from Hacker News

How does nonsense like this even pass basic validation at the patent office?

by cottsak on 8/4/24, 2:38 PM with 10 comments

• by bell-cot on 8/4/24, 2:55 PM

  If the USPTO grants 12,345 new patents for toilet paper in various "innovative" roll width, and sheet shapes, and ply counts - that's a massive boost for their metrics - especially their patent filing fee revenue.

  (And these days - it might get their higher-up decision makers invited to some extremely nice parties, aboard the yachts of leading patent lawyers.)

  Vs. where in their chain of command would anyone give a crap about the economic damage?

• by delichon on 8/4/24, 2:59 PM

  The description seems to match the spheres in this video.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maqwEI3VpTA

  Sabine is skeptical.

• by s1artibartfast on 8/4/24, 3:56 PM

  What validation are you looking for and what step do you think it fails?

  I think it is a bad design,but I don't see why it isn't a novel one

• by retrocryptid on 8/4/24, 3:34 PM

  the USPTO doesn't evaluate the utility of patents. that's what the courts are for.

• by pwg on 8/4/24, 4:58 PM

  > How does nonsense like this even pass basic validation at the patent office?

  Your link references a "publication" of an "application", not an actual patent.

  Applications are "published" (usually at 18 months from filing) with no review, and the publication itself carries no rights for exclusion. The publication just serves to indicate what someone has applied for. All it takes to get anything published is to be willing to pay the fee to file the application, and to actually file it.

• by FrankWilhoit on 8/4/24, 3:28 PM

  Dave Jones (EEVblog) has been debunking these too.