Article:
 |
|
O'Reilly Awards $10,000 1-Click Bounty to Three "Runners Up"
|
| Subject: |
|
The Good Fight |
| Date: |
|
2006-11-01 03:09:36 |
| From: |
|
AndrewHS
|
Response to: The Good Fight
|
|
William Stackpole and Tim O'Reilly
Thanks for your serious attempt, in 2001-3, to help BountyQuest challenge bad patents.
I'm actively studying the patent conflicts connected with a silicon sensor which we [a small development team] wish to market. My present drudgery job is re-reading all the claims in existing patents in this area. Stackpole's statement ... "it seems all is needed to patent anything these days is a healthy dose of khutzpa, and a good lawyer. " ... is ringing VERY true in my ears today. Although my product is an electronic device not a business method, we have in common a huge frustration with patent examiners who let through many commonsense but not original techniques as patentable inventions when they are not.
There have been some serious debates between electrical engineers [see e.g. IEEE Spectrum "Patent Absurdity" August2002 pp48-9] and people like you,O'Reilly and Bounty Quest . Has that had any influence on courts or the attitude of patent lawyers as of 2006 ?
The answer to that question will influence what I do next with one brain-child. So I look forward to an update and airing on O'Reilly and elsewhere.
Andrew Holmes-Siedle, Oxford UK
|
Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.
And frankly, as long as they say to themselves "if this is a bad patent, it will be discovered in court," they aren't really going to improve things.
There are a lot of smart, knowledgeable patent lawyers who do get it, though.
FWIW, a lot of people don't do what you do-- read the existing patent claims. "Don't ask, Don't Tell." is the mantra. If they read them, they couldn't file their own stupid patent.
Best of luck.