Hacker News Reader

Comment by billybob | Hacker News Reader

If this is true, surely the judge will ask: if each of these claims can be invalidated by five separate pieces of prior art, why in the world were the patents granted in the first place?

View on HN

aren't like 80% of patents invalidated on reexamination? (which is, of course, significantly different than 80% of patents being invalid)

the judges are probably pretty used to crappy patents.

Also, judges live in the real world too, and I would expect some of the current patent talk has leaked into their social circle.

Real world or no, I doubt many of my non-geek friends are aware of the patent/innovation/whatever discussion that we're pretty saturated by here in HN-land. Perhaps in certain jurisdictions that hear a disproportionate number of IP related cases it would be otherwise, but if judges are of the 'real world' I'm not convinced they'll be across this as you might assume…

Judges who deal with these cases take an interest in the goings on, just like sports people tend to read the sports page, and computer geeks keep up with the computer news. People tend to act remarkably similar where their interests lie.

I haven't seen statistics, but I know of many that have passed a reexam or two with flying colors.

That is why he said that 80% are invalidated. The ones you heard about probably fall under the 20%.

Mr. Obvious to the rescue!

No, he asked a question, and I simply shared an anecdote. Do you have a link to proof for 80%?

("Obviousness" is not just a problem for patent examiners, I see.)

Some facts: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/Reexamination_Information...

Ex parte re-exams result in 66% with claims changed and 11% with all claims canceled. Inter partes re-exams result in 43% with claims changed and 44% with all claims cancelled. Not bad.

The answer would surely be: Google has far greater access to organized/relevant information than the patent office (or any other entity) has ever had in the past...

I wonder how effective this will be in fending off the patent trolls (e.g. IV), probably not very ...unless... Washington could implement/regulate a streamlined method of invalidating patents with prior art, it could go a long way in protecting valid inventions, while creating a disincentive for firms filing frivolous lawsuits and patents.

I know the patent office is under-staffed/funded but, you've got to believe that far fewer patents would be filed if there was a more effective system for invalidation in place.

This is a fantastic idea, it would allow the tech community to police patents itself. Perhaps a good way to streamline the process would be to simply mark a patent when prior art has been found and verified by the patent office. The more involved invalidation of the patent could happen later.

The prior art is in relation to Lodsys' claims. Remember that patent trolls use their patents as moving goalposts. What the patent office grants and what the patent troll claims they own are not necessarily the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com