Introducing EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/inaugural-stupid-patent-month

by scrollaway • 12 years ago

462 110 12 years ago

This is a great idea. If you want to demonstrate just how much software patents suck, you need to be able to point out examples. Yet I've seen many people who try to do so get shutdown with remarks like "you're not a lawyer", "you don't understand patent claims", "if you read this in a Lawyer-Approved Fashion (tm) it turns out this IS a good patent claim", etc. It'll be a lot harder to dismiss examples of shitty patents if their shittiness is endorsed by the legal expertise of the EFF.

isaacdl• 12 years ago

Wow, this a thousand times. It's so incredibly frustrating to have discussions about stuff like this with people who don't have the same knee-jerk mistrust of the patent system that I do. I'm not saying my reaction is right, just that it'll be nice to have something to point too and say "told ya so...". Of course, the people I know who don't think that the patent system is broken are probably the people who don't necessarily know/trust the EFF.

ArtDev3• 12 years ago

Junk patents like this one are are a real threat to innovation, progress and small business in America.

aptwebapps• 12 years ago

They don't have to trust the EFF blindly - they do a pretty good job of explaining what's wrong with this patent.

zak_mc_kracken11• 12 years ago

This is a great idea.

Not really: you don't condemn an entire system by pointing out individual bad examples of it.

This is like picking a bad article linked on Hacker News and saying "Hacker News is broken and needs to be abolished".

You're not going to convince anyone with this kind of cherry picking.

Besides, the title made it sound as if the EFF was filing stupid patents.

shmerl9• 12 years ago

No. Exactly by providing examples which are explained clearly, one can argue that the system is broken if it passes such examples through. Saying that it's broken with theoretical explanation is not enough. Practical examples demonstrate what is broken.

Natsu4• 12 years ago

For a story to appear on HN's front page, you need perhaps a few dozen upvotes. For a patent to be approved, years are spent examining it.

If a bad story hits HN, it's gone within the day. If a bad patent is issued, it can be used to extort millions of dollars out of people who are doing useful work.

The situations aren't glibly comparable. Every bad patent can cost millions of dollars. This isn't a system where we as a society should permit a high false positive rate.

In this situation, a high enough false positive rate, as evidenced by bad patents like these, can make it such that the cost of the system outweighs its value, such that a rational society would abolish it if there were no workable means of correction.

That aside, I note that the patent bar tries to spin the patent lawsuit revenue as being the value of patents, rather than the cost, so I suppose entrenched interests will continue with that line.

chrismonsanto2• 12 years ago

Not really: you don't condemn an entire system by pointing out individual bad examples of it.

To prove that software patents are bad, it is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient to point out bad examples. Then again I never said the only way of condemning the patent system was through examples?

laumars• 12 years ago

Abolished != reform.

And I don't think your comparison is in any way fair, but to address your point: if HN's quality vs quantity ratio dipped significantly then there would be calls to reform the submission and peer moderation system as well since HN would start to lose visitors over it. In fact constant reform is exactly how most of the top sites have managed to stay relevant in the fickle online world.

dhimes• 12 years ago

Is there a patent review person in charge of the patent at the PTO? That is, is there a name of a PTO person that we can attach to these to say "John Doe approved/accepted/submitted on behalf of... this patent?" If so, I would like to see EFF attach the name. Maybe public ridicule will make them a little more careful.

josho5• 12 years ago

In my startup we are knowingly violating two other companies patents and it scares me. The patents are stupid (tagging a photo--ie. circle part of a photo to highlight where something is, and the second is adding GPS data to a record, so that you can find it later).

One of the companies is even litigious having field two patent suits this year. The only thing saving us at this point is we are a Canadian company and haven't entered the US market yet.

So, here is a concrete case of patents discouraging innovation and competition. We want to enter the US market because the competitors are selling backward solutions. We have an alternative that is 10x better, yet our company could be killed in an instant through one of these patents.

oceanstone• 12 years ago

adding GPS data to a record, so that you can find it later

You might want to nominate this patent

smokinn2• 12 years ago

If that's your most pressing concern about expanding the business you should probably consider challenging the validity of the patent if it's truly as obvious as it seems.

http://info.legalzoom.com/challenge-patent-21969.html

fleitz• 12 years ago

No, don't challenge the patent, minimize infringement, amass cash.

Challenge it after being sued hopefully with enough cash to defend yourself.

jfoutz• 12 years ago

Or just abandon the US because the regulation is a pain in the ass. It's not Josho's obligation to keep the US from turning into a technological ghetto.

_3u10• 12 years ago

Just go ahead and do yourself a favor right now and delete this comment.

'knowingly violating' is not a phrase you want attributed to you in court.

smokinn2• 12 years ago

fleitz makes a very good point. You'll be getting hit with treble damages which you definitely don't want.

josho5• 12 years ago

We are examining the patent in detail and finding ways that we can workaround the claims. The claims are wrapped in industry jargon and detail, so we feel we can add or remove steps to get around it.

But, the core point is the patent did nothing to further the state of the art, nor does it provide information that someone in the field would use to implement the patent. As I understand those are the two reasons for the patent system, so by that standard the patent is worthless.

I wonder if patents in other industries are actually useful, eg would a chemist ever refer to older patents to further their own lab work?

zak_mc_kracken11• 12 years ago

So, here is a concrete case of patents discouraging innovation

It seems to be just the opposite, though: the patent system is telling you "You are copying something that exists, instead you should innovate and create something new".

So why don't you innovate instead of copying something that already exists?

shmerl9• 12 years ago

What the patent system should say in theory is very different from how the patent system is used by patent abusers. Which directly indicates that the patent system itself requires a reform, since otherwise it would have prevented such abuse to begin with.

If something is obvious, it should have been unpatentable. If the patent system says that it is patentable - the patent system is broken.

retrogradeorbit• 12 years ago

Just because there is a patent, doesn't mean that it exists, or even can exist. It's just some document someone paid the patent office a bunch of money to stamp. Some patents are even impossible. Look up the patents on perpetual motion machines for example.

Ideka• 12 years ago

Their product is presumably not photo tagging or recording GPS data. These are just components they need for their actual product to work. When you talk about "innovating" here you are actually saying "finding way of achieving something that's different enough from the most convenient way (because someone has already thought of that)". That's no innovation at all; all that would do would be stopping them from launching their product until they figure out a way around the problem. By blocking entrepreneur's paths, patents prevent them from releasing their possibly innovative products, thus preventing innovation.

AnthonyMouse4• 12 years ago

So why don't you innovate instead of copying something that already exists?

The fact is that the two are not only not mutually exclusive, they're interdependent. Nothing is ever 100% entirely new. Every innovation builds on what came before.

The problem is not that people won't innovate. People are innovating. The problem is that someone has invented a new traction control system which they can't sell because someone else was granted a patent on the wheel. In 2011. And your solution is for the actual innovator to reinvent the wheel.

mhlakhani• 12 years ago

Given the volume of patents out there, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have something like "stupid patent of the day"?

georgemcbay2• 12 years ago

Even with stupid patent of the day I suspect they would have enough content to keep going long after I am dead, even if they only consider patents that were issued up until today... but it would require a lot more effort to find, read, understand and write about them than a once a month thing.

merraksh• 12 years ago

the original claim 1 [...] had not claimed a computer. The examiner correctly issued a rejection, saying the claim was abstract and thus wasn’t something that could be patented. In response, the applicant added element (g) (“providing a computer, the computer performing steps “a” through “f””). And the rejection went away.

I see this happen in peer-reviewed research. A reviewer rejects the paper/patent based on a flaw that is perhaps not as gross but is at least concrete. When the flaw is removed (in this case the use of computer), the reviewer almost has no choice but to accept it. Can't the reviewer reject it for other reasons?

AnimalMuppet• 12 years ago

Doesn't the recent Supreme Court ruling destroy this patent, then?

mullingitover2• 12 years ago

Is there any kind of logic to granting stupid patents? It seems like if their approval was really harmful to the industry, it would manifest itself in reduced tax revenues. No government wants that. So is the government increasing its revenues by granting these arbitrary technology fiefdoms?

smeyer• 12 years ago

Decisions can be motivated by lots of things other than maximizing tax revenue. For example, political beliefs/agendas of various relevant parties, lobbying, bureaucratic lock-in, and so on.

chc• 12 years ago

"The government" is not a coherent entity. The government is made up of many self-interested groups who largely don't care and possibly don't even know about one another. The relevant agency here, the Patent and Trademark Office, is not funded by tax dollars — it's funded by fees from people or businesses seeking patents and trademarks.

mullingitover2• 12 years ago

The relevant agency here, the Patent and Trademark Office, is not funded by tax dollars — it's funded by fees from people or businesses seeking patents and trademarks.

Sure, but their actions have ramifications that could impact revenues. If the patent system was smothering the market and therefore tax revenues, one would think that the government might eventually act in its own interests and legislate a solution. On the other hand, if the current scheme is actually boosting revenues, there might be some hesitation in fixing something that, for the government, isn't a problem at all.

locusm• 12 years ago

I wonder what the cost of getting a frivolous patent like this is? Anyone?

rhino3692• 12 years ago

USPTO fees are about 400 to apply. Another 450 if it's approved. More if you have a ton of extra stuff.

The real cost is having some draft it and prosecute it. That's like 15-20k.

Ihategod• 12 years ago

Am I the only one that advocates the complete elimination of patents and copyrights?

ArtDev3• 12 years ago

I hope so. Have you ever been to China or India? This is the opposite extreme and it is worse. No one invents anything novel. Every product is cheap replica of something else. Its a race to the bottom. Much worse.

lostcolony• 12 years ago

Man, if that's the only alternative to patents, I wonder how we managed to bootstrap the idea of a patent system.

userbinator• 12 years ago

Every product is cheap replica of something else.

...and often has improvements that are practically useful. There, innovation happens bottom-up, with incremental changes to an existing product, and there's far more design sharing and competition since exclusivity doesn't last.

rrggrr• 12 years ago

Prior art is probably this: http://www.rapidremedy.com

minikomi• 12 years ago

Maybe someone should make a "patent or not patent?" game, where it describes mundane things and you have to guess if it's patented or not.

x0054• 12 years ago

Wow, so by example I should file this patent:

Method and Apparatus for Making Lots of Money

1. File an over broad patent by (a) describing an everyday procedure currently commonly preformed by humans and (b) adding "performed by a computer" to your claim. Alternatively, purchase a similar over broad patent from someone else.

2. Identify companies which utilize procedures which may fall under your patent.

3. Identify other companies that may utilize procedures slightly (or even barely) resembling those covered by your patent.

4. Determine prevailing legal fees for a patent defense case in the given area for each of the companies identified in steps 2 and 3.

5. Call all of those companies identified in steps 2 and 3 and threaten to sue them unless they settle for the sum of 80% of the prevailing legal fees identified in step 4.

6. Preform steps 1 through 5 using a computer.

eli• 12 years ago

Sadly all the good ideas have already been taken: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157743897/can-you-...

alok-g• 12 years ago

Please don't submit it, it may just go through! ;-)

mjt0229• 12 years ago

I'm sure they'll be hilarious. Hope one of mine isn't one of them.

higherpurpose• 12 years ago

There's a great list here they can start with:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/chinese-govt-reve...

thund• 12 years ago

Someone please fund EFF and make this a weekly event. If there is a chance of fixing the law, the cost of documenting its flaws is miniscule compared to the millions in damages done.

scrollaway• 12 years ago

If you want to donate, just donate! The EFF always puts the money to excellent uses.

https://supporters.eff.org/donate

coldpie• 12 years ago

Strongly consider a monthly donation, too. Nonprofits really like recurring donations because it gives them a relatively stable funding base to use for future planning.

netcan2• 12 years ago

They "scan to email" patent they mention at the start is famous largely because the owner is extremely aggressive, they even go after end users. IE, they might sue any company that has a scanner so their list of targets is basically the phonebook.

“Method and Apparatus for Indirect Medical Consultation” was issued on June 24, 2014. Presumably there is already a software/companies/people doing this that started before last month. If they are targeted, what happens? IE, if software published before June 24 is accused of violating this patent is there any possible case for it? Would it still cost huge amount of money to defend against this attack? Would losing the claim automatically invalidate the claim?

edpichler• 12 years ago

In Brazil you simply can't patent abstract ideas, game rules, techiquies and operation methods, software, math methods, etc, and "ways to do things" like this on the eff.org

I'm not sure if this is equal for other countries.

TeMPOraL• 12 years ago

Is there any way to make challenging stupid patents directly profitable? I would love to see someone figuring out how to make a business model out of it and using VC money to bankroll the process.

api• 12 years ago

Another question is why do companies get them?

Software and other ephemeral businesses lack physical assets. That's scary to quite a few MBA types, especially those brought up outside this industry. A patent is something that makes software look on the balance sheet as if it's a physical asset that the company holds.

It's all an illusion, but it's a security blanket for these types.

Introducing EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month

Related Stories