If The Patents Are Substantially The Same, Then Shouldn't They Be Invalid?
from the just-saying dept
Here we go again with patent battles that pretty much hurt everyone. The latest concerns WiFi security methods with two separate companies arguing over patents that both companies applied for. One has been granted a patent that the other says is "substantially the same invention" as a patent they filed earlier, but which has yet to be approved. So, how did the one patent get approved earlier? Apparently because it's a narrower set of claims, even though the other company says the other patent is narrower. If you look through the various patents that have been made public, they certainly seem fairly broad -- which, again, goes against the point of patents. However, much more important is the basic fact that if these two companies were both working independently on "substantially the same invention" and clearly came to very similar end results, neither should be patentable. Patents are only supposed to be granted for inventions that are "non-obvious to those skilled in the art." The fact that multiple groups of people "skilled in the art" came to basically the same conclusion certainly suggests that it was where the state of the art was heading anyway -- and, thus, "obvious" and not deserving of patent protection. There was nothing actually innovative here or a breakthrough. It was simply the natural course of the market driven by demand in the market for better WiFi security. Why should one company get a government-granted monopoly on such a system?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Here we go again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two coming to the same conclusion does not mean it
Example: the integrated circuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two coming to the same conclusion does not mea
It's not invalidating the genius, but it should invalidate the patents. Otherwise how is it fair to grant the monopoly to one and not the other?
What's wrong with just letting them compete in the marketplace?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two coming to the same conclusion does not mea
For example, Ethernet was a great protocol for the LAN, but it's not the only one. 3COM pushed Ethernet, Banyan solved the same solution with Vines, then we get Token Ring, etc etc.
The problem comes from patents which patent something too broad, which cover things like "using light waves to transmit information" which could be construed to include radio, TV, 802.11, etc. IMHO a patent should be granted to a specific methodology of solving a problem, not to defining all solutions to the problems. Then when Edison invents his light bulb, he can own it and be rewarded for his efforts, but he can also compete with the guys down the street who invented the flourescent tubes. The problem isn't in granting patents, it's that they are too broad.
Today people file for "Methods of harvesting plant based materials" instead of the more proper "cotton gin".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some tech education for Mike
Have you ever tried to "compete" with e.g. MS ?
Even with the best products, lots of financing and best people you stand no chance of sirviving...
Remember what happened to Netscape ?
Same thing happened to countless other companies trying to "compete" in client-side applications, like web-browsers.
On the other hand, for server-based applications we've all seen the rise of Google, due to their brilliant search technologu, of course, bit also because of their minimal patent exposure and good trade secret protection for the server-side applications.
So for some products trade secrets work, but for others they just don't.
A little tech education for you, my retarded friend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some tech education for Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two coming to the same conclusion does not mea
Bell was first by hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]