1173429
story
Comments: 88 +- Your Rights Online: Tapping the Web's Collective Wisdom For Patents on Tuesday September 16 2008, @03:46AM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday September 16 2008, @03:46AM
from the crowdsourcing-prior-art dept.
from the crowdsourcing-prior-art dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpatents.gif); width:75px; height:54px;
patents
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpolitics.gif); width:61px; height:43px;
politics
BountyX sends in a CNN story offering an update on the US patent office's experiment in crowdsourcing, called Peer-to-Patent. (We've discussed this initiative a few times in the last couple of years.) In its first year the program has dealt with a minuscule fraction of patent applications, which numbered over 467,000 in 2007, up over 97% from a decade earlier. "The Patent Office reports that it has issued preliminary decisions on 40 of the 74 applications that have come through the program so far. Of those, six cited prior art submitted only through Peer-to-Patent, while another eight cited art found by both the examiner and peer reviewers... [I]n its second year, Peer-to-Patent is being expanded to include claims covering electronic commerce and so-called 'business methods' ..."
Related Stories
Contemptuous lights flashed flashed across the computer's console.
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
The Web's Collective Wisdom... (Score:3, Funny)
(reply only with a more clever analogy)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
FRIST!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking, never understimate the stupidity of people in large crowds.
Yes, there is room left for small time innovators (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
...there's usually going to be some prior art if your work has any value at all...As long as your work builds upon what's been done in a meaningful way, your ideas should be patentable.
I'm sorry. You appear to be advocating the right to patent ideas which you were not the originator of. I find this objectionable. Your patents should only cover those precise parts which are novel. And even then only if they pass the conditions of originality and non-triviality.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Usually, this happens in corporations and academia because they're the only ones that have been working in the field long enough to know the limits of current technology, but it can definitely happen with small time innovators as well if they read alot technical literature on a particular subject.
Not always. In my chocolate factory, we had patented an idea; it must have been good, because as soon as the patent expired, everyone and their dog (in the chocolate world) began doing Just That.
It was small-time innovation at the time... now a few years back (but much later), we met a guy who was using the same idea in his products and he thanked us for the idea that had made him rich. Way richer than us, I can tell you...
But the idea was had without reading lots of technical stuff. All you need for having
Re:Yes, there is room left for small time innovato (Score:2)
In principle you're right. What you describe is how the concept behind patents is supposed to work.
In reality, there's only pharmaceutics where the patent system works for the patent-owners remotely like your description. Everywhere else, patents have become a tool for mercantile suppression and corporate warfare; from which the economy as whole only suffers (with the exception of lawyers).
Read http://researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/ [researchoninnovation.org] and http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm [dklevine.com] on
A good plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm sure there will be a bunch of people moaning that this is getting "us" doing "their" job for free. Well hell the time spent here on Slashdot having ago at the Patent office is already high enough so why not be constructive in using that time?
The only problem I see with this is that they haven't really invested in the tech side of crowd sourcing. How about a SETI style desktop app that just notifies you and lets you go "ooooh that one looks crap, I'm taking it down" rather than a build it and they will come approach. The key here is going to be getting more eyes on the problem which means pushing the patents out rather than just waiting for people to respond. Personally I'd be happy to have a list of patents in my specialised areas that I could dissect and destroy. Its almost worthy of a CV mention, not just the patents that you've been granted but the ones that you've prevented being granted.
Don't bitch and moan, this is a good use of the internet and crowd sourcing to get round a problem of dumb patent submissions from large corps. Yes its your time, but you'll just have to post one less time on Slashdot, and spend 5 minutes less reading comments on Digg.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm not a patent lawyer (though nor, I suspect are you) so there might be something I'm missing, but I don't think this is a good use of our time.
These patents have been accepted That means that we failed in peer to patent. The patents were accepted with new prior art. That means that it's no longer easy to use that prior art to challenge the patent. The patent examiner has taken it into account and accepted the patent anyway. I think that, if the prior art had remained secret, it could be broug
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ok, a little roundabout, but still if the USPTO was to 'do its job better' and give more rigorous review as people want, it would take more man-hours under the current rule-set. This would require more funds that are currently allocated to the USPTO for this purpose. That would reduce the extra-money going to non-USPTO uses, which would then require more taxpayer funding for support.
Thuso ,the uspto doing a better job without needing much more funding = lower money from the taxpayer.
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem I see with this is that they haven't really invested in the tech side of crowd sourcing.
The problem I see with this is that it's not used for all patents. Actually though, while patents may of been helpful before I think they retard more than help progress. As it is inventors have the First mover advantage [wikipedia.org]. For those without the resources to build an invention, a contract or NDA can be used to take to prospective manufacturers or angle investors [wikipedia.org].
Falcon
Patents office is begging for a lawsuit (Score:1, Interesting)
Simple answer: The USPTO is begging for a lawsuit from large corporates.
Crowdsourcing has the potential to leak a company's "confidential" secrets, and hence a corporate will sue the government to overturn such a decision.
Obviously the USPTO has better ways to spend its limited grant, so they will default or withdraw this decision.
All good intentions can be undone with a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...you do realise that patents are public domain?
Re: (Score:2)
If the light were invented today, it would be met with a dozen lawsuits from Gas Lamps Manufacturers Union, Candle Manufacturers Union, and Wicker makers union, while a dozen more lobbyists will descend on Capitol Hill and white house with protests. Our Homeland Defense secretary would go public announcing the administration unstinting support for the Gas and Candle makers while announcing that USPOT not grant the light bulb a patent on grounds of national security. "The heat generated from an incandescent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know you're free to view those patents anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
> You know you're free to view those patents anyway.
Only if you do not plan to have any ideas in forseeable future. You never know if you might think of something clever that is based on something from a patent you forgot you viewed. Then you will be liable for willful infringement instead of innocent one, and with triple the damages. So no, I would highly recommend you stay away from the patent database.
Re: (Score:2)
or if you do look at them, do so under a false name.
No Longer Secret (Score:2)
One step of a patent application is called "publishing" and it is where the application is publicly published.
This is done so that any interested party can challenge the application.
Patents are a deal between the public and the inventor that basically grants a few years of monopoly privileges to the invention in exchange for disclosing it into the public domain.
A secret patent doesn't meet those goals.
They'll be hearing from my attorney. (Score:1)
I patented this back in 1997.
The problem with Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
The second biggest problem is that "someone skilled in the art..." really means a Judge who is skilled in legalese.
The lawyers and patent attorneys are loving it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with patents is not so much that they are issued left right and center for just about any stupid claim.
You are wrong. It's the source of the problem.
The courts seem to assume that a issued patent is by default valid where this is clearly not that case. At least not currently.
See, now you are on to it. The courts assume the patent office is working as intended. They assume that PO is rejecting "wrong" patents. It's how they should work. The way to improve this is not lowering court costs but improving PO work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forcing all of this on the patent office could work if there was a lot more money *for the patent office*, as opposed to lawyers. Either the fees goes way up and/or they get a bigg
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I would like to see the USPTO go the way of the dodo. Or, rather, the way of the copyright office. Let everything be patented by default like copyrights, and as long as someone who produces something can reference other patents as the invention, or patentless inventions, they have done no wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The second biggest problem is that "someone skilled in the art..." really means a Judge who is skilled in legalese.
That's because the PHOSITA (Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art) doesn't exist! If a lawyer tries to bring in an expert witness to testify that something is obvious to someone ordinarily skilled in the art, he's caught on Morton's Fork. Either (a) the witness is not an expert, and therefore cannot be qualified to testify, or (b) the witness is an expert, and is ipso facto extraordinarily skilled.
The fact that an invention is obvious to someone who is extraordinarily skilled says nothing about whethe
Re: (Score:2)
Or point out that even an ordinarily skilled lawyer can describe some everyday method and append the words "on the Internet?"
A lawyer would still in fact see this as billable hours however, and therefore not without merit. ;)
Spamming and Trolling (Score:3, Informative)
www.peertopatent.org [peertopatent.org]
That is the link to sign up and become a reviewer.
dotank.nyls.edu [nyls.edu]
That's the code of conduct, which lists conduct rules, moderator privileges, and the information contributors are required to provide.
Apparently there is a voting system.
That's going to be an interesting thing to watch. They're relying on the bulk of contributors defining the most appropriate content, kind of like slashdot.
How well does that work anyways?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the idea is somewhat similar to Feynman's model of the "sum over paths" in quantum electrodynamics. Even if the single statement is completely bogus, in the end contradictionary statements will cancel each other out, and statements supporting each other are adding up to a kind of "truth vector".
Re: (Score:1)
E.g., these systems deal not only with possibly true statements, but totally incorrect, possibly spurious, statements.
Seems more like something describable by natural computatio
too bad (Score:2)
not to sound like a total downer, but if you can influence the peer group you can influence the outcome.
signal to noise (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the level of understanding shown on this and other internet forums, I fear that the signal to noise ratio of such an initiative will be so poor that the whole thing will be a massive waste of time.
How many ill-informed and inappropriate "prior art" submissions do the internet masses need to make before patent reviewers just start ignoring them?
Is this really a good thing? (Score:2)
Perhaps for traditional patent fields like machines and medicine it makes some sense to collaborate to increase the quality of patents. But in software, surely a better-quality software patent is just more of a threat and allows even more money to be extorted?
Why should people help to reduce the costs of doing business for patent trolls? If you have prior art, better to keep quiet about it and reveal it after the patent is granted to neutralize the patent - not before, so the lawyers can reword the patent
Let's look at the numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
b I used to work for the US government at one time and I can promise you all that they will never, never, never do anything to cut their funding and lowering the number of patents would cut their funding. They will instead set up bogus programs like this that will catch a few bad patents, which they will then hold up as examples that things are changing for the better. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Old News (Score:2)
This is ancient news. I submitted a (rejected) story about this last year.
New Business method (Score:2, Funny)
2- get someone more competent and involved to do it for free
3- profit !!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
suck at your job
You mean get paid peanuts don't you? The patent application fees [uspto.gov] are low, as they should be otherwise inventors with little cash couldn't afford to patent things, and the patent office only runs on the fees it collects. There is no incentive for a patent examiner to take the tyme needed to verify if a patent is warranted if it's going to take a lot of tyme.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. The USPTO would have to get up _early_ in the morning to become any more incompetent than it already is.
Re: (Score:2)
Every country has its own patent office
(However, a bad patent application stopped in its tracks in the USA might also help in that same patent being invalidated in the rest of the world!)
Re: (Score:2)
I never really understood the business method patent thing.
can I build a copy of a patented item if I want?
Isn't it only illegal if I try to sell that item?
a company isn't selling it's business method.
So unless it's a consultancy firm which makes it's money restructuring other businesses...
Re:How can anyone defend patents for business meth (Score:4, Interesting)
I never really understood the business method patent thing.
can I build a copy of a patented item if I want?
Isn't it only illegal if I try to sell that item?
a company isn't selling it's business method.
So unless it's a consultancy firm which makes it's money restructuring other businesses...
You can use a patent spec for research purposes or when you will not harm the financial benefit to the patent holder (IIRC). So you can't sell it, but also you can't benefit financially nor cause a financial detriment to the patent holder. So you can't give patented stuff away (without a license) as this potentially harms the patent holders income. If you're using a business method then you're gaining financially from it ... ergo ...
Business Method patents are a weird thing in a capitalist economy though.
Note that pure business methods (without technical elements) aren't supposed to be patentable in Europe.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So if I profit(time saved by moving faster can be invested otherwise and so can lead to a profit) from my homebrew segway or other patented item then I've broken the law?
Wow, American patent law is utterly broken...
Re: (Score:2)
So if I profit(time saved by moving faster can be invested otherwise and so can lead to a profit) from my homebrew segway or other patented item then I've broken the law?
No, my explanation wasn't complete so as to avoid writing an essay that noone would read.
Wow, American patent law is utterly broken...
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Might you be able to give me a link to a better explanation?
The wiki didn't really explain why there's a difference between a profit you make from something you build yourself which makes your life easier or saves you time and the profit you make from using a buisness method which does the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not that /au fait/ with US law. But see "Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical" and 35 USC. You won't have broken the law (infringement is tortuous), but it does seem a bit more restrictive than I had understood and you apparently aren't allowed to make that homebrew segway except to perform genuine experiments. In actuality Segway aren't likely to sue you, they may not get costs and might invalidate their patent.
CPC Article 27(b);
UK Section 60(5), http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p [ipo.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
and/or goatse...
Re: (Score:1)
Or "I'd tap that"?