Halliburton Applies For Patent-Trolling Patent 244
An anonymous reader writes "Halliburton, the company many folks know as Dick Cheney's previous employer, has apparently taken an interest in methods of patent trolling. In fact, according to Techdirt, the company has applied for a patent on patent trolling. Specifically, it's applied for a patent on the process of finding a company that protected an invention via trade secret, figuring out what that secret is, patenting it ... and then suing the original company. Hopefully, the patent office rejects this patent, because I somehow doubt that Halliburton is trying to get the patent as a way to block others from patent trolling."
Re:This (Score:5, Interesting)
The first case i'd support Halliburton for. Think of it, they get this patent, and anyone who trolls patents are in violation.
Its a self obsoleting patent. Eventually they will bankrupt all the other trolls and have little left but hang up their hats.
Let Them Patent It (Score:5, Interesting)
The methods of figuring out trade secrets are almost always illegal, and can be sued over.
Re:This (Score:5, Interesting)
Though as long as it's not illegal, and it meets all the 102 requirements and is not obvious, it will probably be granted.
It may or may not be legal; the patent office and the courts have (finally) started to take a dim view of "business method" and other types of patents that circumvent the original intent of the patent system.
It is obvious, and there exists substantial prior art -- if not, people wouldn't have immediately had a ready-made phrase ("patent troll") to describe what the patent covers.
No doubt buried in the requirements is something that Halliburton hopes will make this bullshit business method patent different from all the other bullshit business method patents, but I'm actually hopeful that they'll get the smackdown they deserve.
Good to see a principled opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be nice to see a principled opinion for a change? An opposition to a bad idea regardless of who is proposing it and why?
I mean, if it were, uhm, the Red Cross, or the ACLU, or a some cooperative, trying to patent patent-trolling, we'd have no problems right? Because they would only use it for The Greater Good and would never sell it — not even if they went bankrupt and had to liquidate all their property (including the "imaginary" kind)?
Sound's good to me. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I'm not sure what else it could be used for. A patent on patent trolling can only be used against other patent trolls. If Halliburton wanted to be a patent troll, they wouldn't need a patent to do it. Besides, patent trolls typically don't have any other source of income that can be threatened by their "business", so Halliburton wouldn't really qualify.
Looks like someone's stab at a defensive patent to me.
Re:Good to see a principled opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure about the Red Cross or ACLU, although I trust each more than Halliburton.
Now if the EFF held this patent, I may actually sleep better.
Re:This (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but I invented it an my secret lab in my evil underground lair, and you stole it, patented it and sued me.
So prepare to get sued by Halliburton for it! Oh, and if you live in another country with some resources... prepare to get invaded. :P
Re:Let Them Patent It (Score:4, Interesting)
Then your patent should be invalidated for not disclosing sufficient information to allow a practicitioner skilled in the art to build the patented product.
Similarly, any patents produced via Halliburton's method should be invalidated on the basis of fraud -- if I figure out, through reverse-engineering, the trade secrets embodied in someone else's invention, I still haven't actually _invented_ them. It's not the same as a case of independent invention.
Re:This (Score:1, Interesting)
This makes me so mad I just wanna shoot someone in the face.
"My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President $RANDOMLUSER and his family have had to go through this week," Anonymous Coward said.
Re:Need a better search function. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In re Bilski (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, the US uses first-to-invent, with no prior user rights.
If GE invents a fancy new molding technique for making plastic parts for a widget of some sort, and keeps it secret for over a year, they lose all rights to patent it, having "suppressed concealed or abandoned" the invention. In a similar vein, if Big Bad Drug Company (tm) invents the 5 cent cure for AIDS and tells the researches to lock it away and never bring it up again or publish their findings, and somebody else invents it, all the documentation in the world that they invented it first won't save them, now the other drug company owns it! At the very worst, you MIGHT be able to invalidate their patent if it wasn't under NDA, just unpublished. But under no circumstances can you take control over their own patent, if you made any acts to conceal or otherwise hide your invention from the public eye.
Business Patents, on the other hand, do have a prior user right codified in law, where you cannot be liable for infringing on a patent if you were using the patented process prior to the "invention" date. HR.2795 and HR.1908/S.1145 both broadened this defense to all patents but neither was passed into law. These bills also would have change it from "first to invent" to "first to file" like the rest of the world has.
In your specific example, were recipes patentable in the USA, then yes, KFC would have to licence Haliburton's new patent or change their own recipe. On the other hand, if somebody invents a new widget and doesn't patent it, it's not a secret even if the manufacturing technique is not published, because anybody can go and buy the widget. The manufacturing technique could still be patented out from under them though!
As long as patent rules are enforced (they aren't!), meaning that it has to be non-trivial, and non-obvious, then there's nothing wrong with this. The reason it's designed this way is to punish people who try to hide their inventions from the public. If GE invents a new manufacturing technique, and refits all their factories under an NDA, but waits 5 years to patent it so their monopoly lasts longer, they should lose all their rights for trying to subvert the system! I don't think it's right that they could get sued over something they invented first, especially since it's open for abuse where they didn't so much suppress it, as think it was trivial and therefore not patentable anyway, and then got sued for billions! But they certainly shouldn't be able to take control of the patent, no way.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't get it though, the US system is 'first to invent'. So you invent something, keep it as a trade secret, Halliburton reverse engineers and patents it, Halliburton sues you, you produce copious quantities of documentation showing that you invented it first and walk out of the room with their patent under your arm.
In the mean time, they can't get this patent elsewhere because the first-to-file world doesn't recognise business method patents. Or do they propose to patent in the US a method of patent trolling in the rest of the world.
What have I missed?
Re:This (Score:3, Interesting)
anyone who trolls patents are in violation.
No, anyone ELSE who trolls patents is in violation.
Halliburton themselves could have a field day trolling the whole marketplace with patents.
Some of us fear that that would be their aim.