In this case, the patent is considerably narrower than the headline would leave one to believe.
Even if someone did manage to get a patent granted on something like "bitfields", this would be an annoyance and not a tragedy, as the patent would never hold up-- it would be trivial to produce prior art to invalidate it.
I'm all for discussing patent reform, but it's a lot easier to do in terms of specifics. And, in this case, I don't see anything egregious. At least, not yet.
Comments
That was sort of the point ;)
By making it so broad you could theoretically sue any company.
...and lose, badly, when they provide "prior art".
Just because you are awarded a patent doesn't mean it's enforceable. Over-broad patents get challenged, and struck down.
I think you should probably read the rest of the thread.
I have.
In this case, the patent is considerably narrower than the headline would leave one to believe.
Even if someone did manage to get a patent granted on something like "bitfields", this would be an annoyance and not a tragedy, as the patent would never hold up-- it would be trivial to produce prior art to invalidate it.
I'm all for discussing patent reform, but it's a lot easier to do in terms of specifics. And, in this case, I don't see anything egregious. At least, not yet.
And if you could sue based on the title of your patent, that might mean something.