Related note: anyone with a qualifying engineering degree can [become a patent practitioner][1].
I stumbled across this while looking into law school and was surprised to see my Computer Science degree was all I needed to qualify for the exam. The exam is difficult from the sense that each question has a good amount of information you need to process and 100 questions is mentally straining. However, the exam is open book and you basically have everything you need to figure out all the questions during the exam.
The exam is also relatively cheap, somewhere around $500 total (not including any additional learning materials, I use [OmniPrep][2]), and allows you to practice as a patent practitioner nationally.
USPTO used to have a limitation on Computer Science degree as a qualifier. It had to be from an approved Computer Science program. There were only a handful of approved programs; most were not sufficient to qualify. Have they changed the rules?
"a prolific patent litigant" that should be urban dict definition for a patent troll. And with addition of "losing majority of actual trials" a regular dictionary.
I think it's becoming if not already became apparent that IP law is deeply flawed. The sole existence of legitimate business model of patent trolls is an indication as well as solutions hurting public designed to avoid corporate litigations such as you tube content infrifiment marking. Its biased against individuals.
But, oh well,bills and laws are not sponsored by public, so it's hard to expect they work in their favour.
As I've mentioned several times on HN, I'm currently suing TP-Link for asserting false IP claims against me. We actually just amended to add new antitrust claims, which might work, being that TP-link is the largest manufacturer in the WiFi router market by far.
The patent application process should at least allow the public to come up with counterclaims. Far from perfect, but imho it would solve a lot. For example: Amazon files a patent application for one-click buying; the public however responds with a small script showing how to implement it, nullifying the patent.
I'd also like to see an official public database where people can post inventions, source code, etc., or an official way to timestamp/sign them. Such services exist right now of course, but afaik they're not official.
This is the absolute minimum that the government can do to make patent law future-proof. A law will only work if people think it's fair.
Part of the problem is that there are no criminal penalties for making false copyright claims as far as i know. A troll could be sued in civil court, but it's a long expensive process with non-negligible risk, and in practice individuals rarely attempt it because of the same asymmetries that enable patent trolls in the first place. What we need is an actual law that levies meaningful penalties for abuse. Maybe $100+ fine per invalid DMCA request, or 2x the demanded damages in lawsuits. That would at least help put a stop to shotgun blast automated takedowns, and inflated multimillion dollar claims designed to fleece teenagers and college students.
[+] [-] rudolph9|5 years ago|reply
I stumbled across this while looking into law school and was surprised to see my Computer Science degree was all I needed to qualify for the exam. The exam is difficult from the sense that each question has a good amount of information you need to process and 100 questions is mentally straining. However, the exam is open book and you basically have everything you need to figure out all the questions during the exam.
The exam is also relatively cheap, somewhere around $500 total (not including any additional learning materials, I use [OmniPrep][2]), and allows you to practice as a patent practitioner nationally.
[1]: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trad...
[2]: https://www.omnipreppatent.com/
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgb223|5 years ago|reply
Do you enjoy it?
[+] [-] YayamiOmate|5 years ago|reply
I think it's becoming if not already became apparent that IP law is deeply flawed. The sole existence of legitimate business model of patent trolls is an indication as well as solutions hurting public designed to avoid corporate litigations such as you tube content infrifiment marking. Its biased against individuals.
But, oh well,bills and laws are not sponsored by public, so it's hard to expect they work in their favour.
[+] [-] ikeboy|5 years ago|reply
As I've mentioned several times on HN, I'm currently suing TP-Link for asserting false IP claims against me. We actually just amended to add new antitrust claims, which might work, being that TP-link is the largest manufacturer in the WiFi router market by far.
[+] [-] kiba|5 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, it's a problem for a long time. This isn't something that happened in the last few decades.
Hollywood was in California to avoid Edison's patents.
The Wright brothers spent their time and energy suing people and engaging in feud instead of spending their time improving their inventions.
3D printing didn't really emerge as a hobby market until the 2000s after the expiration of patents.
Makerbot Inc apparently patented inventions that belonged to the 3D printing community at large, and then get bought up by Stratasys.
So you get intellectual common theft, inventors suing people instead of further innovating, patent trolling, etc.
[+] [-] amelius|5 years ago|reply
I'd also like to see an official public database where people can post inventions, source code, etc., or an official way to timestamp/sign them. Such services exist right now of course, but afaik they're not official.
This is the absolute minimum that the government can do to make patent law future-proof. A law will only work if people think it's fair.
[+] [-] yummypaint|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8note|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phkahler|5 years ago|reply
Lovely phrasing for such a practice. Glad to see Alsup still fighting the good fight