Eclipse IP Casts a Shadow Over Innovation | Hacker News Reader

Eclipse IP Casts a Shadow Over Innovation

eff.org

63 pointstgbrter15 comments

Example of the potential impact outside the US. 1. "Normally", this kind of patent would not have been validated in France. Which is a good thing. 2. But, as soon as this patent is validated in the US, the patent owner can ask for internationalisation and then... (talala...), it starts to be applicable in France. 3. Finally, French laws should ask local consumers and enterprises to respect this patent that would not have been validated in a first place... Here, you have a "niche" market for patent trolls?

This is not about IP in the Eclipse IDE, like I was thinking.

First thing I thought as well. Especially since you hear so little about Eclipse these days.

Why the Patent office continues to award patents of "apply computer to otherwise not patentable ideas" is beyond me. In my last job we constantly fought people who claimed that using a computer to do something with travel required them to be massively paid off.

The patent expressly states a "notification system". I'd question whether that covers a bi-directional communication platform like SMS messaging. A notification system should be in one direction only - sending notifications to a user and nothing more (like a pager). The fact that you can use SMSs to notify people is irrelevant. You can use any communication system to notify people. A patent that claimed innovation on "telling people changes in quantity regardless of how they're communicated" would be far too broad to get approval.

Except that reading the claims... it really is that broad. Stupid Patent of the Month is going far too easy on this one.

The patent is rooted in a provisional dated 2003. Even in 1953 it would be a stretch to call this novel. Filing a patent like this should be considered defrauding the patent office and should carry criminal penalties.

> Filing a patent like this should be considered defrauding the patent office and should carry criminal penalties.

I couldn't agree more. I wonder if this doesn't fall into any existing criminal charge already.

From what I understand, the patent office essentially is not empowered to say "no" to a patent request. The most they can do is keep sending it back for revisions, but if you have enough money and lawyers, you get to basically wear the examiner down or get a different examiner more willing to let it go.

An outright rejection process would go a long way to fixing some of this crap.

How would a rejection differ from sending it back for revisions? Are you imagining a blackout period for that submitter?

The first review can be binding, so a peer reviewer is forbidden from overriding any findings of prior art. Appeals could require litigation or.exponentially increasing fees .

Please answer these two questions:

1. What is wrong with revising a patent based on Patent Office feedback? "P.O.:This is objectionable for reasons x, y, z" , "Applicant: Ok, thanks, I'll change x, y, z so as not to be objectionable". This seems like a reasonable exchange on the face of it.

2. How will you distinguish 'revisions' from 'new' patents that are substantially similar to previous patent applications?

Remember that some companies (MSFT/Google/IBM) file for many, many patents every year.

Revisions can keep coming back. No one in the patent office can stop the patent outright and prevent it from coming back. If someone file a patent for something obvious, the examiner cannot completely reject it.

Ideally, the rejection should go in a searchable database/knowledgebase and prevent from anyone else, including the original filer from filling again.

Heh... I made it more than halfway through the article before I realized that it has nothing to do with the Eclipse open source software foundation.

It is kind of shocking somebody actually got a patent for something that obvious.

I thought one requirement for getting a patent is that the invention has to be non-obvious. Is this the result of cleverly wording the patent application, or did someone at the patent office neglect their job to actually review a patent application before accepting it?

One can only hope that these assholes eventually try to squeeze the wrong "legitimate businessmen" somewhere, and end up at the bottom of a river somewhere.

Yeah, I know: they're really good at avoiding large enough companies that have the resources to silence their bullshit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com