
Show HN: Explore ideas whose patent protection expires today - niko001
http://patentsexpiringtoday.com
======
niko001
The majority [1] of patents are never commercially exploited or licensed - I
wanted a way to browse recently expired patents to find hidden gems and get
inspired by existing inventions. The site uses the recently released USPTO-API
[2] to fetch newly expired patents each day.

NB: The reason the most recent patents displayed are from 12/31 is because no
new patents were granted during the first few days of January 1997.

[1]
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/06/18/13633/#7...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/06/18/13633/#799ec00c4183)

[2] [http://www.patentsview.org/api](http://www.patentsview.org/api)

~~~
wetherbeei
I run Google Patents (patents.google.com) - we've thought about including a
way to search by expired patents (we have the expiration indicators), but in
my opinion it gives a false sense of security. There's also
[http://freeip.mtu.edu/home/index.php](http://freeip.mtu.edu/home/index.php),
which searches over only expired patents.

The patent in question could have been improved upon, and that improvement can
still be in force. Say someone patents a widget A + B, and later files a
continuation A + B + C
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application)).
The first patent could be expired, but while building your copy of A + B you
might come to the same conclusion that the invention also needs to include C
(which is still in force) to actually work.

Google Patents focuses on improving patent quality. There's still uncertainty
if a granted patent is actually valid. If we can improve the prior art finding
process for inventors and examiners, then fewer overly-broad patents will be
granted, and it will be easier to tell if an invention actually infringes a
patent.

Then we can start to think about making patent information more useful for
part of the original purpose - as a transfer of knowledge to the public domain
in exchange for a temporary exclusive right.

~~~
coldpie
> Say someone patents a widget A + B, and later files a continuation A + B + C
> ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application)).
> The first patent could be expired, but while building your copy of A + B you
> might come to the same conclusion that the invention also needs to include C
> (which is still in force) to actually work.

This is a perfect example of why patents are harmful. The patent on C did not
in any way help the person copying A + B, it was invented on its own. But now
this new person can be punished simply for being equally as creative as the
other guy. It's a huge disincentive on innovation. I understand the theory
behind patents, but I have a really hard time believing anyone in history has
ever actually used a patent to find out how a thing was made and then improved
on it; or could not have done this equally as easy without patents. Even if
you can point to one or two such examples, that still has to more than balance
out the loss in innovation and increased legal costs created by uncertainty of
IP legality.

~~~
kevinwang
Without patents, inventing would not be profitable. All products would have
exact copycats and ripoffs.

~~~
ghayes
The majority of software companies don't hold any patents (aside of
copyrights). As such, it doesn't seem necessary that patents are the only
means to profit from "inventing."

~~~
kevinwang
But as you say, they have intellectual property protection. Isn't the
copyright protection that software developers get over their software
analogous in this sense to the protection that patent owners get over their
inventions?

Unless you just meant to split hairs over copyright vs. patent, in which case
I agree. I should have said something like "intellectual property protection"
instead of "patents".

~~~
ajmurmann
Patents and copyright work quite differently and patents aren't really
appropriate for software. Patents allow you to be too granular in what you
protect to make sense for software. I think a good comparison would be
protecting combinations of two musical notes in music. This would dramatically
impact creation of new songs because you are protecting something too trivial.
The equivalent happened when software patents first were introduced.

~~~
kevinwang
I feel like you're attacking our specific implementation of patents (and
especially software patents) in America. I'm talking about the idea of copy
protection. Is it an incorrect assertion that in a world without any copy
protection, people would be free to copy any invention they wanted? Thus, the
original inventors' version of the product (which would be exactly the same as
the copied version) would have no differentiating factors, and there would be
no guarantee of profit from invention.

Yes, there are a lot of flaws in copy protection. There are a lot of instances
where patent trolls and patents are detrimental to innovation.

But the main point that I was originally making was: Wouldn't a world without
copy protection be a world where every invention gets literally copied,
resulting in lesser gains for the actual inventors?

I think you may have misunderstood me: I did not mean to support software
patents or our current implementation of software patents at all. Instead, I
was countering the gp assertion that (patents are rare in the software world +
software world doesn't have rampant issues with ripoffs) implies that patents
are not necessary to profit off of inventing. My counterargument was that the
software world may not have many patents, but it does still have copyright,
and thus their counterargument does not invalidate my overall point/question:
"copy protection is necessary in order to not have a world full of ripoffs"

~~~
ajmurmann
Yes, that's a very different point that I mostly agree with. In addition the
secrecy that also gets caused by rampant copying also would be/was a massive
issue and was the driving force behind the introduction of patents. Of course
patenting "XOR" and protecting the stupid mouse forever are a totally
different issue as you pointed out.

------
swalsh
Fellow hackers, a word of advice... always start with the marketing before
building a product.

I too think a power actuated toilet seat sounds like a fantastic foundation
for a business, but it's what the market things... not what your gut thinks.

~~~
atmosx
_what the market (or anyone for the matter) thinks_ is not what drives the
_hacker mindset_. The moment science, hackers and other kind of _free
thinkers_ start narrowing their ideas because of _market or XYZ acceptance_
we're toasted.

It's the entrepreneur mindset that you're talking about, which equally rare
and valuable :-)

~~~
amelius
The entrepreneur is just a hacker/scientist/free thinker who deals with a few
extra constraints.

Just like an artist is a free thinker who deals with a few less constraints.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's not the constraints that change, but the goal as well.

For a hacker/scientist, the goal is that the solution must _work_. For an
entrepreneur who embraced the entrepreneurial mindset, what matters is if the
solution _sells_ well. Those two goals are very often at odds with each other.

The problem is that if everyone optimizes for the market value, we'll all
drown in bullshit.

------
bencollier49
"Mole Gassing Device"\-
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588252](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588252)

Brilliant stuff.

~~~
ctdonath
Better mousetrap:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588249](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588249)

~~~
nashashmi
This is one of the better written patents I have seen.

~~~
Retr0spectrum
The mechanism is massively overcomplicated. It almost looks like a joke.

~~~
wlesieutre
It looks like the design goal was "How can I turn a traditional mousetrap into
a humane mousetrap?" There would be more efficient ways to build the same
product from scratch, but it's a fun thought experiment.

~~~
kuschku
There’s far simpler, already existing humane mouse traps. Where you have a
small cage with an opening at one side, the opening as door pulled up against
a spring which would push it down, and then locked with a lever. If the mouse
touches the cheese, the spring-release of that activates the lever of the
door, and traps the mouse in.

[https://www.knauber-
freizeit.de/mam/celum/celum_assets/88041...](https://www.knauber-
freizeit.de/mam/celum/celum_assets/8804179476510_05340_5801_jpg.jpg)

------
shanemhansen
Huh. Work firewall won't let me access. I'm assuming that the problem is the
domain: "patent _sex_ piringtoday.com".

~~~
jrockway
I think it's time to stop taking jobs with firewalls like this.

~~~
robbyt
The ironic thing is, these jobs tend to pay the best.

~~~
jrockway
I took a 3x pay increase to move away from the overly-restrictive firewall.
YMMV.

------
zackmorris
Coming soon: the sister site softwarepatentsborntoday.com listing all software
patents starting today that will stifle innovation for the next 17 years

------
amelius
I actually want to explore patents whose protection expires in the time I need
to implement them.

Perhaps 6 months would be a good compromise.

------
cr0sh
I have to say I like this; personally, it will probably just be entertainment
for me (like I need more distractions), but I can easily see it being useful
for others. Great job!

One suggestion - can you put the page selector at the top of the list as well
(and maybe add an option to allow more than 10 items on the list)? That was
just a small thing I noticed...

------
benjyclay
Awesome site, this is the best one today.
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588175](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588175)

Word of warning, privacy services like Privacy Badger and Decentraleyes block
the data tables cdn your using so your users using those services see no data
at all

~~~
entwife
Foot vacuum, interesting.

The patents expiring today website seems to have a simple view of patent
expiry, based on 20 years from publication date. The legal expiry date is more
complex, and often much earlier.

The patent owner is required to pay maintenance fees [1]. Google patents shows
this information under "Legal Events". In this patent, the owner allowed the
patent to lapse after 3 years, but eventually petitioned the office for
reinstatement and paid the tolls for the 3rd and 7th years. One might expect
that this patent term actually expired 11 years after filing, in 2006.

Some patents are given a patent term adjustment (extension) based on
administrative delay not caused by patentee. Other patents have their expiry
tied to another patent by terminal disclaimer. The USPTO provides a calculator
(Excel spreadsheet, meh) for calculating, and additional explanations. [2].
This patent doesn't appear to be subject to term extension or terminal
disclaimer.

This patent's term is more complex because the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act
significantly changed the rules for patent terms, for patents filed after June
7, 1995. This patent falls into one of the exceptions. This is described
somewhat in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure section 2701. [3]

The original website is a _very interesting_ concept. It could be even more
interesting by incorporating more rules about patent expiry, allowing filters
on patents allowed to go expired, patents that were revived, and so on. It
would require incorporating additional information from the USPTO Public Pair
database.

[1] [https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-
yo...](https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-your-
patent#General%20Information)

[2][https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-
ter...](https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-
calculator)

[3]
[https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html)

~~~
monochromatic
You're quite right--determining a patent's expiration date in the general case
is a very involved inquiry. And even after it appears to be expired for
failure to pay maintenance fees, it can sometimes be revived...

------
ijidak
This is epic. Love it. I'm going to share this with others. I see this as a
great way to learn about patents in general, and as a way to get inspiration
for new ideas. I've always found patents fascinating, even if they're a little
over-hyped as a business moat. Ask Apple. Have any of their ideas from their
beginning until now, not been copied? Windows GUI vs Mac OS GUI, iPhone vs
Galaxy, Android vs iOS.

But I still think patents are at least stimulating to read and apply for. It's
proof of invention, which I still think is pretty cool and useful.

------
catcar
Those shoes were actually great:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588227](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588227)

~~~
krussell
Ha, I also liked those shoes. Looks like the patent for the competing Reebok
Pump also expired a few years ago:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5113599A](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5113599A)
. It's interesting to see that LA Gear filed for their Regulators patent 1
month before Reebok was granted the Pump patent.

------
incredulousk
Finally, after years of stifling innovation, the power actuated toilet seat is
public domain.

------
traviswingo
This is a great idea! There are undoubtedly many great solutions to be found
through here that were either before their time, or simply ignored after
filing.

Great work!

------
modeless
This is a great way to find ideas that have all their obvious improvements
covered by newer patents, and get sued anyway.

------
jamesfisher
Is there an analogous service for copyrighted works? "Explore books whose
copyright expires today"?

~~~
icebraining
Unfortunately, if you live in the US, the answer is nothing:
[https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2017/pre-197](https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2017/pre-197)

"no published works will enter our public domain until 2019."

------
donquichotte
I can't believe that this was a patent [1]. Surgical gown? Really? In 1995? A
suit with a ventilator? [1]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588153](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588153)

~~~
was_boring
How about this one, a shirt with reflective material on it!
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588156](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588156)

~~~
donquichotte
This patent, owned by George S. Panton, Jr., also includes Pants.

Edit: Mr. Panton, firmly rooted in the clothing industry, has other
inventions, like this spandex necktie:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US4839925A/en?inventor=Geo...](https://patents.google.com/patent/US4839925A/en?inventor=George+S.+Panton%2c+Jr).

------
soneca
An expired patent is of public domain or it is just free to be patented again
by another person?

~~~
jaclaz
It's public domain, see also:

[http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-
expire...](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5766/is-an-expired-
patent-in-the-public-domain)

The idea of a patent is that for a given number of years your invention is
protected, even if public, you cannot re-patent it "as is" (as it would not be
anymore new or non-obvious) but you can sometimes patent a derivative (like an
improvement of the same base idea).

The generic issue may be that often behind _something_ there can be a number
of patents, often interlinked, so it is far from easy to determine whether you
can "use" that expired patent.

~~~
orionblastar
Would that apply to very old technology like 8-bit CPUs and support chips?
Would it apply to old operating systems like CP/M?

I heard of some people making a toy that had expired patents on it that was a
hit in the 1970s or 1980s like Rubics Cube, Mood Rings, Tinker Toys, etc.

------
impostervt
I was randomly clicking and found this one:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588162](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588162)

The Legal events at the bottom says it expired in 2001. Seems strange?

~~~
niko001
Thanks for the feedback :)!

The patent in question was granted on 1996-12-31, which means it should have
expired on 2016-12-31. The status on Google Patents says "Expired - Fee
Related" so I'm guessing they didn't pay a required fee somewhere down the
line?

~~~
taejo
Unlike copyrights, patents don't have an invariable lifetime: they have to be
renewed, usually for an increasing fee. In the US, the schedule of maintenance
fees is:

    
    
        (A) Three years and 6 months after grant, $980.
        (B) Seven years and 6 months after grant, $2,480.
        (C) Eleven years and 6 months after grant, $4,110.
    

This allows patents that are not being profitably exploited to lapse early.

~~~
cr0sh
> This allows patents that are not being profitably exploited to lapse early

It also allows larger companies to sit back, and wait out small inventors to
"give up" on a patent (due to it becoming too expensive to renew) that they
are trying to sell to these same companies.

You might ask, though, why would somebody invent something that they didn't
then market and manufacture themselves? Well - it happens, more often than
not: Some inventions are created by hard work, sometimes at a large expense to
a lone inventor, sometimes not, or a prototype or model can be made to
illustrate the invention (which I don't think is a requirement anymore (?),
but used to be) - but a full-scale implementation is beyond the inventor's
finances or capabilities.

So they try to shop the patent around to companies or investors to get it to
market. Sometimes, they succeed - and they sell it or otherwise license it out
- and make a lot of money in the process. But often, these other parties just
elect to "wait it out" \- for the whole 20 years of the potential patent life
if needed. In other words, rather than help someone else gain from their hard
work and idea(s), and bring something to fill a possible need to market, they
would rather "save that money" and wait it out - then when it expires,
suddenly "bring a new device" to the market (perhaps even with their own extra
patented bits attached to foil others!). All of this is legal, of course -
nothing says these companies -must- purchase or license patents - but I
personally find it a distasteful side-effect.

I posted another comment earlier on this - about something which happened in a
similar manner to my brother-in-law. In his case, his up-front costs consisted
of not only creating prototypes, but also having to create them by having a
company manufacture plastic injection-molding molds for these prototypes -
this wasn't cheap then, and still isn't cheap today. Today, though, it would
be easier and cheaper for him to just 3D print his prototypes - but that
wasn't the case back in the 1970s when he was working on his invention.

Between those costs, and the costs to patent and renew the patent over its
life, he only broke even (roughly) after settling out-of-court with Bell when
we found them infringing on the patent by importing infringing devices from a
Chinese-based company (we were in a Walmart one day, and saw them being sold
in the store).

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
_It also allows larger companies to sit back, and wait out small inventors to
"give up" on a patent (due to it becoming too expensive to renew) that they
are trying to sell to these same companies_

This does not seem realistic. If you can't afford the $900 to renew a patent
after 3 years, you likely can't afford to produce the patented device either.

Further, your example doesn't hold water. If I'm (an executive at) Toyota, and
someone offers to license or sell outright a patent for $X, I stand to make $Z
__X if I agree to it, or $0 for 20 years if I don 't.

So either $Z __X isn 't enough profit to move my needle, or I flat out just
don't care about the product. Either way, I have no interest in pursuing it.
It's not about "saving money:" even in the most old-school of industries, I
can't imagine that waiting 20 years for an unrealized patent to expire makes
any sense if it would be profitable to license it.

It's far more likely that either (a) the patent isn't particularly useful or
(b) the owner is asking too high a license fee.

~~~
cr0sh
The thing is, my brother-in-law was able to afford and renew the patent for
it's entire lifetime, until it expired. But he couldn't afford to manufacture
it, nor market it properly.

To be honest, he didn't have the knowledge or understanding of these things
(he's a heavy equipment operator and one of the best welders I know). He's not
the best at math or spelling, but he's smarter and more motivated than many
people I have come into contact with. At the same time, he's naive about some
things, and a bit unworldly and unaware about others.

If the patent wasn't particularly useful, then why did Toyota and Bell both
infringe upon it? For this particular invention, my brother-in-law holds two
patents; the second building on the first. His patents build upon, and
reference earlier patents that describe similar solutions to the problem at
hand, and how his is a better solution, etc.

Now - you may be wondering what kind of device is this - so I'll tell you: It
an answer (maybe not a perfect one, of course) to the question of "how do you
keep your drinks cold in the summer, and hot in the winter, inside your car?"

His answer was a cupholder designed to be fitted in front of the air-
conditioning vents of the automobile. Cold air in the summer from A/C to cool
the drink, warm air in the winter from the heater to keep the drink warm. Do
you not think that is useful?

Toyota - in the 1980s when my brother-in-law's patent was still valid - made
several models of vehicle with a slide-out cupholder in front of the A/C vents
which infringes my brother-in-law's patent (it clearly anticipates such a
system). I own a 1996 GMC C1500 pickup which has a similar vent-located
cupholder (and was sold during the time my BIL's patent was in effect). I'm
sure that you've seen similar cupholders as well.

Bell imported and distributed (to Walmart mainly) clip-on cupholders from
Chinese manufacturers which essentially were duplicates of the designs in his
patents; I still have his original prototype, plus the examples we obtained
from Walmart and used in the court proceedings which led to a settlement with
Bell.

My brother-in-law never approached either company with an offer - they
infringed before he even thought about it; he found out about it after the
fact. So - if the patents weren't for a useful product, then why were they
infringed upon by at least three (Toyota, Bell, and GMC) separate companies?

Couldn't they have simply sent a letter or something to my BIL to offer to
license it instead, and help him as a small-time inventor? Yes - they could
have. Instead, they chose the more profitable solution, knowing that the
"small guy" wouldn't be able to afford the time or money to fight it.

------
trizic
I had thought of doing something like this. I thought it would be great to
have countdowns for popular patents such as the one Apple uses for MagSafe, as
these would mark dates of "freedom" that would benefit the consumer.

------
mring33621
Now I can safely launch my "decorative stone encrusted zipper teeth" [1]
startup!

[1]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588185](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588185)

~~~
tropo
This exists.

My wife had one of those zippers on a white overshirt/sweater thing. It
actually looked nice. It matched the drawings exactly.

------
raheemm
I like this one - backpack vacuum cleaner.
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588177](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588177)

~~~
jefe_
I'm pretty sure the people who clean my office use one of these...

------
blizkreeg
Does anyone think there are viable/profitable business ideas in there? If the
original inventors didn't bother to build something out of it, I wonder if
it's because the patents themselves are "good thought experiments" or if the
inventors lacked the business wherewithal to make it happen.

~~~
a1a
Most definitely. In my experience ideas are rarely valuable by themselves.
Rather an idea is valuable when implemented by someone who have what it takes
to see it through.

Simply put, not a lot of people have what it takes just because they filed a
patent.

~~~
takingflac
At least the ideas are put on record and able to be accessed by someone who
could see it through once the patent has expired, which fortunately is a
reasonable amount of time.

------
ISL
This IBM patent is practical and viable:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588199](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588199)

~~~
dsp1234
It also expired at the end of 2000

[https://fees.uspto.gov/MaintenanceFees/fees/details?applicat...](https://fees.uspto.gov/MaintenanceFees/fees/details?applicationNumber=08339523&patentNumber=5588199)

------
warriorkitty
You get interesting things when you type Linux[0].

[0] -
[https://patents.google.com/?q=linux](https://patents.google.com/?q=linux)

~~~
adtac
Question: Aren't Android phones a violation of this [0]?

[0] -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040244008A1/en?q=linux](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040244008A1/en?q=linux)

~~~
dsp1234
Using the instructions I previously provided on how to investigate patents[0],
it can be seen that this is a patent application (not an actual patent), and
its status is "Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action" after a
non-final rejection in 2008. This doesn't say anything about whether or not
they refiled or not, just that this application was abandoned, and never
granted.

So save some trouble, the application number is "10/797557"

Edit: Even more context. This application was rejected on claims 1-4 due to
"rejected under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by IBM RedBook, 'Linux For
S/360', 2000", and claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 102(c) from the same
source.

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12981882](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12981882)

------
kumarski
I'm so curious, what's your lead source/ is there a USPTO API feed that you're
parsing?

~~~
ReedJessen
Check out IPStreet.com

~~~
kumarski
<3

------
miguelrochefort
Is it just me (it's not) or are 80% of these fairly trivial?

Patents don't make sense when you think about it.

~~~
donquichotte
I thought the same. It's interesting that this kind of comment gets downvoted
without explanation. Is there some kind of culture on HN that implicitly
forbids us to voice criticism?

~~~
st3v3r
They seem trivial now, 20 some odd years after the fact.

~~~
miguelrochefort
I once wanted to build a system, and decided to browse through patents. I
realized that my system would easily infringe 100+ of patents. Many of them
were actually very recent.

~~~
bbcbasic
What if my human body infringes a parent?

~~~
Crespyl
I think a convincing case could be made that the human body is prior art.

------
ronenlh
I thought all domain names with the word "sex" in them were already taken.

------
SixSigma
Time for some word2vec to explore them without having to crawl through them
manually

~~~
ReedJessen
IP Street's got you covered. Semantic patent search as an api service.

------
sxates
Good idea - perhaps you should patent it!

