Hacker News Reader

Comment by bzalasky | Hacker News Reader

I'm adamantly against software patents, however, when it comes to chemistry patents, I know it's not a rubber stamp process. It can take a couple years to get a patent, and lots of patents are rejected. A lot of the process involves the examiner stripping out claims that are invalid (the parties seeking the patents generally want them to be broader than they really should be).

View on HN

I've seen software patents get both rejected and approved. It is by no means a rubber-stamp process.

As holder of a US patent on a purely software "invention" (aka, some game I wrote) I can categorically state that the only way it could have been granted was that it was rubber stamped because it is just a lot of talk about the algorithms I wrote, executed on a portable game system.

Out of curiosity, why did you get the patent?

CEO loved the idea of getting a patent because he thought it would make us look impressive and it would defend us in advance if someone else made a similar thing and tried to attack us with their own BS patent.

Makes me sad when i consider the comparison with my grandfather's multiple rounds of back and forth with the PTO fighting to finally get a patent on a mechanical device. Comparitively yes, they rubber stamp software patents because they clearly dont understand the art. They kind of understand more traditional (aka real) inventions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com