The Stupidity of Patents...

[Flerbizky]

Stupid is a Stupid does Sir.... Jeez..

 

[Rossell]

Reading the list, I say good for them.

 

[emad]

I posted a few of microsoft's dumbass patents here:
http://www.bytesector.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=243&SearchTerms=patent

 

[Der Alta]

Here's a good one.

Smart Parts bought the technology for a specific paintball gun. One that used electronics to operate the function of the gun. That being, open and close bolt, manage air flow, and start the cycle (AKA a switch).

That was 1997. In 2002, they were able to wordsmith the patent, and get the patent reapproved, for it to cover any paintball gun that used any type of electronics to facilitate the launching of a paintball. This encompassed designs for a grip that contained a circuit board, as well as completely different designs that simply fit the description but were nothing like original patent.

Now, there are three big compaines that make electronic paintball guns, and a handful of ones small ones that make electrical components that connect to paintball guns. Smart Parts (a paintball jugernautt sized company) served a mom and pop custom gun shop (AKA can't afford a lawyer) with a cease and desist order, then sued them into coughing up an amount of money per each gun they sell. This did two things. If effectively put the mom and pop shop out of business and set precedent to enforce the patent. Smart Parts has now served the other two big compaines with the same cease and desist order. Except now, they have precedent and the big compaines are screwed.

So, you want to talk about Stupid patents and Lawyers screwing Joe Public?

AO

 

[Famine]

What's wrong with that?

The big company spent a lot of time and money researching a product and patented it to prevent people from capitalising on their R&D cash and man-hours. The small paintgun shop was infringing on their patent and were duly served. If a shop - even a small one - couldn't afford lawyers to fight their cause, then they shouldn't expect justice to lean their way and shouldn't have broken Intellectual Property law.

 

[Danoff]

A company who gets a patent on their product and then goes after other companies who they think are infringing on their patent may not win.

Alot of these patent complaints are set up like...


Company A gets patent
Company B does something reasonable
Company A sues.

Isn't that terrible?

What they don't explain is that the lawsuit can fail and company A may have to pay company B's legal fees.

 

[Der Alta]

Well, Smart Parts didn't develop the technology, they bought it. At that point, they bought the design and patent to an electronically operated paintball gun.

The Small firm was developing a grip that simply used electronics to operate the sear of the gun, whilst all else remained a mechanical function. Thus enabling Joe PLayer to purchase a grip and bolt it to his current gun.

We can akin this to Ford suing Suzuki because their 4 wheelers have four tires and go off road, like a ford truck can. OR better yet, AutoDesk (the makers of Autocad) sue A rival 3d computer model software company because they can design digital houses on the computer.

Because of the inability of the patent office to keep control, and maintain a constant watch, many of these sketchy patents slide through.

I see the devils advocate angle you're playing, but in this case, the little guy got out right screwed simply because the big guy had more money. The court system failed the little guy for the same reason.

It's a disgusting world out there, and the amount of lawyers aren't getting smaller.

AO

 

[Danoff]

then sued them into coughing up an amount of money per each gun they sell.

I assume you mean successfully sued them.

This is either a case of a bad judgement, or they have a legitimate patent and for some reason we're not getting the whole picture.

Either way, it actually isn't the lawyers fault... it's the judge's fault.

The smaller company should appeal (if that makes sense in a civil suit) if they think they have a case. They could get plenty of damages if they win.

 

[Der Alta]

Ahhh... Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, they successfully sued them. The judge was ill informed as to what the logistics of the patents and the cases are. However, the appeal is useless, as the expanded patent specifically covers "any electronics used to fire a paintball". That is, any electronics between the trigger pull and the end of the barrel.

The sticking part was hoped to be that the Navy has patents and designs for a rail gun dating back nearly 40 years. However, those were designed to launch munitions, not paintballs.

Yes, you are getting less than the full story. It's an unfortunate story that goes on well over two years and is complicated and twisted.

To really sum it up, the big company owned a patent on an electronic paintball gun. They wordsmithed and expanded the patent to read an electronic means of launching a paintball. Very similar, and unless a judge had first hand experience they'd not catch the difference.

AO

 

[Danoff]

The judge was ill informed as to what the logistics of the patents and the cases are.

Judges have to be better than that. They've got to look carefully at the case. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

If the judgement really was stupid, there could be hope of appeal.

Anyway, it wouldn't be the first time a judge screwed something up.

 

[emad]

if I remember correctly, just a year ago, some european company all of a sudden came forward and claimed they held a patent on the Scrollbar or something extremely common of that nature. This after having held the patent for more than a decade and not doing about it. They then proceeded to attack as many small software companies and open source projects as they could in an attempt to use that to threaten larger corporations.

I'm not sure what happened about it in the end, but I do know that many of the open source projects that they shut down are back up...