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?"

Automation IS required

[l0ungeb0y]

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".

Actually interesting

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

This would only be good

[zappepcs]

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]

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:Actually interesting

[Protonk]

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).

Dominos pizza??

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Domino's Pizza have first dibs? They did 30 minutes or less in the 80s.

There's no motivation to change

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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 won't happen.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IBM's patent strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM just wants to stay #1 in patents, ahead of the closest competitor (Samsung). Samsung is arguably a more diversified company, but people won't remember that if IBM slips into 2nd place. That would be a major PR hit for IBM.

IBM tried improving the quality for a couple of years and filed fewer (potentially better) patents. All that did was allow other companies to sneak up and get closer.

So IBM loosened up a little. The result is that the local committees that review patents and make the decision to file are letting more ideas go through. Some fraction of those are related to actual IBM products, some fraction will get licensed to other companies, and some fraction really won't mean anything in the end. What you want to look at are what patents IBM keeps valid by paying maintenance fees. Those patents are important to IBM. If the patent is issued and then abandoned when the fees come due, it's just a number toward the goal of being #1.

From what I've seen, IBM strongly supports patent reform but has to play the same game everyone else plays. If IBM plays the "high quality patent only" game, everyone on Slashdot gives IBM high marks. If IBM then comes in second it'll be big news in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ beats Slashdot every day of the week.

Re:Automation IS required

[Protonk]

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 remark, the summary is a pretty accurate run-down of the patent.

Filed last week?

[wannabgeek]

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.

Re:Prior art

[SacredByte]

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 investing alot of time to find out that information himself.

Re:Automation IS required

[Foobar of Borg]

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.