Want to know a little more about patent law? Well, the actual 'law of patent infringement' isn't all that voluminous - about 2 or 3 monitor screens long.
[
uspto.gov...]
One thing you don't find in the statute/law: Good faith is not a defense to a claim of direct infringement.
Another subject you might wish to explore the patent law doctrine of "equivalents", which basically says that a process that is substantially the equivalent of the patented process is a violation.
What is problematic with the patent referenced in the article is that it describes a process that, IMHO, isn't really that "inventive". It's not as if the patent holder invented "digital compression" or anything else of genius. Nor is the "idea" of "the process" something that simply escaped others, something that - until this patent claim was staked - wasn't foreseeable by anyone else involved in the WWW at the time. I don't think "the process" was fabricated out of invisible dark matter. Instead, the patent holder looked around, saw how technology was being applied, and without any significant leap of imagination or genius, described what was already in process and certainly going to happen/evolve without the patent holder ever inventing a damned thing.
I very much doubt that all the people who were using some version of the 'patent to be' processes, and those who tweaked existing processes for uploading images to be used in website, ever - ever - got their ideas about 'how to' by running off to the patent office to see what good ideas they could lift/steal.
I promise you that this business of "business process" patents and their ilk - in this case "a process" for doing something on the WWW that really in NOT inventive - will be like dirt in the gears of the smooth movement along the road of progress of the WWW.
So far as "they won't pick on the little guys" idea I suggest you do a little research. There are patent holders and boutique law firms that make "picking on the little guys" their specialty. No kidding.
Why pick on the little guys?
To build a war chest for an assault on the larger players.
Watch this patent. Is this is upheld then watch your back if your website uses image uploads. Do a little research on the issue of "equivalents" in patent law. When a patent applies to a process - one that I find unsettlingly generic - there's trouble for many in the brew. A patent so broad and general is hard to "get around". You think your process is different? Read the patent again and compare it to your image upload process.
Yes, I've read a number of patents that made my eyes glazed over and my brain foggy in disbelief that a patent was granted. What is somewhat different about the present patent is the reported amount of time, and apparently effort, that went into the patent process. It may be that some of the issues that were glossed over in the many other dubious "process patents" that I've read were actually aired in this case. That, at least, is the inference that I can draw from what has been described. What that might mean is that this patent could - maybe - have somewhat stronger legs to stand on.
That's not to say that I don't think that the process that this patent describes is really worthy of patent, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of inventiveness. IMHO, what this patent describes, is what was already well along its way, was in use in varying degrees already, and was certainly inevitable even without the patent holder's "invention" cough, cough, arrrgggghhhhh, gasp, croak, die. Sorry but I died in disbelief of the latest (obvious & inevitable) "process" patent.
