Kuhn: I Think I Just Got Patented [LWN.net]

Kuhn: I Think I Just Got Patented

Posted Feb 4, 2010 1:49 UTC (Thu) by efexis (guest, #26355)
In reply to: Kuhn: I Think I Just Got Patented by JoeBuck
Parent article: Kuhn: I Think I Just Got Patented

No I don't think that's how patents work... patents don't cover an end result, they cover the method to acheive that result. The 'claims' section details what the result is; the method of achieving that result is detailed within the rest of the document. So, if you can achieve the same result, but by using a method different from that which is detailed in the main document, then the patent doesn't apply to you, and unless there is prior art on the method that you've used, you're still free to patent the different method that you came up with.

If this wasn't the case, the remainder of the document would be somewhat redundant.

to post comments

Kuhn: I Think I Just Got Patented

Posted Feb 4, 2010 4:19 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (2 responses)

You are incorrect. What matters is the claims. The test for infringement is to compare against the claims.

It is common for claims to be much more general than the actual invention described in the main text of the patent.

Kuhn: I Think I Just Got Patented

Posted Feb 4, 2010 12:09 UTC (Thu) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link] (1 responses)

A quick lookup says that yep, that is indeed the way patents work in the US (plus also UK 'n Japan), whereas continental Europe is more like how I said, but not identical. That's seems really really dumb huh!

Kuhn: I Think I Just Got Patented

Posted Feb 4, 2010 18:58 UTC (Thu) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

I was in shock when I realized a couple of years back how the US patent system treats patent claims. The "protection" is over these very broad descriptions.

Those writing patents want broad scope so they push the limits of novel and nonobviousness rather than limit the claims to something noticeably more narrow and specific (comparable to the essentially redundant more detailed description of the actual invention as provided in the patent application).

This is one reason why any fair analysis of almost all existing patent claims (not just software) would conclude that a 20 year monopoly on such broad claims would not promote the progress of science and useful arts (as required by the US Constitution).