The Problem With A Database Of Prior Art Is You Don't Know What's Worth Putting In

from the not-so-easy dept

Dan Berninger, who I almost always agree with, has tossed out a suggestion for how tech companies can deal with situations like the one where Verizon was able to squeeze millions of dollars out of Vonage using patents that clearly never should have been granted, as there was tremendous amounts of prior art on the patents (much of which was brought to light by Berninger himself). His suggestion is that tech companies should create "a formal process of contributing software innovations to the public domain." It's one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but won't work in practice. In the past, we've explained why similar ideas (such as a database of "obvious ideas" for the sake of prior art) will never work.

The main reason: if you're not in the business of generating patents, you generally don't think all of the little things you do are worth patenting or dropping into a database. They just seem obvious and natural, so you don't even bother. It's only in retrospect -- when someone else has patented the concept -- that people start to realize that they wish they had some sort of record of the obvious ideas they had or things they did years before the patent was filed. Sure, people will submit some ideas here or there, but it simply won't seem worth it to many people, especially on very minor things, or very broad things like setting up a hands-free kit in a car. That seems so obvious, why would you even think to patent it... or put it in a database of prior art? So, while it's a nice idea in theory, it will fail in retrospect, because the ideas and concepts that need to be in a database will seem so obvious that people won't bother entering them until it's too late and someone else already has the patent.
Hide this

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

Filed Under: database, patents, prior art, public domain


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    John Duncan Yoyo, 22 Jan 2008 @ 3:20pm

    How about a retroactively collected list?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jon, 22 Jan 2008 @ 3:52pm

    I would think archive.org would be a pretty good source of prior art. Primarily in the web space, but I am sure there are many more tangible ideas that are represented in there.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Paul, 22 Jan 2008 @ 4:19pm

    I dunno...

    I mean, with the current state of things, people may notice that any idea they have should be placed into that database. basically, if you make any sort of project, you just make it a habit of logging it in the database. its annoying as hell, many people won't do it, but look at it as sort of an open source database or a wiki of obvious ideas. it'll probably get the more blatant ones that people have already made little projects about.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    jonnyq, 22 Jan 2008 @ 4:56pm

    Another Danger

    Another danger is that if such a database existed, patent seekers would use it as an excuse to patent the obvious and the tried. By noting that no prior art was in the database (because it was too obvious to include) patent seekers will claimed that there is no prior art and they did their due diligence to find it (by checking the database), and the system suddenly becomes worse than it currently is.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    boomhauer (profile), 22 Jan 2008 @ 5:38pm

    seriously

    the whole thing is pointless because if obvious != obvious, there is no foundation for a patent system at all. If the courts cant man up and call some things obvious that really are, theres no point in even having the patent system at all.

    Hmm. gives an idea though... perhaps like these domain name generators. what if were to develop a system that didnt try to come up with ideas, but simply compbined every known thing in existence with every other thing known, and with every possible known usage... and build a list of everything that could possbily be invented today. Put this on a website and let google index. Instant prior art for any possible idea.
    But i just patented this idea, so sorry...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Alfred E. Neuman, 22 Jan 2008 @ 6:09pm

    It would be nice ...

    Remove the incentive to approve everything and anything.
    I read somewhere that the patent office is funded from the patent submission fees, and therefore approvals = $$$.
    Give that money to some other dept or org.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Homer Simpson, 22 Jan 2008 @ 6:35pm

    DOH

    Oh look. Someone has just patented putting obvious ideas in a database

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    KD, 23 Jan 2008 @ 12:49am

    I think it is unfixable, therefore ...

    I agree this idea is unworkable, but even if it were practical, it wouldn't be worth doing.

    Patents are just a tool for large companies to bash each other and stomp out small companies. If they ever served the original purpose of promoting progress, that has long since ceased to be true. They now are inhibitors of progress. I've seen quotes attributed to some of the founding fathers that seem to indicate that some of them feared this would happen. Man, those guys were smart.

    Large companies have enough other ways to bash other large companies and stomp out small ones. The patent tool should be removed from their hands. Either abolish patents outright or severely restrict their issuance and use. Abolishment is probably the better choice, because I really believe the system is unfixable given the influence/control that the large corporations have over the governments (plural -- I don't mean just the U.S.). And by "abolish" I mean revoke all existing patents and stop issuing new ones.

    Yes, I know that is very radical and unlikely to happen (see corporate control of governments). If someone could figure out a way to prevent the large corporations from controlling the governments, perhaps this problem (and several others) could be solved without radical action. I think the chance of that happening is even less than the chance that we could abolish patents. If we do neither, the only approach left is even more radical (can you say 1776?), but we're all too comfortable to undertake armed insurrection (I include myself in the "we"), so THAT will never happen.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.