What Is A Patent?

The benefit to you is that you are granted a period of time when nobody can compete with you. As long as the patent is valid, anybody using the idea must have the permission of the patent holder. If somebody uses the idea (even if they don't know about your patent), you can bring a lawsuit against them, forcing them to buy a license from you and paying you damages.

Once the patent lapses, everybody can use the idea, and you have contributed to the public good by clearly and fully describing exactly how use the idea.

Patent laws are set up so that you can't patent:

• an idea that somebody has already else patented (but you can patent an improvement on somebody's idea)
• an idea that is obvious to someone skilled in the state of the art
• an idea that is already in use ("prior art")

Actually, you can't patent a bare idea. You reduce it to practice and patent the implementation. So if the idea is "harvest wheat faster", that's a nice goal, but not patented. But "Harvest wheat (faster) using a machine with motorized scyth blades", you are getting closer. To actually apply, you need a complete description of the machine and how it works.

If a patent is actually granted, it assumed to be valid, and you can go sue people who are using your idea. In order to beat you in court, the person using the idea has to prove that the patent should never have been granted in the first place. This usually means that he tries to prove that the idea was already in common use before you applied for the patent.

What Do You Mean By "Stupid Patent"?

I Don't Mean Clever Ways To Do Stupid Things

An example would be a novel system for marking the driving controls of an automobile so that a blind person could operate the car. At this point in time, such an idea would be impractical because blind people can't see traffic, signs, etc. So operating the controls of a car wouldn't be very helpful. But if the idea is a new and workable way to mark the automobile controls, it would be patented.

Sometimes such a patent is impractical only at the present time, and future technological advances (e.g., something that would enable a blind driver to sense surrounding traffic) might make the patent valuable.

Also, a patent intended for use in one area might well be applied to others. Like using the blind automobile controls patent to build controls for an elevator.

Another example of a good patent to do something stupid might be a belt that is filled with water, usable for putting out a fire in your underwear. I doubt that there is a large consumer base eager to purchase such an article, but one might improve the invention and make it of use to fire fighters.

I Mean Patents That Should Never Have Been Issued

The most recent tragedies tend to be "software patents".

For a long time, software was protected either as a trade secret or through copyright (first the source code, then the binaries, and eventually the U.I. elements). Then the patent office started accepting applications for software patents, and all hell broke loose.

The problem is that the patent office is more clerical than it is technical. As a result, numerous stupid patents have been issued. According to law, patents can not be used to protect ideas that are obvious to those skilled in the state of the art, or those that are prior art. It is assumed that a certain number of bad patents will be issued, and law suits will settle the issue. But litigation of any kind can be expensive. So bad patents only get invalidated if the patent-holder gets greedy and asks for such a large royalty that somebody takes him to court. A successful parasite does not kill the host animal. He takes just a little here, and a little there.

Have you ever notices that when a Window application crashes, it sometimes leaves a "hole" in the desktop where the window was? Or dragging a window sometimes leaves white space behind it? This is probably due to patent #4,555,775 on the concept of backing store. What would you, skilled in computer programming, do to implement windows in a desktop? How about this: when you paint the window on the desktop, save the pixels underneath it off-screen. When the window is closed or moves away, replace from off-screen storage the pixels that had been hidden under the window. There are other ways to do it, but that one is fairly obvious. And if you write code that way, you are in violation of patent #4,555,775. As a result, Macintosh developed a complex scheme whereby an application gets a notification whenever something no longer obscures his window and it is time to redraw. And Windows followed along. One can argue that the redraw notification system is sometimes better than caching the old pixels, but that's not the point. The point is that the patent takes the implementation choice out of the hands of the engineer and gives it to lawyers. Do you really want lawyers designing your software?

Patent #4,197,590 covers the concept of an "XOR cursor". In the early days of windowing systems (especially with bitonal displays), it was common to represent your cursor as a small bitonal bitmap. When you want to display the cursor, you exclusive-or (XOR) it into the pixels of the desktop. This insures that the cursor is always visible: the cursor is black on white, or white on black. And when you wish to hide or move the cursor, you XOR it again, and the original image is restored. Fairly obvious. But if you write the code, you are in violation of patent #4,197,590.

Fortunately, the patent office is becoming more careful in examining applications. And many of the worst patents have expired.

My current feelings on this subject are:

• Many software patents should never have been issued, as they are either obvious or prior art.
• The concept of software patents is valid. There probably are some software patents for clever code that deserves to be protected.
• For the most part, copyrights of source and binaries should be the preferred means of protecting programs.
• And if somebody wants to write open-source code and offer it for all to use, hooray!

I encourage you to learn more about the legal aspects of intellectual property and come to your own conclusions.

Gallery Of Stupid Patents

Software Patents

Process Patents

Discussion And Ramifications

I don't understand the point of patenting the side to side swinging or the cat exercise. The person who holds these patents cannot sell their "invention". What do they gain by this? Can they run up to kids in play grounds and fine them if the kids are swinging side to side? I can they fine a cat who is running after a laser light? I wonder how much we paid for the issuing of these patents with out tax dollars…..

> The person who holds these patents cannot sell their "invention".

Actually, they could if they really wanted to! A patent holder is allowed to pick and choose whether or not to enforce their patent. [This is not true for copyright. If you fail to enforce a copyright, you lose it!]

> Can they run up to kids in play grounds and fine them if the kids are swinging side to side?

Yes, if they wanted to look like scum balls.

> can they fine a cat who is running after a laser light?

No, but they can sue the cat owner who is holding the laser pointer. It's the law. Stupid, yes. But it is still the law.

I have three cats. We have a small basket in the living room where we keep brushes and special toys. That includes two laser pointers. We've been using them for many years, and the cats love them! Every time I give the cats a beam to chase, I am in violation of patent #5,443,036.

I have also seen generic laser pointers offered for sale at PetSmart, in the cat toy aisle. The package lists a number of things you can do, including "amuse cats". Those laser pointers are being sold in violation of patent #5,443,036 - it was filed on November 2, 1993 and is still valid. If the owner of that patent so desired, he could sue PetSmart and the manufacturer of the laser pointer.

I have never heard of a case of the latter two patents actually being enforced. I think that they were applied for as a joke (the swing one was filed by a patent attorney, on behalf of his kid), and the P.T.O. issued them, like good little drone office workers. Since the P.T.O. has formally apologized for issuing the swing patent. The patent includes text like:

Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.

But I have heard of enforcement of the two programming patents. In fact, the holder of the XOR cursor patent made a tidy little living, going from company to company, making them pay to use obvious technology. The key was that he wasn't too greedy. He didn't ask for so much that a shakedown victim took him to court and invalidated the patent.

Other Web Sites On Patents