

USPTO invalidates key Apple patent used against Samsung - eljaco
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57560112-37/uspto-invalidates-key-apple-patent-used-against-samsung/

======
Bill_Dimm
It's nice to see the USPTO strike down trivial patents, but it would be a
whole lot nicer if it were done before millions of dollars in court costs were
wasted.

~~~
marcosdumay
As much as I hate the current US patents situation, the USPTO can't do much
about it.

Bad patents can get submited as many times as the holder wants, but the USPTO
can only mistake a bad patent for a good one once, and it's granted.

~~~
mbell
> Bad patents can get submited as many times as the holder wants, but the
> USPTO can only mistake a bad patent for a good one once, and it's granted.

The problem is that the USPTO doesn't even seem to want to make the decision
that early in the process. They seem to take a stance of "unless it is blatant
crap, grant it, and let the courts sort it out and/or wait for enough
complaints".

I think its just a matter of man power, they don't seem to be able to dedicate
the time/talent up front to do a thorough job. Instead they make a bet that
most patents are meaningless anyway so grant liberally and only put in the
real time when/if a patent becomes an issue.

The problem with this is that it strikes a firm blow to one of the key goals
of the patent system, to protect the 'little guy'. Making a patent a big
enough issue to draw review is prohibitively expensive for most little guys.
It seems like it takes two or more behemoth companies locking multi-million
dollar horns to draw their attention.

~~~
Symmetry
_I think its just a matter of man power, they don't seem to be able to
dedicate the time/talent up front to do a thorough job._

That's pretty much it. Congress sees the USPTO as a revenue source, so they
aren't even allowed to keep all the money they collect in fees (and they
aren't allowed to raise their fees either). And they aren't allowed to develop
a backlog (they started falling behind in the 1980s, but Congress slapped
passed new laws preventing that). And if they reject an application the
application can be amended and resubmitted, and almost always is until it's
accepted.

So basically the USPTO doesn't have the authority by itself to solve the
issue, and we need a solution from Congress.

------
thisthisthis
It should have been invalidated in the course of the trial, but we have a
wonderful notion of presumed validity.

Instead we just went through both an expensive lawsuit and a re-exam procedure
for a patent that never should have been filed and hence never should have
issued.

It begs the question: How often are damages paid for "infringement" of invalid
claims?

Lawyers made money. The USPTO made money.

Businesses lost money, not to mention time.

Anyone who is paying licensing fees for Apple's bogus pinch to zoom patent,
you can stop paying now. Thanks for playing.

------
mikhailt
USPTO hasn't officially invalidate any patents. They've filed a non-final
office action. It's now up to Apple to prove they're valid.

USPTO almost always do this when it comes to reexaminations, they'll reject
all claims, forcing the patent owners to fight harder to prove they should
have those patents.

On USPTO site, they mention that it is very rarely that the reexamination
would reject in all patents being invalided after the first office action,
70%+ of the times, a small part is rejected while the rest are re-validated as
real.

------
drucken
USPTO trying damage limitation exercises against their awful prior art
screening. Pretty pathetic, really.

Software patents should not exist, period.

