This EFF blog post strongly advocates for preserving the inter partes review (IPR) process as essential mechanism for challenging invalid patents, framing it as critical to fairness, innovation, and protection of small businesses from patent trolls. The article champions democratic participation in government rule-making, providing readers with specific tools (comment templates, federal submission links) to oppose proposed USPTO rules that would restrict patent challenges. EFF argues the proposed rules violate principles of equal treatment, due process, and access to effective remedy by discriminating against patent challengers.
I assume this change is related to the patent office wanting to reduce its workload? Funding probably should be increased. Patent nonsense ends up costing everyone a LOT more in the long run.
so which is it? "patents" being used by trolls? or American Corporations protecting their investments?
I remember when I realized why software patents are not going away any time soon; it was the same thought that I had when I tried to consider the quantity (amount) of dollars represented as 'valuable assets' in IBM's finances; assets which are just software patents.
If I where a US citicens I would want whoever is resposible for it to be fired and investigated for corruption.
Because you need to either be severely incompetent to a point of by far not being qualified to do your job or corrupt to come up with that.
If you do a bit research into the patent system it becomes clear that if anything challenging being to difficult and expensive is a problem not the other way around.
I work for EFF and wrote the text of this blog post and action. On here I speak only for myself, but a couple points I want to add.
1) EFF has only filed one IPR ever, (linked in the post), against Personal Audio, to invalidate a patent asserted against podcasting. This was crowd-funded by hundreds of people. It required years of litigation beyond the IPR process itself.
2) Patent challenges should be open to all. There's nothing wrong with a "for profit" org challenging a government monopoly - it's a public benefit. A good patent will often hold up (many do), a wrongly granted one will usually go down.
Please read the examples in the post of (very) small businesses, individuals, and nonprofits (Wikimedia) who were protected because another organization, often a for-profit, filed a successful IPR.
It's truly upside down world when USPTO is concerned its very limited monopoly-challenging services are being overused by "for-profits" that file "serial" petitions. In my career I have analyzed hundreds of shell companies that have (each!) sent out dozens or hundreds of threat letters and lawsuits demanding patent royalty payments (patent trolls). Guess what? They're ALL for-profit. They ALL file serial petitions with the hopes of a fast payout.
We have limited means to challenge this extortionate business model, and now USPTO is trying to drastically limit one of the best options. I hope they reconsider, and we ask for your support.
Thanks to all and I appreciate the discussion here.
I have a challenge out to all my friends: "Show me one, just one, software patent that is not obvious to someone skilled the field, and I will stop my annoying diatribes about how bad software patents are."
To this day I have yet to see to a useful software patent.
The effect of the anti-patent push has been to pivot the VC and startup industry from technology to buying market share. When patents were strong, you came up with an idea, got it working, got a patent, and then went to a VC for funding to deploy. Now, you come up with an idea, hype it, and go to a VC for funding to hype it more.
Intellectual property demonstrably stifles innovation. It is the ultimate rent-seeking behaviour. It's not limited to software patents either. Hell, it's not even limited to patents.
The Wright brothers had a patent on the flight control mechanism that they used to stifle innovation [1]. This problem was so bad that when the US entered the First World War, they were completely unable to produce any aircraft and had to buy them from the French. This ultimately led to Congress intervening to form a patent pool for aircraft patents, a system that persists til now.
In the early days of the Internet (ie Napster and Limewire era) there was a lot of hand-wringing about "stealing" music and how it hurt artists. Almost no artist makes sufficient income from music royalties. Only the very top do. The rest make a living from perfrmances and music IP doesn't impact that. But it does help record companies to explit artists, which is the main point.
The pharmaceutical industry claims patents are necessary for drugs. Thing is, most drug research is undertaken by government funding and then basically just handed over to Big Pharma, who spend most of their money on marketing not R&D. What R&D they do is largely to game the patent system to extend patents without minor but irrelevant changes.
Copyright law is repeatedly extended (in the US) largely to stop Mickey Mouse entering the public domain. At this point I'd be happier with a carve-out specifically for the stupid mouse and let everything else fall into public domain
We do not need intellectual property. For atistic works, 10 years. Max.
It's not inconceivable that Congress, even one as dysfunctional as this one, could eventually agree that software is not patentable subject matter. That's Ripley's "nuke it from orbit" solution.
Democrats: because software patents are a tool of rich tech companies to maintain their dominance.
Republicans: because they hate the trial lawyers, and some R's are libertarian-leaning as well. And because they hate the tech giants, too.
Write your congressman & senators. Or pick some other active form of political participation.
Although there are examples in this article of clearly scam patents being thrown out, please remember that there are likely examples of the opposite where clearly valid patents get thrown out without a court case, and more where it was unclear which way the patent office should go.
Overall, this alternative system to challenge patents weakens patents as it is indented to. Especially in software patents this is may be a good thing to many, but it is clear to see that this system has probably resulted in some valid patents not being filed as their inventors lack faith that a patent will prevent uncompensated ip theft, and it gets hidden instead.
The most useful thing about software patents IMO is what you uncover during the patent writing process. When you’re sitting there writing the equivalent of a 10-20 page college essay on the problem background, operating environment, then all the present and future uses of something novel (the provisional stage), it forces you to think in a way that no typical product management process does. There are few (any?) other forcing mechanisms I’ve seen that produce the same results.
Patents are supposedly granted to inventors, yet the preamble of each patent independently lists 'inventor' and 'assignee'.
So what part exactly does the assignee play other than to represent capital? And clearly capital is valued over innovation, as it is the assignee that actually 'owns' the patent, not the inventor.
Please go to US Inventor, https://www.usinventor.org & learn about Josh Malone (Bunch of Balloons) and what the PTAB is doing to legitimate inventors who's hard fought and paid for patents are getting 'nullified' by companies who just don't want to pay a reasonable licensing fee to use their invention. This is a very legitimate organization doing a lot on Capital Hill to help. They have a lot of info and encourage people to reach out to your Congressmen and Senators; loud voices everywhere sometimes break through.
I’m not sure radicalising this debate helps anyone. We are trying for a narrow victory of preserving IPR. Turning that into a broader argument about software patents plays into the opposition’s hands.
I'm pretty sure the patent office is funded by fees, so its in their interest to keep the applications coming. They also seem to avoid penalties even when their bad patents are overturned.
"The USPTO is a demand-driven, fee funded, performance-based organization with a commitment to delivering reliable IP protection
and information to its various stakeholders; including serving inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses in the U.S. and around the
world."
[1]https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy21pbr....
I'm starting to believe that all patents are at best ineffective, and at worse harmful in a globalized world, because it's not like airpods clones off aliexpress are actually being stopped at the port all too often.
fighting a patent is quite expensive and hard and in case of proper patents (and many less proper) unlikely to succeed else many patent trolls wouldn't be able to earn so much money
This is the reason why most times patents are not fought until someone gets sued even through at that point more things are at risk, like temporary restricted sales, so normally a precaution patent invalidation should be preferred by the company starting to sell products where they know someone is patent trolling. But it isn't, as it's too expensive.
There probably had been cases of big companies using a "try to drown small company in lawsuits even if they are spurious" approach, but IMHO this is the wrong way to limit such power abuse (the right way is painful panelties and reparation if they are found to do so and reasonable fast court actions to stop this abuse until courts are settled).
Thanks for the links. How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here?
On one had, we shouldn't feed the flames but on the other hand - we may need a foundation of patents for defensive measure or to reaslitically compete against the likes of IBM who have a gajillion patents.
And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application process. From what I can asertain this is otherwise money on the table, after meeting that prerequsite.
Are you suggesting we walk away from technology grants and just wing it with regards to what may happen when IBM legal team (or other patent troll) comes knocking ?
IPRs are pretty useful for challenging bad patents and should be very broad. However, I found myself in favor of this change, and honestly questioning the EFF's motives given how strong and personal (speaking specifically to the EFF's ability to challenge patents, not a generic third party) your expressed opinions were in this piece.
I am very sympathetic to the argument that Unified Patents and other folks who offer "IPR insurance" now can't fight bad patents, but hopefully if the rules pass they will be able to convert to either a non-profit or a financing model that allows them to sidestep this rule.
Also, are you aware of the argument in favor of this change? In a recent case, a patent troll used an IPR claim to attempt to extort a patent owner when that patent was going through active litigation. Limiting IPRs from for-profit entities not practicing in the field (also a requirement in the rule change) when small companies are actively suing someone else honestly sounds reasonable in light of this. See: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2021-...
This is one of the problems with 'Corporations are people' and 'Money is free speech'.
Once a revenue source is generated, there are now 'persons (corporations)' with very loud 'speech (money for lobbying)' that start attempting to influence law.
Governments are a collection of people that are hopefully optimizing toward the benefit of the people. I don't see how patent trolls benefit anyone that doesn't draw a paycheck directly from it.
Network effects are far more powerful than IP. Witness the fact that >50% of Twitter's users hate it and think everyone should leave but they are still using it because they are still using it.
Without IP the owners of the core hubs of network effects could take all intellectual products, monopolize them, and rent them back to us. We would be unable to resist because network effects are more powerful than we are as individuals.
I am glad Hacker News is still against massively centralized things of SOME kind. I remember when the cypherpunks here were in favor of blockchain and crypto. The latest zeitgeist of being against decentralized stuff (witness the hate of plebbit) is leading the “hackers” here to learned helplessness and support online feudalism (big tech monopolies). And I was worried people started to embrace patents too.
Y’all will love decentralization next summer again.
I don't like software patents but are SIFT and SURF really obvious? Even after 2 tries of trying to read and understand how they work, I've still only gotten the most superficial high-level view of them.
ARC cache is only obvious after it’s been shown to you.
Whether or not software patents are a good thing is an entirely separate question (one on which I suspect we agree, in fact) but software patents can and do contain actual non-obvious inventions.
Article strongly advocates for democratic participation in government rule-making, framing public comment as essential duty and right.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article includes repeated explicit calls-to-action: 'TAKE ACTION Tell USPTO To Work For the Public, Not Patent Trolls' (appears 3 times).
Article states: 'Please join us and speak out through the public comment process.'
Article frames government rule-making as legitimate site of public voice: 'If Congress wants to change the system, they're able to do so.'
Article provides sample comment: 'I am opposed to the USPTO's proposed rules changes for inter partes review (IPR) and other patent challenges.'
Article explicitly invites personal stories: 'If you have a personal experience with patent troll attacks, please mention it.'
Article criticizes USPTO for acting beyond Congressional authority: 'USPTO officials must not be allowed to cripple patent challenges from the inside.'
Inferences
Three iterations of identical call-to-action demonstrates article prioritizes mobilizing democratic participation as urgent.
Emphasis on federal rule-making process suggests article views government responsiveness to public input as essential to legitimate authority.
Provision of multiple access mechanisms (sample text, links, instructions for adding personal stories) indicates article believes structural support for participation is crucial.
Invocation of Congressional intent over agency authority suggests article views democratic inputs as check on executive power.
Article champions inter partes review (IPR) process as an effective remedy against wrongly-granted patents and patent trolling harm.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Article states IPR is 'one of the only places in the nation where patent trolls can be held to account for the outrageous and harmful claims they make.'
Article provides specific examples: 'SportBrain Holdings sued more than 80 companies...When a panel of PTAB judges looked at it, they canceled all claims.'
Article includes statistics: 'thousands of patents have been thrown out' through IPR, though 'only 350 patents partly invalidated' last fiscal year.
Site includes call-to-action: 'Tell USPTO To Work For the Public, Not Patent Trolls' with links to federal comment system.
Inferences
Characterization of IPR as 'one of the only places' where remedies exist suggests article views this process as critical to protecting public from patent abuse.
Specific case examples demonstrating patent invalidation indicate article believes IPR delivers meaningful and effective remedies.
Provision of action mechanism (comment template, federal submission links) suggests article views structural support for remedy-seeking as important.
Article champions right to speak and be heard on patent policy issues, framing free expression as essential to democratic rule-making.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Article explicitly states: 'We need EFF supporters to speak out against this proposal...We're asking supporters who care about a fair patent system to file comments using the federal government's public comment system.'
Article emphasizes accessibility of speech: 'Your comments don't need to be long, or use fancy legalese. The important thing is that everyday users and creators of technology get a chance to state their opposition.'
Article provides sample comment text for readers to use, lowering barriers to participation.
Article includes multiple 'Share It' buttons (Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook) for spreading message.
Inferences
Explicit call for people to speak out suggests article views free expression on policy as fundamental right.
Emphasis on accessibility ('don't need to be long') and inclusivity ('everyday users') suggests article believes everyone should have voice regardless of expertise.
Provision of structural mechanisms (comment template, federal system links) indicates article supports not just right to speak but actual ability to be heard.
Article advocates strongly for equal application of patent law to all entities, emphasizing that rules should apply uniformly regardless of entity type.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article repeatedly asserts that 'all properly timed and filed patent challenges should be heard on the merits, whether they are filed by for-profits, non-profits, large entities or individuals.'
Article argues proposed rules create 'an upside-down world in which people who work to challenge patents are treated as the abusers of the system.'
Inferences
Emphasis on merit-based hearing regardless of challenger type indicates article values equality before law as essential to legitimate patent system.
Criticism of discriminatory treatment suggests article believes equal application of rules is fundamental right.
Article advocates for fair, merit-based review process in patent disputes, emphasizing role of specialized PTAB judges and burden of proof.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article describes IPR as overseen by 'specialized PTAB judges' in a 'quasi-judicial process.'
Article emphasizes that IPR allows challenges when 'evidence is presented that there is prior art...that should have prevented the patent from issuing.'
Article frames issue as: 'Congress created the inter partes review (IPR) process...more than a decade ago' with proper procedures.
Inferences
Description of specialized judges and evidence-based process suggests article believes fair trial requires expertise and proper procedure.
Citation of Congressional intent for the IPR process indicates article views formal legal process as essential to fair adjudication.
Emphasis on evidence and burden of proof demonstrates article's commitment to rigorous, merit-based review.
Article advocates that innovation requires protection from monopolistic patents, framing patent reform as necessary to scientific and cultural freedom.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article asserts: 'it's the patent office's own wrongly granted patents—each one a 20-year government-granted monopoly—that often inhibit innovation.'
Article references innovation harms: 'Lodsys, the company that sent out hundreds of threats to small app developers' using patents on basic payment systems.
Article states patent challengers 'protected not just themselves, but countless other hobbyists, software developers, small businesses, and nonprofits' from patent threats.
Inferences
Direct argument that bad patents inhibit innovation suggests article views freedom from monopolistic IP as necessary to scientific progress.
Examples of innovation barriers created by patents suggest article believes innovation right requires patent system reform.
Framing of patent challengers as protectors of broader innovation community indicates article views challenging bad patents as promoting collective scientific freedom.
Article directly challenges discriminatory treatment of patent challengers versus patent owners in proposed USPTO rules.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article states proposed rules 'would punish groups that file serial petitions or parallel petitions by simply denying them access to the PTAB.'
Article criticizes rules that exempt 'small entities' from challenge while allowing them patent protection, calling this approach a 'sham.'
Inferences
Article frames discriminatory rule design as fundamentally unfair, implying non-discrimination is a core principle.
Repeated emphasis on equal treatment ('All properly timed and filed patent challenges should be heard on the merits, whether they are filed by for-profits, non-profits, large entities or individuals') suggests equality principle is central to article's thesis.
Article frames patent challenge rights as part of a fair system that protects human dignity and equitable access to justice.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article title is 'Our Right To Challenge Junk Patents Is Under Threat,' asserting a rights-based framing.
Article discusses need for 'fair patent system' where people can 'fight back against patent trolling.'
Inferences
The rights-based framing (use of word 'right') suggests article views patent challenge access as a fundamental principle, not merely a policy preference.
Emphasis on fairness and accountability aligns with UDHR values of dignified treatment and equitable systems.
Article frames patent challenges as community benefit, suggesting individuals have duty to participate in protecting collective good from patent abuse.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article states patent challengers 'protected not just themselves, but countless other hobbyists, software developers, small businesses, and nonprofits.'
Article emphasizes: 'It's in the public interest to challenge patents and test which ones are wrongly granted.'
Inferences
Emphasis on public interest benefit suggests article views patent challenge as community responsibility with broader social value.
Framing of protection for 'countless' beneficiaries indicates article believes individual action creates systemic benefits.
Article educates readers about patent system mechanics, due process, and policy implications.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article explains: 'Inter partes simply means between the parties, and the IPR process allows members of the public to challenge patents that never should have been granted.'
Inferences
Educational content about patent system suggests article values informed public participation in rights-bearing processes.
Domain mission centers on privacy protection. EFF maintains Privacy Badger and Surveillance Self-Defense tools. Strong track record of privacy advocacy.
Terms of Service
+0.05
Article 29
Standard TOS language; no significant human rights restrictions observed.
Identity & Mission
Mission
+0.28
Article 1 Article 19 Article 20
EFF explicitly champions free speech, privacy, and digital rights. Mission statement aligned with UDHR values.
Editorial Code
+0.12
Article 19
Editorial independence evident; no editorial policy discovered that undermines human rights discourse.
Ownership
+0.08
Article 19 Article 25
Nonprofit 501(c)(3) structure; no profit-driven ownership conflicts observed.
Access & Distribution
Access Model
+0.15
Article 19 Article 26
Content freely accessible; no paywall or access restrictions.
Site provides comprehensive structural mechanisms: call-to-action buttons, sample comment template, direct links to federal comment system, instructions on how to participate.
Article advocates strongly for equal application of patent law to all entities, emphasizing that rules should apply uniformly regardless of entity type.
Article advocates that innovation requires protection from monopolistic patents, framing patent reform as necessary to scientific and cultural freedom.
Article frames patent challenges as community benefit, suggesting individuals have duty to participate in protecting collective good from patent abuse.
Repeated use of 'patent trolls' as dehumanizing label; 'gift for patent trolls,' 'absolutely hate the process,' 'troll-friendly rules'
appeal to fear
Title: 'Our Right To Challenge Junk Patents Is Under Threat'; repeated warnings about rules that 'will offer new protections to patent trolls' and make challenges 'impossible for some'
Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.40 (Moderate positive)
2026-02-28 01:40
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat
--
2026-02-28 01:38
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-28 01:37
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-28 01:36
dlq_replay
DLQ message 97691 replayed to LLAMA_QUEUE: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat
--
2026-02-28 00:02
eval_success
Light evaluated: Strong positive (0.80)
--
2026-02-28 00:02
eval
Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.80 (Strong positive)
2026-02-27 23:02
eval_success
Evaluated: Moderate positive (0.46)
--
2026-02-27 23:02
eval
Evaluated by deepseek-v3.2: +0.46 (Moderate positive) 11,143 tokens
2026-02-27 22:26
rater_validation_fail
Parse failure for model deepseek-v3.2: Error: Failed to parse OpenRouter JSON: SyntaxError: Expected ',' or ']' after array element in JSON at position 17708 (line 330 column 6). Extracted text starts with: {
"schema_version": "3.7",
"
--
2026-02-27 22:26
eval_retry
OpenRouter output truncated at 4096 tokens
--
2026-02-27 22:25
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat
--
2026-02-27 22:22
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-27 22:21
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-27 22:21
eval_success
Light evaluated: Strong positive (1.00)
--
2026-02-27 22:21
eval
Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +1.00 (Strong positive)
2026-02-27 22:20
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-27 22:16
eval
Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5: +0.72 (Strong positive)