IBM Wants To Patent Restaurant Waits

theodp writes "If all goes IBM's way, it'll soon constitute patent infringement if Bennigan's gives you a free lunch for being inconvenienced by a long wait for your meal. Big Blue is seeking a patent for its Method and Structure for Automated Crediting to Customers for Waiting, the purported 'invention' of three IBM researchers, which IBM notes, 'could be implemented completely devoid of computerization or automation of any kind.' Can we count on IBM to withdraw this patent claim, or will Big Blue weasel out of its patent reform pledge again?"

The old saying must be true.

[palegray.net (1195047)]

Now there's really no such thing as a free lunch...

Re:

[kcbanner (929309)]

Or, as they say, there is no such thing as a patent without a troll.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[by Anonymous Coward]

If you read the TFA, you'd realize that they're not patenting the free lunch as payoff for a long wait. they're patenting a system for automatically doling out the free lunch.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[The End Of Days (1243248)]

But if you're a good Slashdotter and just read the completely inaccurate headline, you can work up a righteous froth and get a nice +5 Insightful.

Re:

[palegray.net (1195047)]

Or, on the other hand, it's entirely possible that my comment was meant to be taken in a humorous context.

Re:

[The Yuckinator (898499)]

But if you're a good Slashdotter and just read the completely inaccurate headline, you can work up a righteous froth and get a nice +5 Inciteful.

Fixed that for ya ;)

No Shit Shirlock

[theshowmecanuck (703852)]

You don't need to read the article, just this in the summary:

Method and Structure for Automated Crediting to Customers for Waiting

It's still ridiculous to even apply for this. It is blatantly obvious since all it is doing is automating something that already exists in a non-novel way. Way to troll for stupid patents dude.

Re:

[andy314159pi (787550)]

hey asshole the whole point of this is that you do get a free lunch by way of apology

This guy was just quoting the patent application.

Prior art

[by Anonymous Coward]

I worked for Pizza Hut corporate in '85-86. We had a five minute or free deal on "Personal Pan" pizza. One of my coworkers analyzed the POS data and picked the best time to go to lunch. He was averaging about 60%.

Dale

Re:Prior art

[britneys 9th husband (741556)]

Now we just need someone at the patent office to examine this POS patent application and reject it.

Re:Prior art

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

Only 60%? That's some POS POS data.

Re:

[SacredByte (1122105)]

Not really. Basically he worked out when the stores he would visit were at their peak # of customers durring the day, and then go durring that time period. The 40% represents visits where: A): The branch wasn't as as busy as they sometimes were, and/or B): The employees weren't slacking off, and/or C): He missed the peak of business. Any combination of A, B, and/or C could result in wait times of 5 minutes. That said, without examining the data he whould have been lucky to get anywhere near 60% without

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm (228190)]

It would have probably been easier to look for a really
full parking lot, find a spot, and hurry in.
May have hit 70% and could have saved a lot of valuable cycles.

Re:

[eonlabs (921625)]

Does Snow Crash count as prior art

The Deliverator knows that there is a 3 foot gap between the burbclaves and... A POOL!

Automation IS required

[l0ungeb0y (442022)]

The Summary states: "which IBM notes, 'could be implemented completely devoid of computerization or automation of any kind.' "
But the patent says: "At least one of subsystems is automated."

So they summary is incorrect.

Regardless, this patent is pure, unadulterated BS. Therefore, I applaud it and hope that IBM file many more just like it and they all get granted.
Sooner or later, no one in the US will be able to do business without paying off a squad of patent pimps, and then, maybe ... just maybe an inkling of common sense will emerge from Congress and some reform will take place.

Not to miss out on all this, I'm rushing out to patent "A method for receiving payment in exchange of receipt of goods." and "Providing furniture and eating instruments for consumers at a dining establishment".

Re:Automation IS required

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

The problem with this and other Patent Story Trolls here at Slashdot, is that the person who "writes" the summary (and the "editor" who approves them) looks at the TITLE of a patent and makes WILD INFERENCES and ASSUMPTIONS that are not supported by the ACTUAL claims of the patent. This is just such a case.

Re:

[Protonk (599901)]

That's not fair. This is an almost totally BS patent, and automation would change little of it. Read the application again. How much of that diverges from a complex system of comping you for waiting? I'm not oversimplifying here. The patent itself is almost the definition of obvious.

It is very true that /. usually makes broad assumptions about patents and patent laws when publishing these stories. This, however, is not a very good example of that wider trend. With the exception of the automation rema

Re:Automation IS required

[optimus2861 (760680)]

So read claim 1 and enlighten us. Where's the brilliant innovation in this legalese that demands a 17-year monopoly on implementing it? "1. A system for reducing customer dissatisfaction for waiting, said system comprising:a queue monitoring subsystem that detects an entry of a customer into a waiting queue;a reward computing subsystem that calculates a reward for the customer for being in the waiting queue; anda communication subsystem to communicate the reward to the customer,wherein at least one of said queue monitoring subsystem, said reward computing subsystem, and said communication subsystem is automated." I ordered a meal at Wendy's not too long ago. I waited a long time for some reason. When the guy brought me my meal, he also brought me a coupon for a free meal as compensation for waiting. In behind the counter at this particular Wendy's, I could see an order board, showing the orders and how long it has been since they were taken. Aka: an automated queue monitoring system. Prior art. Plain and simple. Which is what this garbage patent application is: plain and simple. It is not novel, it is not innovative, and granting it would in no way promote the progress of science.

Re:

[totally bogus dude (1040246)]

...and then you'd have to pay royalties for my patent on "the utilisation of the name of a river, when said name of river is comprised of an appropriate number of syllables such that saying or thinking the name of the river takes the average humanoid approximately one second, as an aid in the task of marking the passage of a particular quantity of time".

Re:Automation IS required

[Foobar of Borg (690622)]

Regardless, this patent is pure, unadulterated BS

May I point out that this is *not* a patent, but rather a publication of an application for a patent. I wish someone on this friggin' site would learn the difference between the two.

Re:Automation IS required

[pokerdad (1124121)]

May I point out that this is *not* a patent, but rather a publication of an application for a patent. I wish someone on this friggin' site would learn the difference between the two.

If you are being critical of the patent office the difference is very important, if you are being critical of the applicant, not so much so.

quick

[hansoloaf (668609)]

someone better patent rewards such as free beer for long bathroom waits.

Re:

[SacredByte (1122105)]

Alcohol is a diuretic--That'll just compound the problem of long bathroom waits.

Re:

[hansoloaf (668609)]

think of the free beer!!!

Re:

[omeomi (675045)]

Alcohol is a diuretic--That'll just compound the problem of long bathroom waits.

That's okay as long as the beer is free.

Re:quick

[Vombatus (777631)]

rewards such as free beer for long bathroom waits

Leading to even more trips to the bathroom, longer waits and more free beer.

Re:

[palegray.net (1195047)]

And your liver falling out of your butthole in protest.

Actually interesting

[bluefoxlucid (723572)]

This is actually interesting. IBM's patent details a system which monitors the customer queue continuously and scales a response versus a customer wait time. It also delivers the response to the customer. Basically, if you make the reward a re-prioritization rather than i.e. free lunch or discount programs, you're looking at a task scheduler.

Re:Actually interesting

[Protonk (599901)]

It might be interesting, but even with the repurposing, it is hardly novel. The notion of reviewing queue times is not new. Various alternatives exist that are avoiding because they upset customers (Serve last in first), or because they are to damn complicated to implement (most of the rest of them).

Re:Actually interesting

[SpaceLifeForm (228190)]

Hopefully, it's implemented like the Completely Fair Scheduler [ibm.com], otherwise I probably would avoid the place.

Enough is enough

[sqrt(2) (786011)]

Software and business models should NOT be eligible for patents. It's just going to get more and more ridiculous until we wake up and realize that and revamp the patent system.

This would only be good

[zappepcs (820751)]

if it was applied to tech support call waits. The longer they make you wait, the less it costs to fix your problem. At current waiting times I've experienced, it's possible that sending me a brand new computer would be the cost of making me wait.

Wow

[Protonk (599901)]

I was about to launch on a screed about how innacurate /. headlines and summaries would lead us to believe that a reasonably sophisicated queuing system was instead a simple reward for waiting. How wrong was I.

This is literally a system to reward people based on their time in queue and their position in the queue. Wow. An egg timer could do this. I was expecting something fairly complex and novel like Amazon's patent for prioritizing shipping based on future profit streams per customer (here [slashdot.org]). Instead I saw a basic, obvious solution that has pretty easy to find prior art: a waiter comping you a dessert because you had to wait a while.

Re:

[cybereal (621599)]

Performing the steps in a system is not prior art to defining that system.

That said, if the "waiter" was following written instructional guidelines on exactly when to start handing out free meals, that's a whole other issue entirely. Those instructions would have a chance at qualifying as prior art.

Re:

[Protonk (599901)]

I think that it would strain the imagination to say (I know you aren't saying this) that there wouldn't be a procedure, somewhere to perform exactly those steps. Even a threshold procedure for CSR's to offer rebates if customers are waitng for X + 1 minutes would qualify.

Re:

[glwtta (532858)]

Performing the steps in a system is not prior art to defining that system.

An idea about how to do something obvious is not a fucking "system".

Is there any way we can get that taped above every patent reviewer's desk?

Imagine the coin they would bank

[antifoidulus (807088)]

if everyone had to go through what Butters went through to get to Bennigans......

Re:

[thatskinnyguy (1129515)]

That would require my parents to work together to 1. try to kill me and 2. cover it up. Since I don't think there's a chance in hell of getting them both in the same room together, I'm not going to Bennigan's anytime soon.

My patent

[Boyceterous (596732)]

A system whereby a user shall be charged a fee based on the actual volume of excrement deposited into a dedicated porcelain facility. The system shall be called "Pay As You Go"

Slashdot Sensationalism at its best

[Veramocor (262800)]

'could be implemented completely devoid of computerization or automation of any kind'

This statement is clearly shown in the disclosure not in the claims. The only thing that IBM is patenting is what is stated in the claims. You should not read limitations from the disclosure into the claims.

"The name of the game is in the claims" - Federal Circuit Judge Giles Rich

Remember that before you get your panties in a bunch.

This will do some good elsewhere

[MikeRT (947531)]

By providing economics students with an excellent case study on what rent-seeking [wikipedia.org] looks like, and why the law should seek to make it as legally difficult as possible.

Filed last week?

[wannabgeek (323414)]

It was filed on 21st of this month and it's on /. already? Is someone closely watching the patent filings, or did some insider alert slashdot? Good thing either way. May be all this "publicity" will make IBM retract the application.

Illogical.

[n6kuy (172098)]

" ... Automated Crediting ... 'could be implemented completely devoid of ... automation of any kind.'"

If they can pull that off, they deserve a patent!

Brilliant Strategy

[PPH (736903)]

It appears that IBM is seeking to force patent reform by clogging the system with so many useless applications that soon it will be impossible to swing a dead cat without hitting a patent claim.

Sorry. That should read 'Method for controlling the trajectory of a deceased feline to avoid impact with preexisting intellectual property'.

This is just old operational research papers

[crovira (10242)]

from the fifties rewritten on a patent application form.

Total sham.

As you so ably demonstrate...

[caitsith01 (606117)]

...courtesy certainly is a novel invention in the US of A.*

Now if IBM could just patent a method for pumping it into the tubes of the intarweb, we'd really be getting somewhere.

* I'm kidding - I've met plenty of polite Americans, like the nice policeman who asked me to "please step out of the car" and the nice TSA lady who told me that without even asking I'd been placed on some kind of list that got me extra special treatment at the airport.

Re:

[Gideon Fubar (833343)]

heh.. even if you are using the idea, someone should be able to come up with a new way of doing it without violating your patent.. of course, this may not work with some products (such as pharmaceuticals) but i suspect the patent systems was originally developed without them in mind..

Re:

[Protonk (599901)]

no it isn't.

Re:

[Protonk (599901)]

This isn't arguing, it's just pointless contradiction.

There's no motivation to change

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

There is very little motivation within the patent system to change it.

The USPTO makes a lot of profit. Why should Uncle Sam kill a cash cow.

The patent lawyers make a lot of money filing patents. Easy filing encourages more filing which means more business/profit. But the real money gets earned when patents get contested. Therefore bad patents mean lots of litigation which mean more profits. No motivation to improve patent quality.

Systems don't fix themselves. Since there is no motivation to change, change w