USPTO To Reexamine Eolas, SBC Patents 96
theodp writes "The USPTO Director has ordered reexaminations of the infamous Eolas Distributed Hypermedia Method (discussed earlier(1) on Slashdot) and SBC Structured Document Browser (discussed earlier(2) on Slashdot) patents. Maybe this will inspire Tim O'Reilly to get that killer piece of 1-Click prior art off his bookshelf!"
Pattent System (Score:2, Insightful)
How many times... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this can be duplicated for other patents, could this a possible route to pointing out how futile software patenting is ? I'd guess that if the USPTO had to constantly re-examine s/w patents they might be more leery of granting them
Simon
Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if they did? It's a patent that, in all likelihood, never should have been awarded, so it really doesn't matter much to me who got the USPTO to examine it as long as it and bad patents like it are thrown out.
Seriously people, you have to stop cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is a good thing!
Putting a leash on the patent monster (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to stop the growth of USPTO is like trying to stop the sun from rising. Perhaps there is a way for them to collect additional (even higher) fees for re-examining questionable patents. Considering all the garbage that is out there, they is quite a bit of work to be done and a captive market to pay for it. I think the Patent Office needs something to do. Pulling the plug on misguided patents would be a worthwhile effort. All we need for patent reform is a way to align the inevitable collection of fees with the policy goal of protecting only those truly innovative ideas that cost big money for R&D.
What if it wasn't MS (Score:5, Insightful)
James
Precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheesh people, the comment was merely meant to postulate on why the USPTO suddenly decided to review several of the patents. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it was Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Oracle, *insert big tech company here* but more so what actually triggered it. It just seems especially odd that suddenly the review is triggered when there have been several significant efforts to get some of the more questionable patents looked in the first place for quite some time.
I think it is a sad commentary when the only way to get changes done is through back door channels rather than overt/open channels (i.e. review process, etc.). The "in the bad" comment which seems get everyone's feathers all in a tizzy is really addressing this fact, can Joe Citizen go out and drive these changes or is it limited to those with sufficient $ to participate in the process.
Re:How many times... (Score:2, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with the concept of software patents, or there merit.
The reason for this is because there are patent lawyers that would be out of work if were not for software patents.
There will be about as much progress here as there has been in tort law reform.
What I have not seen mentioned (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the patent system is wrong, and yes it should be reformed. But if MS wants to get out of this mess, they should have to change the rules for all, not just themselves.
Selectively applying the laws will only continue the problems we face now.
They're not "Changing the Rules." (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, it's the W3C that's requested the Patent Re-examination.
Thirdly, it's a patent re-examination, it's rare, but it's a normal part of the process. No one is changing any rules at all here.
But of course, it's benefits Microsoft, so clearly, there must be some shenanigans going on, Microsoft getting(buying) special treatment that no one else would get, right?
I think you're right, with one exception... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Microsoft's power to litigate and make news.
2. The impact this patent would have on just about every web user.
Factor #2 has been demonstrated to have some leverage in the realm of very obvious patents (BT's hyperlink patent).
While Eolas' patent may seem obvious to your average software engineer, it isn't to your average Joe. Had it not been Microsoft, I think the impact of the installed base would have been a significant factor.
Had it been MS vs. the World, I think it would sink thier reputation to where even loyal Microsoft users would want to stop buying thier products.
Re:paid for by the sue-er? (Score:1, Insightful)
you had lawyers to file the claim - doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
if there is infringement, you'll reclaim your expenses 100% on top of any settlement.
hell a fee for the USPTO pre-litigation exam wouldn't even be necessary. most company's would shirk away at unnecessary litigation at the mere thought of giving the USPTO another look at their carefully overly-broad patent.
surprisingly though, it's -not- the lawyers who are propagating this type of stuff. at least, not the IP lawyers i've met (dealing with 2 firms of them and their foreign associates, i'd say i've met quite a few).
thing is, they're paid to file the suits their clients want filed. if they don't file ridiculous suits, they'll lose their client.
for instance -there is a certain cereal manufacturer that loves to sue people for supposed infringements on their 'trademark' - even in situations where it's -clearly- not a competing product, industry, or company. most times the -only- similarity is in regards to the -type- of animal they have for their trademark.
their business people come up with these desires to sue. each time they are warned that the odds of winning are astronomically against them, but the client insists - so what do you expect them to do? play moral judge and lose a client? c'mon. they're a for-rofit business. no firm would stand for one lawyer acting up like that - they'd be out of a job before the client could sneer. they advise against ridiculous suits - but they don't refuse them.
not all lawyers are ambulance chasers. most ip lawyers come from technical backgrounds - and think surprisingly similar to most
Higher bar for patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Out patent office is biased towards approving patents, not towards denying them. This is probably somewhat due to the understaffing (and lack of appropriate training) because it takes more energy and thought to come up with an effective argument to deny a patent then it does to just let it slide through. If we made a law which forced the patent office to raise the bar on which patents got through (it should probably be knocking down 90% of the applications it receives), then that would probably help quite a bit.
However, this is yet another good government idea that is probably politically impossible because such a solution will create too much outcry from players who are comfortable with the status quo (Another example: Try taking away the agriculture handouts from our large agribusiness corporations).