> examiners for the most part seem to only look at existing patents [...] So if your work isn’t in one of these patent databases—examiners usually use the USPTO patent archive or google patents—it’s very possible your work won’t be discovered by the examiner.<p>Would it be feasible to build an "unpatented" database where people could submit the inventions they don't want patented and have the USPTO look at it in their research?<p>Maybe a patent version of what copyleft is to copyright?
That is incredibly upsetting but was very fascinating to read about. The author handled the situation extremely well after seeing (what seems to be) a major part of their life be "intellectually" taken away from them. Even though they may own the patent, the patent troll will never take away the dedication, work and love poured into this passion project. It definitely should make anyone question the current patent process.
Interesting read.<p>A lot of these come back to the problem of defining a patent: There is no way to determine, in a patent office, in the real world, at scale... if patents are actually novel and/or trivial.<p>It's possible to disprove a novelty claim in some cases (like this one), but that's it.<p>We need major reform, globally. The pharmaceutical/medical patent system needs to be separate to the software patent system, for example.<p>This case is really a great example. Patents enables intellectual theft, it doesn't prevent it.
Very disheartening.<p>Thank you to the author Jie Qi (MIT)<p>What can be done on individual level, at the engineering level, as well as voters in US or European Union, to make sure that the economic theft of this type does not thrive ?<p>(and I am sure there are many 'Jill MacKay' characters in other countries, not just US)<p>The current patent system in US at least -- had been converted into a form of legalized racketeering.<p>With its own ecosystem of 'enforcers', 'masterminds', 'spies on the ground', etc.<p>Also just as in protection from racketeers it pays to have 'wealthy' and 'powerful' backers for your business (with whom you must share a portion of your equity... ).
Former lawyer here:<p>One of the key takeaways from this is that even if you don't want to exclude other people from using and building on your invention, you should still patent it. It's much cheaper to file the patent--you don't even need to hire a lawyer to do it--than it is to fight off someone else.<p>But I also agree with the other comments here that if patent examiners need to do a more through search for prior art than just examining other existing patents, especially in domains where there are open-source communities. That would involve a modest increase in cost to the government, much or all of which could be covered by increasing the patent filing fees, and be a huge economic benefit for companies large and small that get harassed by dubious patents.
It's ridiculous that it costs $300-600k to attempt to dispute a patent. The whole patent process needs a major revamp, and that's before considering how bad it is for software and intangible products.
Intellectual "Property" no longer is to promote progress of science and useful arts, it is a form of rent seeking. If the patent no longer promotes science and useful arts, then the 1st amendment applies and I view patents and copyright as unconstitutional in their current form. Patents inhibit the progress of science and copyright has no limit.
If they're anything like domain name squatters they'll now wait until you're worth more, and then try to make you pay to license the patent. The fee they demand will be slightly less than it would cost you to fight them and repudiate the patent. You'll be in a quandary: pay more to fight for justice, or save money and let the terrorists win. Patent trolls are professionals, they know exactly what they're doing.
The shamelessness of some people:<p>> <i>What really twisted me inside was to see her emphasize how her stickers are “made in the USA.” Here’s the irony of the situation: Chinese American immigrant student (that’s me!) from MIT goes to Shenzhen, China to create an educational toolkit. But the output of such work is patented by an American businesswoman from Colorado who promotes the “USA” origin of the work.</i>
Read the patent. => Find where he lives. => Order a chainsaw. :p<p>Now seriously. Sew them. Hunt them down legally and shame them online for the rest of their life.