Hacker News Reader

Comment by FirmwareBurner | Hacker News Reader

>The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea.

Have you ever seen patents? They rarely cover the implementation details, or at most they're intentionally super vague about that, most of the time it's just the general idea on how the widget would work and what it does, but not how to implement it technically.

View on HN

I have seen patents. The whole point is to share a method of doing something, in return for exclusive use of that method for a period of time. That's the theory, anyway.

Then you misunderstood or saw too few patents.

I’m sure we’ll all be glad one day that Apple shared this research breakthrough:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/6/16614038/apple-samsung-sl...

You realize the patent you’re referring to was a design patent, not a utility patent? They are very different, the former only covers look and feel, not method.

I wasn’t aware of that. But it’s even more baffling: how did they qualify for a patent on the design of a basic sliding latch?

A good example of a patent that was challenged in court and wasn’t totally invalidated is Amazon’s 1-click ordering. They patented storing customer shipping and payment details in a database so they could purchase something with a single click.

It expired in 2017 but for the period it was in force, Amazon collected millions in licensing fees.

Patents really shouldn't be granted when any competent junior engineer could have designed and implemented the feature. This method is doesn't pass the "nonobvious" test.

Batteries used to have cardboard instead of metal shells. Because of this batteries used to leak prolifically. Then an inventor patented the modern metal shelled battery. His competitors all started infringing so he sued. They claimed that the invention was "obvious." The judge ruled that it clearly wasn't obvious, because if it had been they wouldn't have been making the obnoxiously stupid cardboard batteries for so many years.

I'd still argue that it was obvious. They just didn't do it because cardboard was cheaper.

> They rarely cover the implementation details

if you can’t figure out how its implemented you’re looking at an invalid patent or an application

> they're intentionally super vague about that

yes that’s how claims work

> most of the time it's just the general idea on how the widget would work and what it does, but not how to implement it technically

you’re looking at an invalid patent or an application

Reply on news.ycombinator.com