Comment by elil17
24 days ago
Software patents are probably unenforceable in most cases, at least in the US and Europe, are essentially unenforceable. The European Patent Office, very sensibly, denies software patents.
The USPTO has a strange insistence on granting them even though they aren't legally valid. Therefore, if you have a lot of money, you might file a software patent for one of four reasons:
1) You hope that the US courts might one day change their minds and start enforcing software patents.
2) You hope that you might scare people in to giving you licensing fees even though you know the patent won't be enforced.
3) You want to prevent others from scaring you in to giving them licensing fees.
4) You want to get a patent because it's impressive/looks good on your resume.
> The USPTO has a strange insistence on granting them even though they aren't legally valid
I recently learned [0] that the USPTO makes it money from patents, its not government funded. Not only that but checking patents loses them net money while maintenance fees are the real cash cow.
The whole system is similar to the revenue model of a shitty journal that just publishes whatever research as long as the author pays. Except the office doesn't even need to care about their reputation in granting dubious patents because they have legal backing.
[0] It was a comment on hacker news, that I checked.
> its not government funded
It's not the user fee model that's broken, it's the revenue basis. Maybe it would be more effective if they tripled the filing cost and if you successfully obtain the patent (it's rejected by the patent officers), you get half back.
That surely wouldn't benefit incumbent large organizations against small time inventors
2 replies →
I filled a patent in France. That was denied by the French office as being a conceptual method More than an invention. I accepted that decision. But there is a completely unexpected side effect, explained to me by a patent advisor. I probably now can oppose that nullified patent to any patent that would implement a version of that conceptual method. Not sure of the reality of that statement, but that’s a funny backfire.
it makes perfect sense. inventions implementing some abstract concept thats already known with prior art (like your rejected patent) cant really count as novel.
otherwise an evil law firm could spam adaptations of your idea to every relevant industry and get rights over your invention without your consent. that would be a complete perversion of what the patent system is supposed to do.
Also, corollary from the above: you want to make lawyers happy in an acquisition because of the above, which allows you to sell for more $