Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online Technology

Machine Vision Patents Thrown Out 248

Posted by timothy from the opens-fine-with-abiword dept.
chalker writes "Cognex Corporation, the world's leading supplier of machine vision systems, announced today that the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas has ruled in favor of Cognex in its lawsuit against the Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation. It held that the claims of 14 patents asserted by Lemelson are invalid and unenforceable , and not infringed by Cognex. Co-plantiffs included barcode reader manufacturers Symbol Technologies, Accu-sort Systems, and Zebra Technologies amongst others. These patents were classic "submarine" patents orginally applied for in 1954, but tied up in the patent office and changed over the next four decades to cover changes taking place in the machine vision field. Lemelson had threatened to sue numerous end-users, including Motorola and Ford, over the past two decades and had settled all of them out of court for over $1.5 billion in licensing fees. For once a judge has seen how ridiculous our patent system is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Machine Vision Patents Thrown Out More

Machine Vision Patents Thrown Out

Comments Filter:

  • You know the world has gone to hell (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:33PM (#8096060)
    ..when so many corporations own patents on so many intangible things that a corporate dynasty like IBM can bring anyone in the world to their knees financially.

    Even foreign governments.

    Intellectual property in all of its various forms is being abused by the corporate world - both friends and foes of Linux and otherwise. The madness is the laws supporting this behavior continue to pass, bypassing the individual and wholeheartedly supporting the corporation.

    Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds? There is a balance to be maintained, and our rights are not unlimited, but more and more across the entire globe the individual is lost.

    Not to be funny but has anyone considered the implications of all these recent intellectual property rights and how it seems more and more that we're being pushed into the draconian future of Johnny Mnemonic and Shadowrun? The only way you get information is to steal it. The only way for another corporation to get information is to hire you to steal it.

    I grow more and more distressed at the world my son will grow up in, the conditions he will consider normal, the laws he will break just by trying to think.

    • Re:You know the world has gone to hell (Score:5, Insightful)

      by automatix ( 664568 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:42PM (#8096137) Homepage
      ..when so many corporations own patents on so many intangible things that a corporate dynasty like IBM can bring anyone in the world to their knees financially.

      Even foreign governments.

      What? Patents are not an international thing. Each country has it's own patent laws, which differ quite a bit around the globe. There are some global agreements, but they are typically much more limited than regular patents.

      Any government can ignore or enforce patents as it sees fit within its borders. Whether IBM will sell products to those countries is another issue...

      Rob :)

      • Re:You know the world has gone to hell (Score:4, Insightful)

        by S.Lemmon ( 147743 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:30PM (#8096485) Homepage
        This is true to a legal extent, but practically many foreign governments are too heavily dependent on trade with the U.S. to simply ignore its patents.

        Like when a small company makes a deal with a corporation like Microsoft and later finds they got the short end of the stick (if any stick at all), most smaller countries simply find they have no choice but to play the game on U.S. terms.

        • Re:You know the world has gone to hell (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Syre ( 234917 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @06:19AM (#8098088)
          This is completely false. Obviously you've never applied for a patent.

          When you apply for a U.S. patent, what you get (if anything) is a patent enforcable for things which are made or sold in the USA. That's it.

          In order to apply for any other patents, you have to first file a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application (about $5000 extra) with the USPTO. This gives you the RIGHT to file additional international patents within the next 36 months.

          If you DO want to file international patents you have to file EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY in the country you want it filed. Each one has to be translated into that country's language and must be put into their particular format.

          If you decide to file in every country, it will end up costing perhaps $200K or so more (depending on the length of the patent and therefore translation fees). But some countries (notably Taiwan) are not signers to the PCT, and have to be filed entirely separately.

          The U.S. does not rule the world yet, and U.S. patents are not valid everywhere.

      • What? Patents are not an international thing.

        Except on planet Earth.

        Any government can ignore or enforce patents as it sees fit within its borders.

        Not in this century. Ever heard of TRIPS? Or the WTO perhaps? Lemme guess you were asleep when they covered international aspects IP law, at law school?

      • Actually, with WIPO and WTO, patents are "harmonized" across national borders. Patents are now virtually international. How could you not notice?

        Is it in India's interest to respect the patent on AIDS drugs? Of course not. The only problem is that if they don't respect them, they violate their agreement with the WTO, and they can't afford to do that.

        Sorry. Patents are international now. Thanks for playing.

        thad

    • not all IP is disgusting (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SHEENmaster ( 581283 ) <travis@uUUUtk.edu minus threevowels> on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:44PM (#8096153) Homepage Journal
      if something is a truly unique invention, or a truly unique work of art, it deserves a patent or a copyright.

      The problem here is that the patent office doesn't have the resources to investigate patents for legitimacy. Anyone can then patent anything and get away with exthorting license fees out of other, unrelated, businesses.

      The patent system should be modified such that any significant improvement upon an existing patent negates a new invention from being covered by the previous patent. Then technology is advanced, rather than hindered, by the patent system.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • IANA Patent Lawyer, but I believe that situation could be called a "derivative work". I belive that the complaints that most people have with patents are the "overly broad", "obvious progression", and the "prior art" ones. To the best of my knowledge these are all incorporated into the patent law currently (at least in the U.S.). The problem is how the patent office handles the applications, and when they do make mistakes (which seems to be all the time) they give the legal force to what are truly outrag

    • Nice Troll (Score:5, Insightful)

      by donutello ( 88309 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:50PM (#8096202) Homepage
      .. especially considering that Lemelson is not a corporation.

      Corporations are nothing more than representatives of individuals. Behind every "corporate interest" is an individual or collection of individuals who share the same interest.

      We need laws against submarine patents and ridiculous IP enforcement but you lose a lot of credibility when you throw the "corporation" bogeyman on there.

      • Re:Nice Troll (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dukael_Mikakis ( 686324 ) <[andrewfoerster] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:33PM (#8096500)
        Corporations are nothing more than representatives of individuals. Behind every "corporate interest" is an individual or collection of individuals who share the same interest.

        But corporations do possibly reach a point where they become the sort of "faceless" entities that they are. The reason why many people get upset at corporations and the things that they do is that they quite frequently assume a sort of "mob mentality" where many people backing a certain interest seems to validate that interest (though the largest interest we discuss is greed). The problem with these sorts of things is that most frequently it ends up very much in one person's interest and moderately (if that) in anybody else's.

        Corporations benefit strongly the executives and the investors (especially large "bankish" ones, how much more faceless can you get?) and they use the "we're worth billions of dollars, employ thousands of people, make useful products" basis to ruin the environment/take advantage of third world labor/commit corporate scandals. Simply because a corporation employs thousands of people and pays tehm and everything does not mean that they have everybody's interests in mind. They likely don't. Hell, it doesn't even mean that they necessarily have the employees' interests in mind (as we've seen). Corporations are not iron-clad.

        Hell look at the "corporation" of Communism in China and Russia.
        • If I (as an individual) was caught dumping poison into YOUR drinking water, I'd be in jail for attempted murder.

          If a corporation dumps toxic waste into a public water system, they can be fined.

          In theory, the officers could be locked up, but that doesn't happen much in practice.

          Corporations are treated as people, but they don't run the same risks that people do.

          • Re:There's more, too. (Score:4, Informative)

            by donutello ( 88309 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @01:33AM (#8097163) Homepage
            Nonsense. Where do you people get this crap?

            Corporations are individuals as far as civil offenses are concerned. If a corporation gets caught committing a civil offense it is fined just the same as an individual is.

            Corporations are not individuals as far as criminal offenses are concerned however. If a corporation gets caught committing a criminal offense, it is the individuals who authorized or committed the crime who will be subject to criminal prosecution.

            So in your example, if they knowingly dumped poison into someones drinking water, the people who did it would be in jail for attempted murder.

      • Re:Nice Troll (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Artifakt ( 700173 )
        Corporations have legal status as persons in their own right. That's something different than being a representitive of a person, right there. I'm a person. My lawyer is my representitive in some areas. That's two people. If I incorporate, that same lawyer can be hired to represent a third legal individual, that corporation. How can that corporation be nothing more than my representitive, if the law holds the lawyer can be representing only it or only me or both entities, depending on the situation?

        "Go
        • Governments are very different than corporations. Governments have the ability to use physical force which a corporation cannot (legally) do.

      • Re:Nice Troll (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Aaden42 ( 198257 )

        Behind every "corporate interest" is an individual or collection of individuals

        Very true, but the problem begins when the US system is abused. Elections cost money and litigation more so. In general large corporations have far more money at their disposal than do smaller companies and individuals.

        The intent of the US system of representative government is that each individual should have an equal say in governmental proceedings. The inbalance of money of corporations versus individuals compromises

        • The intent of the US system of representative government is that each individual should have an equal say in governmental proceedings. The inbalance of money of corporations versus individuals compromises that goal to the point that a very few (boards of corporations) can disproportionately influence law making.

          You make some valid points. However, all those points are valid about individuals just as well as they are about corporations. Individuals with large amounts of money are able to corrupt the polit
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        Corporations are nothing more than representatives of individuals. Behind every "corporate interest" is an individual or collection of individuals who share the same interest.

        Bzzzt. Simply untrue, but thank you for playing. Corporations are not "nothing more" than collections of individuals. They have a separate legal existence than the "individuals" who make them up. The origin of "corporation" is LLC, or "limited liability corporation". If corporations were nothing more than

    • There is some evidence that for whatever reason, some corporations have had enough.
      From the Q&A document:

      What is the significance of the laches decision to Cognex's case?
      If Cognex is successful in arguing that Lemelson's delay in prosecuting his patent claims is a violation of the doctrine of prosecution laches, the court could find that all, or the vast majority of machine vision claims in Lemelson's patents are invalid. This would have a positive impact not just on Cognex, but also on dozens of

    • Alvin Toffler (Score:4, Insightful)

      by G27 Radio ( 78394 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:16PM (#8096391)
      My dad used to read a lot of Alvin Toffler (futurist) books when I was a kid. I picked up a couple of them and read parts, but don't really remember much detail (nor the names of the books.) One of the things I do remember was him talking about how we were going to move from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. I suppose we were already in the transition at the time.

      He talked about a triad of Power, Wealth, and Information. Any one or combination of the three could be used to aquire another. The interesting thing about information (and the information age) was that information could be expended, yet the provider of the information would still have it.

      I'm not sure what my point is :) but being that it's the Information Age, information has become (and still is becoming) a commodity to be bought and sold. Companies are realizing this and focusing on how to capitalize on it. It's the Information Age. Unless you want to be stuck in the Industrial Age, this is what you have to do.

      Maybe that's the point. If it's software, audio, video, text, or whatever, it's still information. This is what Information Age companies will make their money from. Figure out how to own or control of as much of it as you can now, and as we continue into the Information Age you will reap the rewards later.

      • You are confusing information with data.

        Data is a jumble of facts. Information is the stuff that ties all those facts together into a useful representation of the world.

        Those who simply collect and warehouse data have nothing. It's like the folks who fill their house with useless junk, and then start dumping garbage on their lawn.

        Now, compare that to a museum. They have a lot of what would be otherwise useless junk. But they track where it came from. They track who owned it. They track what part the t

    • >Even foreign governments.

      It never ceases to amaze me that these so-called "foreign" governments seem ever willing to follow any rule the US makes, or even implies.

      Why does I.P. litigation survive? Seems to me the first nation to simply ignore these stifling rules would gain the advantage that could lead to industrial superiority. While "we" are busy suing each other in a ceaseless effort to keep ideas from flourishing into productive new venues, someone else could certainly be ignoring all that as s
      • It never ceases to amaze me that these so-called "foreign" governments seem ever willing to follow any rule the US makes, or even implies.

        Why does I.P. litigation survive? Seems to me the first nation to simply ignore these stifling rules would gain the advantage that could lead to industrial superiority. While "we" are busy suing each other in a ceaseless effort to keep ideas from flourishing into productive new venues, someone else could certainly be ignoring all that as so much bullshit that happens
        • As I suggested, a true economic collapse in the US would make all this "dominance in world trade and other areas" pretty much past tense. But for all the hype and panic stricken media reports of the troubled economy, I still observe large numbers of new 4- and 5- bedroom houses being built, people driving brand new *very* expensive cars... and I live in a part of the country that's supposedly *poor*... We're a long way from "the average person doesn't know where his next 10 meals are coming from."

          So if t

    • Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds? There is a balance to be maintained, and our rights are not unlimited, but more and more across the entire globe the individual is lost.

      Politicians have lost sight of us individuals in the 'big picture'. Try talking to them or correspond with them (on silly patents, for example) You'll find that they do want the best for us, but in the way you would want the best for your kids. So we'

    • Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds?

      That's what the statist claims, of course. That's the justification for all government, is it not?

      The simple truth is that all individuals are driven by self-interest. The act of being elected to public office (chosen to posess the unique "right" to initiate force) does not change the laws of human nature. Individuals in government are driven by self-interest, just like any other indivi

  • trademarks and patents (Score:5, Funny)

    by aNonMooseCowherd ( 169745 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:38PM (#8096101)
    I plan to trademark the "TM" trademark symbol, and then charge everyone else royalties to use it. Once that is successful, I will patent that as a new business method.

  • mmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doublebackslash ( 702979 ) <doublebackslash@gmail.com> on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:42PM (#8096140)
    The concept that any idea nowadays is uncopyable or un-emulateable is rediculous.
    I'm sick of companys thinking that they have any unique ideas that someone else cannot make a cheap duplicate of.
    I've yet to see a great, profitable idea go un-coppied, despite patents.
    I blame the lawyers, what was the line in 'king lear', blank all the lawers? It'll come to me, but Shakespear has verry little advice that is not still valid.

    Pardon the spelling, I'm in a hurry.

  • Way too much history behind this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:42PM (#8096141) Journal
    Something that people don't seem to realise (not just on /., but in the world in general) is that the patent system has been abused for centuries. Eli Whitney spent decades in the courts, trying to prevent people from making and selling ripoffs of his (patented) cotton gin, and by the time he won, the patent was only valid for one more year. Edison, in contrast, patented everything under the sun and sued people black and blue over trivial or non-existent issues.

    The point is that the patent system has been open to abuse as long as it's been around, and it's not likely to change in the next two years or so, as most seem here seem to think. Even if the abuses are so flagrantly worse now than ever before that it really is going to collapse, there's a LOT of momentum, and it's going to take a decade or more.

    So push it hard, but don't expect to see much movement for a while.
    • They spent so much time and energy defending their patents on "wing warping" that they fell behind in other areas. For what it's worth, they actually changed the shape of the entire wing by yanking on cables which bent the trailing edge up or down, Curtis (among others) use hinged sections of wing (now known as ailerons). I guess there was some argument about whether that itself was changing the shape of the wing, even tho the Wrights never used hinged ailerons. So somebody put ailerons between the bipla
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Way too much history behind this (Score:5, Interesting)

      by glinden ( 56181 ) * on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:54PM (#8096639) Homepage Journal
      • So push it hard, but don't expect to see much movement for a while.
      It's not really clear what the average person can do to promote change in the patent system. Do you have any suggestions?

      I'm completely serious. I like many others are unhappy with the current situation, but I honestly don't see a way to change it. What can the average person do to promote constructive change in the US patent system?
      • Write to your legislators. Join/setup organizations to raise funds from the community to campaign for these causes. I think the most important thing to do would be to get some high profile technology industry figures to come out in favor of patent reform. I think Jeff Bezos has done that, despite (because of?) his company's involvement in the infamous one-click patent. Let's convince more high profile business figures in the tech industry that reform and rationalization of the patent filing/award proces
      • One small change which could eliminate some of the worst abuses would be to restrict changes in ownership of patents. If I file for a patent, I should have the option of using the technology myself, licensing it to others, or selling the patent to someone for the purpose of them using the technology in their business. Also, should I die while the patent is valid, I can designate someone who will 'inherit' it. What I should not be able to do is to sell it to someone who has no reasonable intention of using i
      • As somebody else mentioned, write your congressman and senator about the situation and push for legislation that would make a difference.

        One significant and fairly easy change to make is that once a patent is submitted for registration it may not be altered. It either passes or fails in its current state. If it fails, you have to submit an entirely new patent application. This means make sure you get it right the first time or cough up more money (giving more resources to the patent office to adequately c
      • What can the average person do to promote constructive change in the US patent system?
        First you get a truck full of explosives...

        Other tips [everything2.com]

        P.S. Terrorism is free speech.
      • The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system [uspto.gov], find out exactly what the requirments are for filing [uspto.gov], allowing [uspto.gov] and rejecting [uspto.gov] patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan [uspto.gov] to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress [congress.gov] that would improve the situation.

        After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators [senate.gov] and Representavies [house.gov] explaining
    • Edison, in contrast, patented everything under the sun and sued people black and blue over trivial or non-existent issues.

      He (and/or his company) was not above infringeing upon others' patents and copyrights, either. For example, the classic film "Le Voyage a la Lune" was pirated by Edison employees while it was playing in London and had pretty much played out to American audiences by the time legal copies made it to the the US. Then there are the dirty tricks he pulled to "prove" that his DC power t
    • Almost a century ago, a patent attorney named George B. Selden sued Ford Motor Company, claiming he held the patent on the automobile. When Henry Ford laughed in his face, he started demanding licence fees from owners of Fords, Cadillacs, and other cars. An abridged story of the legal battle is here [bpmlegal.com], although Googling for "Selden Ford patent" brings up other goodies.

      Does this sound familiar to anybody?

  • I have a patent on making comments about having a patent on patents, so all those of you who say "I'm going to patent getting patents" now owe me royalties...

    Oh, no, I just got a cease & desist letter from someone who says he holds a patent on making comments about people making comments about patenting getting patents. I hope he'll accept my cross-licensing deal.
  • Ah, 1954, just before the launch of USS Nautilus spearheaded by Rickover [nationmaster.com].
    One wonders what the father of the nuclear navy, a man both brilliant and a trifle autocratic, would have made of the patent mess, the virus mess, the open/closed source mess.

    Darl, he would so crush you like the bug that you are.

    RMS, I think he might respect.

    Gates, too.

    Linus, he'd definitely respect.
    I've heard it said he favored two personality types: a) the spineless type who followed without question, and b) the total genious

    • Ah, 1954, just before the launch of USS Nautilus spearheaded by Rickover.
      One wonders what the father of the nuclear navy, a man both brilliant and a trifle autocratic, would have made of the patent mess, the virus mess, the open/closed source mess.

      Who? You mean Feynman? The guy who owned the patent on the nuclear submarine.

  • "Submarine" Patents (Score:4, Informative)

    by Deraj DeZine ( 726641 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:46PM (#8096168)
    These patents were classic "submarine" patents orginally applied for in 1954, but tied up in the patent office and changed over the next four decades to cover changes taking place in the machine vision field

    I didn't really know where the name came from until recently, so I'll comment on it (maybe it's ITFA, but I didn't RTFA). Apparently they're claled "submarine" patents because they only surface when necessary. Like when 3dfx sued nVidia and then nVidia countersued for trivial patents so that they could end up with a cross-licensing agreement.

    If this is wrong, I've been misinformed, will apologize, and then hunt down whatever sick mind thought it could safely spread lies on the Internet (of all places!).

    • Well, I will tentatively say you're wrong, at least in this instance. The issue with the patents here isn't that they are trivial or "portfolio" blanks that are only used as leverage. A "submarine" parent is a patent that is delayed intentionally by the applicant so that they can revise it over the approval span as technology progresses, even if they didn't necessarily invent the revised technology. This allows them, 40 years later, to say "hey look, we have a patent on this, and we filed for the patent 40
      • There has been some recent progress in the U.S. that deters some of these patents. Instead of patents being valid for 17 years from date of issue, it is now 20 years from date of filing, which reduces some of the incentive to drag out the filing process. Not to say that this can't happen anymore, but it takes more work now and it is a lot harder to keep extending a patent.

    • Re:"Submarine" Patents (Score:5, Informative)

      by XaXXon ( 202882 ) <xaxxon.gmail@com> on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:46PM (#8096583) Homepage
      Here's what appears to be an authoritative definition of submarine patent..

      A Submarine Patent is a patent which an "inventor" files on a device or technology that doesn't exist yet, or which has not yet been successfully implemented. Using various procedural mechanisms, the filer intentionally delays issue of the patent, sometimes for years, until a practical implementation of the device/technology appears on the market. At that time, the filer allows the patent to "come to the surface" and demands royalties from the party who did the real work.

      http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SubmarinePatent [c2.com]

  • Not the end of the road, but a start (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nakito ( 702386 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:52PM (#8096221)
    This is only a District Court decision (District of Nevada) so it is not binding precendent elsewhere. But it will interesting to see if this is the beginning of a trend that eventually kills the major cash cow of the Lemelson foundation. The foundation's business model has been to sue everyone in sight (or at least everyone who makes image recognition systems) and then to offer a license on the patents for an amount less than the cost of defense. It's been a very effective strategy. But there are tons of other Lemelson lawsuits in the works, and I am sure the lawyers are all reading this decision very carefully tonight.


    • This is only a District Court decision (District of Nevada) so it is not binding precendent elsewhere.
      This ruling isn't a matter of "precedent". Precedent is what judges use to interpret the law. Precedent is only binding within a court's district or circuit.

      The ruling itself is binding. Unless a higher court reverses, the patents are gone. Once a federal court invalidates a US Patent, it's invalid everywhere.

  • Where to put the burden ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gradji ( 188612 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:55PM (#8096238)
    Currently in both academic and policy discussions, there is some debate as to whether it is better to put the "burden of proof" for patents in the application process or the infringement/interference litigation process.

    The current U.S. system is arguably set toward "easier" application and "harder" enforcement - with the idea being that a court room has more flexibility and resources to tackle difficult intellectual property rights issues than the patent office. Moreover, this type of system avoids a bias against inventors: a more "front-loaded" system that applies burden at the application process would delay the patent and perhaps even shorten the patent life significantly (similar to the argument pharmaceuticals make regarding how rigorous FDA testing effectively halves the patent life of new drugs)

    So it's nice to see cases like Machine Vision. Of course, for every successful court ruling against a harmful/irrational patent, there are several more that survive the litigation process ... hence the ongoing debate ...

    • The current U.S. system is arguably set toward "easier" application and "harder" enforcement - with the idea being that a court room has more flexibility and resources to tackle difficult intellectual property rights issues than the patent office. Moreover, this type of system avoids a bias against inventors: a more "front-loaded" system that applies burden at the application process would delay the patent and perhaps even shorten the patent life significantly (similar to the argument pharmaceuticals make r

    • Re:Where to put the burden ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nudicle ( 652327 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:48PM (#8096602)
      Some of the problems with the current easier application and harder enforcement system, however, are the nature of the inventors and the exortion it allows on the back end.

      If our nation's inventors were toiling away in their basements in their spare time then avoiding a bias against inventors would be more important. But that's just what we like to pretend. In reality the overwhelming majority of patents are issued to corporations and have been developed by engineers and scientists working in their corporate capacity. Corporations should be able to deal with a more front-loaded system. Which is not to indulge a fantasy that corporrations are all huge and wealthy, but that it's not hardto argue that a "bias against inventors" fear mischaracterizes reality.

      Also, patent litigation is massively, massively expensive. I mean, seriously expensive. Patent lawyers are expensive and litigation takes a long time. (from 1995 to 1999 there were 9615 patent cases filed, mean time for resolution was 1.12 years .. BUT only 5% of those cases went to trial)* So when a patent issues you suddenly have a lot of power to threaten and extort -- because the costs associated with challenging the patent in court are astronomical. This effect actively discourages the progress of science and the useful arts in areas like computer science where the patents are broad and their scope usually unclear. * - according to Kimberely Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent Cases : Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation? in the North Carolina Law Review .. sometime in 2001 (i forget)

  • interesting (Score:3, Informative)

    by DrDoombender ( 681389 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @10:55PM (#8096240)
    I was doing some googling and found a site that talks about the history of the patent. Basically in England, it was used by the monarchy to grant monopolies and maintain control (EG gain quick coin). http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html

    Apparently a patent only lasts about 17 years. So that's not as bad as a copyright, because if I recall a copyright lasts for around the life of the individual + ~20years(correct me if I'm wrong, one site said about 95 years).

    In anycase, the US concept of the patent was used as a device to protect individual property rights during a time when the US needed technology bad (think back to when England had efficient factories, and the US wanted to know said secrets). Now with the concept of the corporation, it seems that the ideals of the patent have been corrupted. However, I can see the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, but at the same time, the US corporate world is beating every US citizen over the head with laws that should be corrected.

    • Re:interesting (Score:3, Informative)

      by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 )
      Apparently a patent only lasts about 17 years. So that's not as bad as a copyright, because if I recall a copyright lasts for around the life of the individual + ~20years(correct me if I'm wrong, one site said about 95 years)

      The reason for the difference is that patents are much broader. They basically cover the use of an idea. A copyright just covers the particular expression of that idea.

      So if Disney has a copyright on Donald Duck, that doesn't stop Warner Brothers from creating Daffy Duck. It just

    • US Law:
      Patent = 20 years
      Corporate held Copyright = 95 years
      Individual held Copyright = life + 70 years.
      Trademark = unlimited (but must be defended).

      (I am not a lawyer. If you need to know this stuff for financial reasons rather than curiosity, please get someone liscenced to practice law and trained in the appropriate specialties. Your state, province or nation may not recognize legal specialization in patent and copyright law. Fnord!)
      • US Law:
        Patent = 20 years
        Corporate held Copyright = 95 years
        Individual held Copyright = life + 70 years.

        Keep in mind the original Length of copyright was 14 years (I think, I did a quick search.) and has been extended several times to reach the current lenght which is absurd.

        Also note that the true purpose of the Patent system is to encourage inventors to share their idea. The protection that a patent provides is just the insentive for people to file patents.

        Similarly, the purpose of copyright is to en
        • Hey, FWIW as an aspiring author I rather like the idea that I can develop something that no one can take away from me.

          Indeed, while everyone is belly acheing about how long copyrights last, the only ones who really benefit from a copyright expiring are those who mint cheap copies. Sure it sucks that the Girl Scouts need an ASCAP license to sing 'God Bless America.' But there is nothing keeping some counselor or scout from writing another song.

          Let's face it, we have gotten so innured about buying pre-mad

          • Sure it sucks that the Girl Scouts need an ASCAP license to sing 'God Bless America.' But there is nothing keeping some counselor or scout from writing another song. Let's face it, we have gotten so innured about buying pre-made books, and pre-made music that we have almost forgotten that there was a time when people would just make this stuff up.

            Except, perhaps, that "God Bless America" is part of the American culture. Sure, for the most part copyright is a great thing; however, when the idea under copyr

            • "Happy Birthday" is another example of a song which has become part of the culture, yet is still under copyright. The tune was written in 1893, and the words first published in 1924.
            • The Wizard of Oz required a good deal more effort to develop than any of Van Gogh's paintings. If someone can come along, and simply re-badge your text, verbatim, that's wrong.

              Now, if someone doesn't like the way it ended, and goes off and writes their own version, that's cool. Science Fiction writers to that all the time to each other.

              I actually have no qualms about the Disney company fighting to maintain copyrights on their old work. Of course nobody really wants to re-sell steamboat willy or Snow Whi

  • Money Back? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:10PM (#8096351) Homepage
    IANAL (god I hate these kinds of aconymns), but can copanies that paid on these patents get their money back?

  • Machine vision patent case (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mjc_w ( 192427 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:14PM (#8096379)
    Very interesting.

    Apparently (IANAL, IMBanal) the patents were thrown out because
    (1) too much time was taken modifying the patent claims, and this seemed to be intentional (something called "latches");
    (2) the patent(s) described a system in which the objects to be scanned were at a fixed position, while the supposedly offending systems found the objects (e.g., bar codes) anywhere in their field of view and scanned them there.

    There were also differences in which the way the information was processed (patent: analog differencing, systems: computer processing).

    I found it a very interesting read.

    My compliments to the judge.

    • Re:Machine vision patent case (Score:5, Informative)

      by bezuwork's friend ( 589226 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @12:07AM (#8096720)
      The court probably got most of it's reasoning from Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson Medical, Education and Research Foundation (2002) where the Fed. Circuit held that latches applied. For those that don't know, all patent appeals go through the Fed. Circuit - it was created expressly to bring consistancy to the patent litigation field. I'd imagine that many Lemelson suits will go this way from now on, given the Fed. Circuit precedence. Actually, they have to if the same issues apply.

      Lemelson built his empire on what are called submarine patents - applications which are prosecuted for many many years before issuing. Once issued, the owner then goes after the big companies who have dominated the market in the meantime. That's how he made his billions.

      I used to work in the patent office. My supervisor once brought in a Lemelson application he was working on - it's original filing date was 35 years earlier. From what he said, the original application was for a memory chip, but over the years Lemelson added bits of information here and there, and by the time my supervisor got the case, it was for a microprocessor of some kind. Basically, he played the patent system pretty close to the edge, but pretty much legally, I guess.

      For those who find this shocking - the current patent system measures length of patent term from the date of application, so submarine patents of the extreme nature of Lemelson's are pretty much not possible any more (except if the application is classified - a few years ago a patent came out which had been classified some 67? years previously IIRC).

    • laches [reference.com], n: Negligence or undue delay in asserting a legal right or privilege.

      As the judge noted in his ruling, "...the Supreme Court held that a person 'may forfeit his rights as an inventor by a willful or negligent postponement of his claims, or by an attempt to withhold the benefit of his improvement from the public until a similar or the same improvement should have been made and introduced to others'". Lemelson was found to have delayed the prosecution of his patents--albeit within the rules and p

  • Why this is good in many ways... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:17PM (#8096398) Homepage
    This is an interesting case, and should be of interest to SCO watchers too, not because of the patent implications (which are great for true innovation, and a wake-up call to the Patent Office), but spotlights companies who are not built around innovation, but rather litigation, and how this is a perversion of the patent system.
  • We pursued this litigation because we knew that what Lemelson and his Partnership were doing was terribly wrong, and only Cognex had both the technical knowledge and the fortitude to put an end to their campaign of legalized extortion

    legalized extortion and patents.. do they go hand in hand?

  • Oh the Irony (Score:4, Funny)

    by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:29PM (#8096481) Homepage Journal
    Am I the only one to consider it ironic that it took a patent about "Machine Vision" to make someone in the legal system see just how stupid some patents are.

  • They tried to sue the company I work for.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26, 2004 @11:52PM (#8096627)
    for using spreadsheets to display PLC (Programmable Logic Controllers)data realtime...
    This is a common practice, it would be like patenting the method of turning on a light by upward motion of a toggle device..
    • DUDE!

      Shut up! You're sitting on a GOLDMINE with that whole 'light by toggle' idea!

      We should go into business. You've got the technical end, I'll handle the business and marketing.

  • Who is this Lemelson guy anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Lemelson [lemelson.org] seems to have been on the right side of much of the patent battle, if you are willing to reject the idea of "patent=bad". From the bio, you'll notice that most of his fight has been to ensure that actual inventors get paid by the corporations that were using thier ideas.

    It is easy to see how much of this gets turned upside down when the subject of the patents are algorithms and business models (neither of which, IMHO, should be patentable), but for much of our history, if you were to take an idea

    • Re:Who is this Lemelson guy anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ancil ( 622971 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @02:53AM (#8097482)

      who in 1954 could envision a machine that "see, identify, and measure something", much less design one?
      Certainly not this asshole. The nature of a submarine patent is to "invent" something by describing it. Like this: "Wouldn't it be cool if machines could see!!" *PATENT PENDING*

      You then "refine" your patent application as real inventors do the actual work of teaching machines to see. Once someone else has put in the long hours making your "vision" a reality, you hit them up for ten million bucks.

      Getting back to your original question -- it's actually two questions. Who in 1954 could envision a machine that could see? Plenty of people. Really, anyone who spent a lot of time daydreaming about the future. Who could actually design a machine that sees? Very few people, and it took them a long time. It was a lot of work, and the people who did it were the ones getting extorted by these pricks.

  • WHEW!
    That bastard was a true player of 'the system'.
    A total parasite.. a trader on the efforts and intelligence of others.
    No conscience. No gratitude for what others had contributed before. A user to the nth degree.
    Hmm...
    Maybe he's a model for all that is wrong with modern (emphasis on the 'modern' part) capitalism?
    Past Kapitalism as well.
    Kommunism, too....

  • This guy's sin was that he sat on his patent applications for decades so he could spring them after his ideas were commercialized by companies who had no clue that his patents were incubating. At the same time he would secretly amend his patent applications to match machinery coming on the market. Of course, he didn't invent that much either, but that's not what he go nailed on. So the court held that his patents are unenforceable because of his delay in pushing them out of the patent office.

    The thing t

  • correction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by psxndc ( 105904 ) on Tuesday January 27, 2004 @03:03AM (#8097518) Journal
    For once a judge has seen how ridiculous our patent system is.

    s/is/was/

    Granted, the patent system still has issues, but it is getting better. The PTO has implemented a system like the EU where patent apps are published at 18 months regardless of their status. This was done in direct response to abuses like "submarine" patents. It's getting better. It's just going to take time.

    psxndc

  • Correction to the post (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AdEbh ( 468372 )

    settled all of them out of court for over $1.5 billion in licensing fees

    First, if there had been an out of court settlement, there would have been no ruling.

    Second, the press release quoted the CEO as saying "we won't receive a single cent from Lemelson".

  • He never produced anything himself, and never did any actual R&D. He would read up on what was happening in a field, from trade magazines and the like, and modify some overly general patent application he had to track changes, delaying as long as possible so that when an industry actually was making money, he could add bits and pieces of existing technologies to his patents.

    He was basically a parasite.
  • Amazing Grace
    How sweet the sound
    that save a wretch like me
    I once was lost
    but now I'm found
    was blind but now I see.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close