"One-Click" Patent Takes a Hit in Japan 91
natet writes "The Japan Patent Office once again shows it knows technology. They recently informed Amazon that unless Amazon can show them differently, they will reject the "One-Click" patent on the grounds of prior art. " So there are sane patent offices out there. On an almost completely offtopic and unrelated note, Hemos and I are planning on being in Japan for the Tokyo LinuxWorld in a few weeks, so I'll see you guys there. Bring translators and we can talk about anime ;)
Re:That's good and everything... (Score:1)
- In both cases, the patent office found "prior art" -- evidence that others had the idea first. In the case of the "one-click" concept, the prior art consisted of an earlier Japanese patent application and a 1996 book, "User Interface Design," by Alan Cooper.
And... with a healthy dose of irony, the book is reviewed on Amazon's web site [http]"We decided that the technology could be easily invented from this prior art," Natsumi said in a phone interview on Monday.
An excellent book for anyone who wants to understand why so much software is so poorly designed -- and an even better book for anyone who wants to DO something about the problem. Must reading (and doing!) for programmers of any level.
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:1)
This happens all the time (Score:1)
It was a patent on "a box connected to a box for use in verification" (eg a cable) Thats about it. Obviously we were able to clarify the differences (which were many) and get it approved. And I think thats all the Japanese patent office is asking for. And really, the USPTO may have asked for similar clarification from Amazon. (I am not sure if that is disclosed)
Now granted, if Amazon CAN'T differentiate - they have a serious problem.
Tom
Japanese Culture (Score:2)
Here, we just cower to whomever has the most legal representation and cave in. And our patent office, as well as most branches of government, is no exception.
Not to be TOO bitter, but.. I'm
Bitterman
Oh, yeah, in my personal experience, the Japanese aren't as interested in computers as we are. *Most* of the homes don't have one. They're more likely to have a single purpose appliance, if anything. (Just what I've seen over there, so don't flame me if I'm wrong - it's been two 1/2 years...)
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:5)
This is WRONG !!!
I'm a citizen of France, and more and more a citizen of Europe nowadays. Around here, all the LUGs and a lot of individuals are fighting (lobying) together against the establishment of an international patent office (==an american rooted patent office), in fact we are also fighting with succes to make Europe realise (==vote) that one cannot patent software
We are living in a global market, we are not dumb enough to deny this, but what we do not accept is the way that you north americans consider patents.
I think it's now a well understood point that patents (at least in north america) are not anymore a way to developp researsh (as it was and should be) but more a way to protect a market segment for companies that have the money to inforce them.
Aroud here we think (even if it may seem hypocritic) that we would rather NOT inforce ANY patent than depend on an international patent office. An international patent office would imply that only the richest companies would be able to survive. And since such an office would probably be driven by american economy that would mean the not-so-long-term end of any real new buizeness rooted locally. And guess what : we also like to change our ideas into money...
Capitalism is NOT the only way. Try to put that in your heads !
This was the
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:1)
Creating Robber Barons has was never meant to be the intention of patents.
Re:That's good and everything... (Score:1)
4th paragraph:
In both cases, the patent office found "prior art" -- evidence that others had the idea first. In the case of the "one-click" concept, the prior art consisted of an earlier Japanese patent application and a 1996 book, "User Interface Design," by Alan Cooper.
--
That's good and everything... (Score:2)
I would have rather just seen, "too obvious, go away."
--
Re:Question (Score:2)
Maybe I should go get a copy [amazon.com] and see what it says.
--
Re:You can't prove a Negative (Score:1)
However, in this case, the statement true. Also, if you read the message, the point is not the false headline in general, but rather that one can not prove there is "No Prior Art". All one can prove is that there is "Prior Art".
Quack
Re:You can't prove a Negative (Score:1)
However, in this case, the statement true. Also, if you read the message, the point is not the false headline in general, but rather that one can not prove there is "No Prior Art". All one can prove is that there is "Prior Art".
Quack
You can't prove a Negative (Score:2)
Quack
Re:Agreeing with Bezos, partially (Score:1)
In short: if a competitor gets your customer's dollar then you don't.
+++++
Re:Tasty Toungue Twister (Score:1)
However, it should be ``Tokyo tokkyo kyoka kyokku (chou)''= the head of the Tokyo patent office (or something.)
Re:And the Japanese get what out of the deal? (Score:1)
What you say? Maybe it's because your language are not belong to us.
Bezos' standpoint. (Score:4)
It seems that perhaps Amazon's CEO has come to the same conclusion. [cnet.com]
Or perhaps he just realized his company's valuation is a joke.
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:2)
/. cyber team in akihabara? (Score:3)
running around Tokyo dressed as Digiko and Rabi-en-Rose.
There is *NO* US-Japan reciprocity (Score:3)
It is not only possible, but common, that a patent might be obtained in the United States, but not in a foreign country (because of the 12-month grace period for filing, as opposed to most nation's absolute novelty requirement). Moreover, sometimes a sale, act or public use may need to take place within a nation to constitute prior art. Thus, prior art in the patent office of one country may not be prior art in the office of another.
The only significant treaties relating to patent applications are the Paris and PCT conventions (modified somewhat by the GATT agreements of a few years ago). Under Paris, each signatory agrees that it will accord a filing date for foreign applications based upon an original local national application; provided, however, that the foreign applicaitions are filed no later than twelve months after the local national. No deference is given to the local national application, except with respect to the effective date used to determine what is prior art.
The PCT modifies this, providing a mechanism that,in effect, permits an extension of this period as much as thirty months or so. This allows companies to avoid the enormous expense of foreign filings until they have been able to evaluate the practical value of the patent.
Patent Reform was attempted and defeated (Score:3)
Virtually *ALL* of these changes were proposed two years ago during the patent reform bills proposed by Senator Hatch. Individual inventors, largely supported by the Slashdot community, were violently opposed to this for obvious reasons. I noted then, and note now, that U.S. harmonization with the general practice described above, which is uniform with only subtle differences throughout VIRTUALLY THE REST OF THE WORLD (not just Japan) is not only a good idea, but ultimately an essential step for the benefit of the community.
For the record, U.S. *DOES* publish applications after 18 months, unless the inventor swears under oath that he will not pursue foreign patents.
The Japanese patent term is based upon the date a patent issues. The US patent term is based on the date of filing. The Japanese patent term is based on the date the application is FIRST published for opposition. Neither patent is enforceable until issued. Accordingly, the practical terms of the patents are comparable, but will differ, some longer some shorter, depending upon the speed of prosecution.
Re:Double click patent? (Score:1)
Re:Agreeing with Bezos, partially (Score:2)
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
n+1 click patent? (Score:2)
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:Agreeing with Bezos, partially (Score:3)
"The Unisys patent on LZW compression will run out either on 10-Dec-2002, or 20-Jun-2003, depending on whether the GATT agreements grandfather in existing patents, or not. The first date is 17 years from issuance of the patent (old U.S. law), and the second is 20 years from the date of first filing (GATT requirement)."
The Joy of Free Trade (Score:2)
Re:Int'l Patent Office (Score:1)
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:2)
Correct, capitalism isn't the only way. It is merely the best way.
Yeah, and you better be a Catholic, or you're going straight to hell. There can only be one "best" religion.
If you're too weak to accept that many things still need to be changed, then get out of the way of those who are stronger than you.
Capitalism is a good system to deal with scarcity. However, capitalism fails miserably when dealing with unlimited resources of certain types (i.e. information). Under capitalism, information becomes somebody's property, and is artifically made scarce so that it fits into today's capitalist economy. Although we may achieve a few short-term benefits this way, this practice could have some very ugly long-term consequences, such as the loss of massive amounts of information in the future as owners go bankrupt, originals are destroyed, etc.
In fact, we're already experiencing this information loss today. Many older games have copy-protection schemes that make them terribly difficult to archive. Their makers are out of business, and the media that they are on is deteriorating. Soon, they will disappear forever.
We should not allow this to happen. If we're to enter the "information age", we're going to need a better social system than that which we currently have. I'm not suggesting going back to communism/feudalism/etc, but I think we need to put on our thinking caps and come up with a new ideology that better suits our needs today. Something that doesn't restrict information, but that encourages the creation of information.
If we put our heads together, there are enough people on Slashdot to come up with a workable solution.
------
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:2)
Sorry, I've got to chuckle over that. Many of the finest minds in history have tried to come up with a better ideology and capitalism is the best they could find.
I disagree. In the time of feudalism, feudalism was also "the best they could find". New people have new ideas. Just as modes of transportation have improved over the years, ideologies can also be improved upon. (gr?)
Good luck and remember whatever ideology you come up with has to take into account real people, and real people are stubborn, stupid, stubborn, greedy, stubborn, lazy, and stubborn.
You can say that again. Real life can be so uncooperative. People should learn to conform to theory, dammit, not practice! ;)
------
Cultural imperialism (Score:1)
Oh good. I agree. Why don't you Americans start by dismantling your patent office, which is generally acknowledged to suck more than most, and refer all patent-seekers to the European Union.
Point made?
Re:"One Crick" patent (Score:1)
---
More info (Score:1)
Re:That's good and everything... (Score:1)
No.... I would rather have a voice thank you (Score:2)
The WTO does equally evil things all the time.... don't invite them into this please.
If these people could kick godzilla's ass (Score:2)
Everyone's Attacking on the Prior Art Front (Score:5)
Re:And the Japanese get what out of the deal? (Score:1)
You may not be aware of them, but there are quite a few Japanese slashdotters here, but we hide ourselves behind .com domains!
Re:Differences Between US & Japanese Patents (Score:3)
The reason a patent's validity is often challenged in the U.S. courtroom is because a patent office re-examination frowns somewhat upon expert testimony, whereas expert testimony is given the same weight as other forms of prior art in a court case.
Re:Differences are WRONG (Score:3)
Patents granted on the basis of first-to-file?
US: Yes
Japan: No
**This is the wrong way around. The U.S. is the ONLY country that is not first-to-file. The independent inventors push quite hard against change on this count. Japanese patent applicants file many small patents, because once you file, you automatically get priority. So the U.S. system certainly helps the small inventors, while the Japanese system favors the large corporations who can afford the filing fees. As a side note, the Japanese filing feels are much higher than U.S. filing fees.
Filing permitted in any language?
US: Yes
Japan: No
**Neither country permits filing in any but their national language. In the US one can file with a "certified translation." This is the same in Japan.
Are patent applications published?
US: No. Kept secret until patent is granted.
Japan: Yes. 18 months after filing.
**U.S. now publishes applications 18 months after filing, unless the applicant specifically requests otherwise and does not file in any other country outside the U.S. This is expected to permit small inventors to maintain the secrecy (permitting them to exploit their invention without having to defend it from the big guys) but force larger corporations that foreign file to publish.
Patent Term:
US: 20 years
Japan: 15 years
**Both countries have 20 years from initial application. Both countries take about 3 years to grant a patent. The U.S. now compensates in time for those applications that take longer than 3 years. The actual term is gauged to 17 years.
Pre-grant opposition?
US: No
Japan: Yes
**Japan changed this, I believe in 1997. Now opposition is after grant. Additionally, the U.S. has added post-publication pre-grant informal opposition. There is no formal opposition procedure in the U.S., however.
**If you ask any small inventor, Japanese or U.S. you will find that they much prefer the U.S. system to the Japanese. Japan very much favors the large corporation that can afford huge filing fees (~$3000 compared to U.S. ~$800 for a large entity and only ~$400 for a small entity).
By the way, you can challenge a patent before the U.S.P.T.O... it's called an Interference.
Yes, I AM an IP attorney, why do you ask...
Re:Agreeing with Bezos, partially (Score:1)
After that ha sbeen obtained, I don't see why the dollars that a competitor gets are such a problem.
In short, I was disagreeing with the idea that "making more than your competiotors" was a reward. If making more than them still doesn't put you in the black, then its still not helping.
No matter what, the actual amount of money that a competitor makes, in relation to you, is irrelevant. Its how much you make that matters.
-Steve
Re:Agreeing with Bezos, partially (Score:1)
In fact, to me personally, that ranks as a much greater reward than any money.
However, I was talking from a completely economic perspective. Come up with a working buisness model based around something viable, and it makes profit.
If profit is not you goal, then you can do other things. If you have a surplus of money already from elsewhere, then you can afford to drive something else with it.
My point was that if you have profit, then why does the profit that someone else makes matter?
-Steve
Re:Agreeing with Bezos, partially (Score:2)
Profit is the "reward" right? Maybe its just me, but whether you are MORE profitable than someone else or not ranks right up there with having a faster car or a bigger penis. It seems silly to me.
If you make enough profit to stay in buisness and afford to maintain a comfoprtable standard of living, then who cares if someone else is making more?
But back on topic, I agree wrt to patents. If a buisness plan works, then it will make profit, regardless of whether anyone else is doing it. ALL that patents on buiisness processes do is make unviable buisness processes temporarily viable.
I don't see how this is a "good thing".
-Steve
Re:Int'l Patent Office (Score:1)
Sorta like being a Kennedy...
A Question for Taco and Hemos (Score:1)
uspo (Score:1)
Nobody can accept beeing made a fool of by everybody around for too long.
Re:US-Japan reciprocity (Score:1)
There is probably other examples of this behavior.
First: this is not helping, this is bribery at best, more probably racket.
Second: such deals are worth nothing. Don't except people you force to obey, to be gratefull.
Are you sure nobody will be ressentfull eventually ?
Third: Doesn't it show an agenda behind those patent law? At least a lobby somewhere, which is acting to have those laws in as many countries it can?
And the Japanese get what out of the deal? (Score:1)
Seth
Re:That's good and everything... (Score:2)
Which is why I am waiting to see exactly what example of prior art they can come out with. But I am not holding my breath.
Re:Differences Between US & Japanese Patents (Score:1)
US: Yes
Japan: No
This is because America has no official language. In fact, in parts of Florida and California, Spanish is as or more important of a language than English. Likewise, in the backwoods of Louisiana, they use French. There is no requirement that English be used for anything, official or otherwise. I don't see why that's bad. If the majority of the population in an area speaks one language, why should they be required to file government documents in what is for them a foreign language?
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:"One Crick" patent (Score:1)
Re:As is your whole post, a dad joke. (Score:1)
what? (Score:1)
Re:You can't prove a Negative (Score:1)
For example:
"Prove that Mr. X was not at this location at 22:00"
Ok, I can prove this negative by proving the positive of Mr. X being in another location verified by witnesses, etc. [No, a person cannot be in two places at once, yet]
Now, I understand completely what you meant, but saying "You can't prove a negative" is definately not the most accurate way to express it.
Disclaimer: The above statements may be totally false.
Re:You can't prove a Negative (Score:1)
On the topic of prior art though, one would think that the USPTO would at least attempt to speak with experts in the field.. A lot of these patents wouldn't exist if there was more extensive[1] peer review before granting a patent, but I digress.
Nice speaking with your sir.
Matt
[1] Ironically enough, I caught in the preview that instead of extensive, I had written "expensive". Unfortunately that's probably the more accurate one of the two words.
This is not an isolated incident! (Score:1)
Seems like I remember the title being something to the effect of, "Method for Shortening the Guided Wavelength of an Electromagnetic Wave in a Waveguide," or something like that.
After reading the abstract, it occurred to me that these guys had been awarded a patent for dielectrically loading waveguide, a concept found in any EM/Microwave text book. I know my Pozar book covers it.
General consensus around here: "That's one patent to ignore..." or "Duh!"
Amazon... Here's the book... (Score:5)
Stop stealing ideas from the books on your shelves and trying to patent them as your own!
Bad Amazon! *smack*
Re:Provisional Period? (Score:3)
During that time, anyone can look up your patent and contest it. There is a formal procedure for challenging a patent prior to aproval. While it isn't exactly like prospective patents are posted on the avenues and streets of Washington for public discussion, they are available for review, and you can challenge them if you like.
--
US-Japan reciprocity (Score:4)
Could this ruling actually be in violation with treaties signed with the US and the WTO? I Hope not, but if it is, I hope Japan will hold its ground. A concervative aporach to patents is the only way to insure that they will actually do what they are supposed to - encourage inovation, not protect (and indirectly subsidize) research investments.
--
Provisional Period? (Score:3)
Re:Everyone's Attacking on the Prior Art Front (Score:4)
Software art is the art of creating abstractions of the real world. If there is something in the real world ("nice to see you again, put this on my tab") which is prior art, it should be prior art for a software related patent. That will kill 99% of software patents, as it should.
Re:Double click patent? (Score:1)
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:3)
Question (Score:1)
Differences Between US & Japanese Patents (Score:4)
Challenges to patents are also handled differently... Unlike in the U.S., a challenge to a patent's validity is not brough before the courts, but instead directly to the Japanese Patent Office.
Other Glaring Differnces:
Patents granted on the basis of first-to-file?
US: Yes
Japan: No
Filing permitted in any language?
US: Yes
Japan: No
Are patent applications published?
US: No. Kept secret until patent is granted.
Japan: Yes. 18 months after filing.
Patent Term:
US: 20 years
Japan: 15 years
Pre-grant opposition?
US: No
Japan: Yes
I think that the USPO might be able to take a couple of hints from the JPO...
Re:"One Crick" patent (Score:1)
"One Crick" patent (Score:3)
Re:And the Japanese get what out of the deal? (Score:2)
[..] judging from the lack of Japanese posts to slashdot, I don't see a lot of traffic from our .jp friends.
Well, one reason could be that the lameness filter blocks Japanese characters... of course, posting in Japanese would be kinda pointless anyway because almost nobody else could read it.
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:1)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Re:Int'l Patent Office (Score:1)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Int'l Patent Office (Score:2)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Yes! (Score:5)
Smythe: Hi, I've got a patent I'd like to run by you.
Wossname: Watcha got?
Smythe: It's for a one-click sequential dynamic bread slicer with a net to catch the slices at the output end. I calls it a NET strategy.
Wossname: I say! That's enough to cripple the entire computer hardware and software industry if it's broad enough!
Smythe: You think I should limit the scope of me patent?
Wossname: Oh, no! This is exactly what we live for. Now have you researched it?
Smythe: Well... I didn't see anything like it in my 1906 History of the World, volumes 1-12, except 7 which I've lined the bird cage with.
Wossname: Sounds good enough. Patent granted.
Smythe: Thanks, Guv!
Wossname: Just remember who your friends are! *wink* *wink*
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:1)
And you're basing this opinion off the stellar job WIPO has done so far?
Re:WTO etc (Score:1)
Re:Agreeing with Bezos, partially (Score:1)
Why not reward it the way it's traditionally been done? By exceeding the performance of one's competitors. One-click alone does not guarantee Amazon will be more profitable than their competitors. They still have to deliver the product on-time and at a lower cost than those they compete with. Isn't that enough, for crying out loud? Or do they seek a guarantee that no one will be able to compete with them?
Re:Double click patent? (Score:2)
Before you continue your love-in with the JPO (Score:3)
You should remember a few things. For starters, it's really hard to get a patent in Japan, especially if you're a foreigner. The best advice has always been to hire a local Japanese patent lawyer to shepard your claim through the process. Also, that period of public comment has been notoriously used against foreign companies extending their patent protection to Japan. The foreign company would make their patent claim, then during the 18 month inspection period, Japanese companies would dissect the idea and come up with their own non-infringing version of the same technology. By the time you got the patent, you've suddenly got competition.
Now, with all that, believe it or not, I'm still in favor of us adopting a similar system in North America. Jeff Bezos' idea for reform is the best version I've heard yet.
in the case of negative one =) (Score:1)
Re:A Question for Taco and Hemos (Score:1)
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:2)
Re:Provisional Period? (Score:3)
If this would only read "US" i.s.o. "china"... (Score:2)
Now if only this would happen in the Unites States. That would really shake the earth in the land where making idiotic pattents and sueing over them has become a form of art. Do you think it's in their genes?
* Next part: off-topic *
Ok. Funny story: At a university in the Netherlands a speed (ice-)scate was invented which is only at one attached to the scate so that it opens when you lift your heel off the ice. The so-called "klapschaats" or clapscate. After they introduced it the world records went down with about 10% and everybody made new personal records. But when they wanted to patent it they were quite surprised it was denied. It seems some bloke in the late 1800's patented the exact same thing. Only then there was technically impossible to make them. Tough luck.
This is all getting silly (Score:5)
First off, I applaud the Japanese patent office for forcing Amazon to actually prove that their patent has innovation rather than assuming it as the American office did.
But the different standards for patents in different countries isn't something we need in this day and age where products compete in a global free market. It costs companies more, adds complexity and creates legal problems.
What we need is to standardise on an international patent body which can allow patents to be filed once and once only, and be internationally binding. This way both everyone benefits.
While I think this is a great idea in such a market, I would only want it if it wasn't based upon the USPTO. America has shown itself time and time again to be the enemy of progress and technological innovation, and the EU and Japan have fostered a more balanced approach to what has become a critical concern to companies.
So well done Japan, and I hope that organisations like the WTO start considering patents in a global manner. Having a global body regulating patents can only be a good thing for corporations competing in the free market.
Re:Question (Score:1)
Agreeing with Bezos, partially (Score:5)
Though I strongly disagree with Bezos' and Amazon's position on one-click, I agree with him here as far as a fair compromise to the utter mess of the current patent system. Yes, a novel business plan should be rewarded, but not as much as the standard patent amount. If we would have had this system in place, one click would be a distant memory, either through prior art challenges or expiration, instead of the fighting that could go on for more than a decade to come.
As a postscript, when does the patent on LZW expire? That's one patent I won't miss at all.
Re:One bomb (Score:1)
. .
"Good idea, man. Get the bio-weapons so we can make sure any survivors are hopelessly mutated and in constant pain. That'll learn 'em."
Makes me sick.
WTO etc (Score:1)
Re:That's good and everything... (Score:1)
Except in the original it actually read: "Wan kurikku kaanseputo". Hai, one crick...indeed.
--
"Fuck your mama."
Re:Int'l Patent Office (Score:1)
IANAL - don't look for legal advice on /.
Re:This is all getting silly (Score:1)
Old News (Score:1)
Double click patent? (Score:3)
---
Living is a way of life
Tasty Toungue Twister (Score:1)