPTO usually attempts to dismiss patents as soon as an anonymous claim is filed, forcing the patent holder to begin, in some cases multiple, appeals.
Just goes to show how broken the patent system is.
Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.
Endorsing theft is not conducive to a good society; doing so leads to an amoral one.
Comments
I think it's that they game the system now to get them approved in the first place. Ever curious why a patent applied for in say 2009 or even earlier doesn't get approved until 2014?
That would cost too much. USPTO actually makes money unlike other government offices. They charge for patents and they charge even more to review them when contested as well. The more reviews the better from their perspective.
I think it's that they game the system now to get them approved in the first place. Ever curious why a patent applied for in say 2009 or even earlier doesn't get approved until 2014?
The Siri '604 patent was tweaked nine times before finally being approved.
"After patent 8,086,604 was first rejected in 2007, Apple’s lawyers made small adjustments to the application, changing the word “documents” to “items of information” and inserting the phrase “heuristic modules” to refer to bits of software code. A few years later, the inclusion of the word “predetermined” further narrowed Apple’s approach....Though submitting an application repeatedly can incur large legal fees, it is often effective. About 70 percent of patent applications are eventually approved after an applicant has altered claims, tinkered with language or worn down the patent examiners."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all)
You got it. Gaming the system.
...
Innovation is both a physical and abstract reality.
Innovation happens everyday without patents.
You got it. Gaming the system.
What's wrong with that? If the law is already a tangled mess, then the only way to navigate the law is to use the tangle against itself.
Endorsing theft is not conducive to a good society; doing so leads to an amoral one.
Possession by the devil is one possibility, but I will—as a magnaminous gesture—let her speak for herself.
No need to fight evil with evil. Better to end corruption.