US Patents Hit Record 333,530 Granted in 2019; IBM, Samsung (Not the FAANGs) Lead the Pack (techcrunch.com) 20
IFI Claims, a company that tracks patent activity in the US, reports that 2019 saw a new high-watermark of 333,530 patents granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office. From a report: The figures are notable for a few reasons. One is that this is the most patents ever granted in a single year; and the second that this represents a 15% jump on a year before. The high overall number speaks to the enduring interest in safeguarding IP, while the 15% jump has to do with the fact that patent numbers actually dipped last year (down 3.5%) while the number that were filed and still in application form (not granted) was bigger than ever. If we can draw something from that, it might be that filers and the USPTO were both taking a little more time to file and process, not a reduction in the use of patents altogether. But patents do not tell the whole story in another very important regard. Namely, the world's most valuable, and most high profile tech companies are not always the ones that rank the highest in patents filed. [...] As with previous years -- the last 27, to be exact -- IBM has continued to hold on to the top spot for patents granted, with 9,262 in total for the year. Samsung Electronics, at 6,469, is a distant second.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. "Invention" is one of those words whose meaning you take for granted, but when you try to define it turns out to be devilishly difficult. Engineers solve problems every day, and engineering for a company like Google or Apple isn't just a matter of taking pre-existing designs out of a book. At what point is a problem solution sufficiently novel to be an "invention"? So far as I know nobody has ever come up with a solution that doesn't boil down to "I know it when I see it".
I think the proble
Re: (Score:3)
Intellectual Property... (Score:1, Flamebait)
or really "Imaginary" property should be almost entirely abolished.
Patents need to be difficult to get. It is too easy for 2 different people to come up with the same idea done different ways and right now the system is too easy to game for those with stacks of cash.
Additionally, it should be illegal for a business to own a patent... period. We should only allow people to own patents period. It can be any number of people but it must be people and "non-transferable". No patent should ever be sold. Just
Re: (Score:3)
Patents need to be difficult to get. It is too easy for 2 different people to come up with the same idea done different ways and right now the system is too easy to game for those with stacks of cash.
The purpose of patents is to only protect a specific implementation, not an idea. If you have a dozen companies all getting patents for their own unique implementation of some idea than the system is working as intended. The problem (particularly in the realms of computer software) is that the broad ideas as opposed to the specific implementations are being given patents. That discourages people from developing alternative approaches which is the opposite of what you want.
Additionally, it should be illegal for a business to own a patent... period. We should only allow people to own patents period. It can be any number of people but it must be people and "non-transferable". No patent should ever be sold. Just rights to access and use the patent licensed for whatever the inventor wants.
That would totally fuck up our current model for the better. People and their ideas would become valuable again and businesses would no longer have that particular leverage to fuck the people over hard any longer. They already have more than enough leverage to fuck people over in other areas.
I'm sure you mean well, but this wo
Re: (Score:1)
"The purpose of patents is to only protect a specific implementation, not an idea. The problem (particularly in the realms of computer software) is that the broad ideas as opposed to the specific implementations are being given patents. "
I agree, but in actual practice that is not what is happening now. Literally ideas are now being patented and being passed off as though they are implementations. You look too much like doing something someone else is doing and a lawsuit could happen and now you are deali
Re: (Score:1)
I also wanted to add... no one can patent anything without a functioning prototype that actually does what the patent claims within 16 years. If an approve patent does not have a functional prototype in 16 years it become void, entirely. It does not become public because if it does, the person that figures out how to do it in 100 years will lose out on their invention. I believe this is what created un-patentable radars, though I could be mistaken on that.
Re: (Score:3)
The purpose of patents is to only protect a specific implementation, not an idea.
Not according to the corporate patent lawyers that I worked with. I submitted a patent for a specific implementation and they informed me that it was their job to make the wording and coverage as broad as possible.
After they were through with the text, I couldn't read and understand the legalese.
And, yes, it was granted.
I think that patent lawyers and the patent office employees are all members of some sort of Yale Skull & Bones secret society, and all cooperate to the same end.
Anyone can complain
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, after performing the appropriate Skull & Bones ritualistic sacrifice, pate
Re: Intellectual Property... (Score:1)
Same happened to me, with a lot of effort, I could see that their description actually was about my invention, but had I not known my solution, I would have had a hard time coming up with it based on the patent wording and information. That is another point of the legalese, making sure that it's hard to actually make heads or tails from it, especially since detection may be hard (it certainly was for my case, IC audio)...
Re: (Score:1)
In an ideal world yes. But some things are so complicated and often an invention is created by many influencing people who deserve some credit as well.
I have hundreds of "great ideas".
This other guy shoots down half of them as these "great ideas" are actually stupid.
An other guy will try to implement and test these existing idea, and toss out the ones that failed.
Other ones may be passed back up, and altered to make the idea work, often with ingenious effort.
Once we settle on that one idea. we have a perso
Re: (Score:2)
-invention is created by many influencing people-
I did say that multiple people can be part of a patent. That is fine.
-I have hundreds of "great ideas".-
There should be no limit to the number of patents a person can hold.
-An other guy will try to implement and test these existing idea, and toss out the ones that failed.-
I am totally okay with the patent process being able to pre-file while a prototype is being delivered and room for adjustments/refinements. This would allow a group to decide to start work
Re: (Score:1)
How do you propose making patents more difficult to get? Make it more expensive? Require a working prototype before a patent will be granted? Both of these options would make it much harder for the little guy to get a patent, but just a slight inconvenience for the deep pocketed big company. More rigorous examination? How do you accomplish this without increasing the fees (that hurt the little guy the most)? Right now
Re: (Score:2)
The point of patents is to make people publish details of their implementations in exchange for a temporary monopoly. This increases generally-available knowledge. As long as the patent system isn't subverted the way the copyright system has been (making copyright effectively indefinite), it should be a good thing. That said, patents need a lot more scrutiny to filter out obvious ideas and prior art, and 20 years is probably more than enough - I'd drop it to 15 years or even 10 years.
Our patent system is no laughing matter... (Score:1)
About IBM, the real history (Score:2)
Why are we even bringing up the FAANG group here? (Score:2)
IBM has led the pack in US PTO filings and inventions for something like the past 30 years. So this is hardly "news", unless you haven't been paying attention at all.