MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
> John Levine wrote:
>
>> According to Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
>>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 02:46:05 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>>>
>>>> IBM has a big development lab in Boeblingen which is about an hour from
>>>> Karlsruhe.
>>>
>>>At one time, IBM were the world’s biggest holder of patents. Their
>>>researchers came up with many clever ideas. But my impression was, very
>>>few of those ideas actually made it into their products.
>
>> A lot of patents are defensive, you don't necessarily plan to use them
>> but you don't want anyone else to own them.
>
> See, you cannot sue me for patent infringement, I am only doing what MY
> patent on that mater allows.

A patent gives its owner the right to keep others from using the
invention as described in the claims. It does _not_ give the owner
any rights to use the invention that he would not have otherwise.

It is perfectly possible, if undesirable for the patent holder,
to be dependent on some other patent. It is also possible, if
rarer, for two patents to block each other, so nobody can use
the invention. This can then be a reason to negotiate, or
(in extreme cases) to ligitate.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:42:50 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:

> According to Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
>
>>At one time, IBM were the world’s biggest holder of patents. Their
>>researchers came up with many clever ideas. But my impression was, very
>>few of those ideas actually made it into their products.
>
> A lot of patents are defensive, you don't necessarily plan to use them
> but you don't want anyone else to own them.

Here’s one notorious one: they had a patent on the use of bit-flipping to
produce a flashing cursor on a text terminal. And they sued other terminal
vendors for copying this idea.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 20:32:10 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:

> A patent gives its owner the right to keep others from using the
> invention as described in the claims. It does _not_ give the owner any
> rights to use the invention that he would not have otherwise.

And more than that, you don’t actually need to prove your idea works
before you can get a patent on it. I think the legal term is “reduce to
practice”, which basically means “write up a plausible-sounding
description of how it *might* work”.

This is why there was nothing to stop people patenting an endless variety
of ideas for perpetual-motion machines; it needed explicit rules brought
in specifically to prohibit them.

According to Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
>And more than that, you don’t actually need to prove your idea works
>before you can get a patent on it. I think the legal term is “reduce to
>practice”, which basically means “write up a plausible-sounding
>description of how it *might* work”.
>
>This is why there was nothing to stop people patenting an endless variety
>of ideas for perpetual-motion machines; it needed explicit rules brought
>in specifically to prohibit them.

In the US at least, you are supposed to have reduced your invention to practice
although it is obvious that many patentees haven't.

The patent office is allowed to ask for a working model of any
invention. Back in the 1800s they got models for everything (a
fabulous collection that was sadly destroyed first by fires and later
by auction.) Now they don't except for perpetual motion machines.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> schrieb:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 20:32:10 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>> A patent gives its owner the right to keep others from using the
>> invention as described in the claims. It does _not_ give the owner any
>> rights to use the invention that he would not have otherwise.
>
> And more than that, you don’t actually need to prove your idea works
> before you can get a patent on it. I think the legal term is “reduce to
> practice”, which basically means “write up a plausible-sounding
> description of how it *might* work”.

§ 21 of the German Patent Law states (deepl-assisted translation,
IANAL)

(1) The patent shall be revoked (§ 61) if it is found that

[...]

2. the patent does not disclose the invention so clearly and completely
that a person skilled in the art can carry it out,

To avoid insufficient disclosure, people (including myself, I have to
admit) now put a _lot_ of details into patents, which makes the patents
much longer than previously, and more painful to write and to read.

> This is why there was nothing to stop people patenting an endless variety
> of ideas for perpetual-motion machines; it needed explicit rules brought
> in specifically to prohibit them.

A patent has to be industrially applicable (§1), and (§5)

An invention is considered to be industrially applicable if
its subject matter can be made or used in any industrial field,
including agriculture.

Something that does not work can clearly not be used in an
industrial field.

Thomas Koenig wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> schrieb:
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 20:32:10 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>
>>> A patent gives its owner the right to keep others from using the
>>> invention as described in the claims. It does _not_ give the owner any
>>> rights to use the invention that he would not have otherwise.
>>
>> And more than that, you don’t actually need to prove your idea works
>> before you can get a patent on it. I think the legal term is “reduce to
>> practice”, which basically means “write up a plausible-sounding
>> description of how it *might* work”.

> § 21 of the German Patent Law states (deepl-assisted translation,
> IANAL)

> (1) The patent shall be revoked (§ 61) if it is found that

> [...]

> 2. the patent does not disclose the invention so clearly and completely
> that a person skilled in the art can carry it out,

> To avoid insufficient disclosure, people (including myself, I have to
> admit) now put a _lot_ of details into patents, which makes the patents
> much longer than previously, and more painful to write and to read.

>> This is why there was nothing to stop people patenting an endless variety
>> of ideas for perpetual-motion machines; it needed explicit rules brought
>> in specifically to prohibit them.

> A patent has to be industrially applicable (§1), and (§5)

> An invention is considered to be industrially applicable if
> its subject matter can be made or used in any industrial field,
> including agriculture.

> Something that does not work can clearly not be used in an
> industrial field.

When multiple patents arrive at the patent office contemporaneously,
and they all describe essentially the same mechanism or algorithm::
they should ALL be denied as something "obvious to one skilled in the
art".

Yet, the opposite happens.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 21:13:29 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

> When multiple patents arrive at the patent office contemporaneously, and
> they all describe essentially the same mechanism or algorithm:: they
> should ALL be denied as something "obvious to one skilled in the art".
>
> Yet, the opposite happens.

Worse than that, if evidence comes to light of “prior art”, that is, use/
disclosure of the patented techniques prior to the patent registration,
that should invalidate the patent. Yet, in the US at least, this turns out
to be very hard.

Case in point: the NewEgg patent, which was just an application of Diffie-
Helmann key exchange. Whitfield Diffie himself took the stand to testify
that he had come up with the idea decades before. Yet the jury were
unconvinced, and let the patent stand.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> schrieb:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 21:13:29 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>
>> When multiple patents arrive at the patent office contemporaneously, and
>> they all describe essentially the same mechanism or algorithm:: they
>> should ALL be denied as something "obvious to one skilled in the art".
>>
>> Yet, the opposite happens.
>
> Worse than that, if evidence comes to light of “prior art”, that is, use/
> disclosure of the patented techniques prior to the patent registration,
> that should invalidate the patent. Yet, in the US at least, this turns out
> to be very hard.

It is then a matter for the opposition division to decide, then the
board of appeal, then the patent courts (at least that is the EPO
procedure).

> Case in point: the NewEgg patent, which was just an application of Diffie-
> Helmann key exchange. Whitfield Diffie himself took the stand to testify
> that he had come up with the idea decades before. Yet the jury were
> unconvinced, and let the patent stand.

Was this before or after the US followed the rest of the world by
allowing opposition proceedings? Having such a case go straight
to a jury is somewhat problematic...

But "came up with the idea" is not prior art if it isn't disclosed.
If he didn't have a publication, or slides from a presentation,
that does not count.

Had he said "It was an obvious application that anybody working
in the field would have thought of with half a brain", that would
have been a strong argument for lack of inventive step.

But lack of inventive step is tricky...

According to Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>:
>> Case in point: the NewEgg patent, which was just an application of Diffie-
>> Helmann key exchange. Whitfield Diffie himself took the stand to testify
>> that he had come up with the idea decades before. Yet the jury were
>> unconvinced, and let the patent stand.
>
>Was this before or after the US followed the rest of the world by
>allowing opposition proceedings? Having such a case go straight
>to a jury is somewhat problematic...

It was in 2013. Since 2012 the US has had inter partes review, where
you can have the Patent Trial and Appeal Board review a patent to see
if it's not novel. That case was filed under the old rules, and was in
Marshall TX, a rural corner of Texas with a judge notoriously friendly
to patent trolls.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:54:54 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>According to Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>:
>>> Case in point: the NewEgg patent, which was just an application of Diffie-
>>> Helmann key exchange. Whitfield Diffie himself took the stand to testify
>>> that he had come up with the idea decades before. Yet the jury were
>>> unconvinced, and let the patent stand.
>>
>>Was this before or after the US followed the rest of the world by
>>allowing opposition proceedings? Having such a case go straight
>>to a jury is somewhat problematic...
>
>It was in 2013. Since 2012 the US has had inter partes review, where
>you can have the Patent Trial and Appeal Board review a patent to see
>if it's not novel. That case was filed under the old rules, and was in
>Marshall TX, a rural corner of Texas with a judge notoriously friendly
>to patent trolls.

If it went to trial in 2013, the case was brought LONG before that,
and would have been governed by the rules in force when it started.
Patents are litigated in federal courts where the wait for a trial
typically is 3..4 years.