When someone creates a US patent, they go through a review process to stop the most blatant copies from previous patents or pre-existing work. After this, you may still have bad patents get through, which can be removed through litigation or publicly accessible methods such as Inter Partes Review (IPR). The latter of which is planned to be changed as we know it in the near future.
IPR is a method where an individual can claim that an existing patent is invalid due to pre-existing work, such as something the individual should have creative ownership over. While there is always the litigation method of removing blatantly fraudulent patents, a small business or the average person is unlikely to have the funds.
New regulations are changing how IPRs can be filed in some substantial ways. Now, if someone files an IPR, they give up the right to future litigation on their rights over a patent. This is obviously not ideal for someone who may have their own products on the line if an IPR is to fail. Additionally, IPRs will no longer be able to be even tried if there are existing cases against the patent, even under poor previous cases. While this change is meant to increase the efficiency of the patent office, there are some serious consequences that must be looked into either way. The patent office also cites IPRs being beneficial to larger organizations rather than the smaller businesses, though you can make your own conclusions based on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s arguments here.
Hackaday certainly can not give any legal advice on how this change will affect you, but there are cases given by both sides that may persuade you to write to your legal representatives if you live in the States. Even still, we here at Hackaday have seen our fair share of patent trolls causing issues. If you want a case of blatant patent shenanigans check out these 3D printing layers that promise improved strength!
Thanks [patentTrollsAreTheWorst] for the tip!
I worked in a company, where we filed (and got) a patent for “indicating the state of a process based on multi colored luminant indicators”… Basically, a traffic light.
Personally, I’m against patents: Let’s say, I come up with THE thing… I patent it and e.g. IBM decides to copy it. I cannot fight against them. I will go bankrupt with legal fees and be unable to uphold the patent.
No, you can sell it or rent it to the much maligned “patent troll” who specialises in upholding patents from small companies against rich ones. Eliminate “patent trolls”, and what you say becomes true. Indignation against “patent trolls” is 99% to the benefit of giant companies like Apple who have a long history of stealing small companies (patented) work – not in frequently by driving them bust.
Patent trolls don’t need or deserve your simping. There is very clear and pervasive evidence of patent trolls exploitating the system and only benefitting their own wallets.
A company paying for legitimate patents and handling the rights for them would be an entirely different matter. And either they don’t exist or, since they are actually legitimate, aren’t causing trouble that would get them noticed outside their field. Either way they aren’t what is discussed.
Patent trolls are a blight and only hurt innovation.
I think that’s rather one sided. Putting aside “rectangle with a screen”, if you come up with something innovative, be it a design or a process, a patent means you have to disclose it to ensure protection. This means that others can read about your design/process and prevents innovation from being lost to trade secrets.
For example, look at Alec Steele’s titanium Damascus or Nile Red’s grape flavoured, bird repellent coated apple experiments.
Brilliant! A patent troll can just spin up a shell company that keeps on filing nuisance IPRs with ZERO chance of ever actually invalidating anything in order to prevent anyone else from being able to invalidate those patents, clogging the whole thing up!
Efficiency sure shoots right through the roof when you no longer have to invalidate anything ever again!
I came to make exactly the same point – it doesn’t need to even be something as traceable as a shell company, I can see this being done as-a-service for a few grand in bitcoin and being virtually unprovable
Originally the patent system was invented to boost innovation, protect inventors and help the economy. But for a long time it has devolved into an instrument for abuse and greed. My first guess is that this loophole is created especially for this kind of abuse.
That was my first thought as well. It’s so obvious, that it can’t be patented, except with USPTO!
the US Patent system is one of the biggest things holding the country (economically) back – and should be massively changed. The easiest fix would to be just abolish the whole system (which would be much better than what is there now) but a less drastic change would limit patents to much smaller duration (say 5 years), not allow patents to be extended through ‘change of use’ (often used with drugs), etc etc etc…
Trouble is too many vested in the current ‘process’ – which is a lawyers dream and does nothing for involution..
Having grown up with 3 siblings there were many arguments over food, but one day i came across the answer in a magazine, whoever divides the pie eats last.
this is an ingenious strategy because it is in the interest of the last eater to ensure the pieces are equally sized so that they get the largest piece possible.
However, if you look at the patent system you can see that fairness is absent. The first entity to patent gets the largest income, but also a large initial cost in patent fees which they may or may not recoup from those licensing their patent.
The patent system is designed to incentivise making similar parts incompatible, because modifying a patented design can create a new patentable design.
For an alternative to the patent system a government could hold a competition, where all manufacturers submit their best design. the best design is selected and approved to be the basis for a standard only if the manufacturer agrees to open source it to all other manufacturers. if no design is selected then no new designs can be approved in the country. this is how financing for altrustic engineering can be arranged.
This intervention is necessary to increase reliability for the end consumer as well as reducing waste from lemon designs that make it to production. By reducing the variance of parts needed to service machinery, older machines can be kept running for longer in combination with a right to repair, and companies do not become insolvent by being sued due to warranty replacements.
This should reduce the emissions of an industry since a smaller number of machines can be produced with extended lifetimes. There would be more technicians available to repair the machines because they only need to specialise on one family of designs.
after the design is selected there is a review period where other manufacturers may suggest changes to ease construction and ensure compatibility to the open standards.
Coincidentally, the Soviets had a design bureau system that worked similarly to your proposal. Due to the nature of it being a closed market (and the fruits of capitalism being just a short hop away) it did incentivize copying successful western products over original designs. That said, if you don’t have Leica money, there are a number of wonderful Soviet rangefinders that might as well be one, because that was the camera model produced by their factories. The lenses are still good too.
It probably would have worked better if some cooperation had existed with outside markets, or if the whole world adopted the system, but it worked okay for a time.
“modifying a patented design can create a new patentable design” I ANAL but it seems to me that the term “prior art” would come in here.
How is the government going to decide what to run a competition on? Some inventions are entirely new, completely unprecedented. Is the government going to run a competition on something that nobody has thought of yet? The idea is ridiculous.
There is often a great deal of time, effort, and money put into inventing something new. If this new thing is then made available to all (which could be millions) manufacturers for free to improve upon, you have effectively stolen the initial development expenses from the true inventor.
Altruism is not a virtue. It is disguised theft.
Go cry. You just want the government to strong-arm your competition. If you invent something, you should be the best at making it, right? And if you aren’t, who are you to deny everyone else a superior product?
The USA is quickly becoming a “3rd world country”. What ever that means?!?!
“the us is become a 3rd world country” means corruption operates under the color of law, to the detriment of society and the benefit of a VERY small group, often size “one” or size “law makers”. This is well established and commonly known, as we currently observe on a daily basis.
“the usa is a third world country” means corruption operates under the color of law, to the detriment of society, and the benefit of a VERY small group, often size “one” or size “law makers”. This is observable in the daily examples with which we are presented in the spectrum of news media. not to be political and all, this is simply observation.
Well.. Guess its good to see HAD commentors have no idea what exactly constitutes a “third world country” still.
This article is not very informative. It only tells you something about something. Not the actual something.
it tells us something bad is turned into something worse, and that this will hurt much more. if you are interested, you paint by numbers to fill in the spaces.
if everyone takes just one tiny bite, we can eat all the billionaires and thus eliminate the corporate monsters.
Might give us gas.
This article is written as if the change is already implemented. Last I heard they were still taking comments.
In Europe, the new Unified Patent Court was setuped outside the EU structures, so that the patent industry could do whatever it wants.
The goal was to impose software patents via the jurisprudence of such a court, without any possibility of correction by the CJEU, since the law covering the exclusion of computer programs is not EU law.
They elected part time technical judges, that are patent attorneys working for Nokia, 3M or Airbus in the morning and judges in the afternoon, the same companies that pushed for software patents.
Patent laws are immoral and should be repealed. You made something first? Cool, who cares. Stop trying to take away people’s rights to build and sell what they want. Monopolies are always bad, especially so when they are protected by law.
The writers of the United States Constitution were not idiots. Patents and copyright are compromises which advance the interests of inventors and writers, consumers, and the country as a whole. For inventions, neither secret science (which can result in an invention being lost for all time), nor no protection for inventors, is as advantageous for everyone for everyone but thieves as is the temporary protection offered by patents. You do not have the right to sell someone else’s efforts without permission.
For writers, the case is even more obvious. Many authors are barely successful even with the protection of copyright. Even with the protection of copyright, a new publication is often copied and illegally available even before the legal product is available. For example, the newest Dilbert calendar or other Scott Adams works. Most high quality authors wouldn’t bother writing if they couldn’t make money from it, and they couldn’t make money without copyright protection. Culture and civilization would suffer as a result.
Unfortunately our system is out of balance. In principle, this is how it’s supposed to be but things have been twisted to the point where you see people beginning to feel like it would be better if there was no copyright nor patents.
Really what we should all agree on is that there needs to be major reform to fix this system that seems to primarily benefit giant corporations.
All it takes is seeing how DMCA has been used as a cudgel to prevent people owning or repairing what they have bought to see that copyright has been majorly distorted.
Correct, but they made plenty of mistakes. Nobody’s perfect.
Thieves? What do pickpockets and burglars have to do with this? If I copy someone else’s work, I am a creator, not a thief. Copying is learning, and should be encouraged as a natural human behavior. Wanting someone to stop copying you when you’re doing something valuable is pure egotism.
I am an inventor, and I publish articles on my inventions anonymously with no patents or licenses involved. I do it because it’s fun, and to make the world a better place. People whose only motivation is money should not be in the business of creativity, full stop. Our culture and civilization have suffered from these people for long enough.
” “not aligned with its own stance” ”
Seems pretty close to where we are. Although it seems to change daily. ?!?
“When someone creates a US patent, they go through a review process to stop the most blatant copies from previous patents or pre-existing work.”
This might be worth its own article. My understanding is that the patent office itself is doing little to no work at all. The submitter is required to show that they have done that work. None of this seems to work in the interest of the small inventor.
I’m partially in the camp of “Let’s just start over”. My impression is the we are all just living 20 years behind the times, getting access to products as patents expire.
China will prove to the world that ignoring patents is the way forward. We’ll be starting over soon enough.
I wonder if the Yes Men are still active. They could patent a number of questionable behavior (i.e. stock value based bonuses, liquidating profitable subsidiaries, and for-profit prisons with kickbacks) under buisness method patents, create a weak court case to lock in those patents, then sue any unauthorized use of them.