IBM's But-I-Only-Got-The-Soup Patent 267
theodp writes "In an Onion-worthy move, the USPTO has decided that IBM inventors deserve a patent for splitting a restaurant bill. Ending an 8+ year battle with the USPTO, self-anointed patent system savior IBM got a less-than-impressed USPTO Examiner's final rejection overruled in June and snagged US Patent No. 7,457,767 Tuesday for its Pay at the Table System. From the patent: 'Though US Pat. No. 5,933,812 to Meyer, et al. discussed previously provides for an entire table of patrons to pay the total bill using a credit card, including the gratuity, it does not provide an ability for the check to be split among the various patrons, and for those individual patrons to then pay their desired portion of the bill. This deficiency is addressed by the present invention.'"
Bad summary (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a business method patent on splitting the bill. It's a device patent for a portable terminal which allows people to split the bill using a credit card.
I still don't think it's patent-worthy -- the idea for the gadget has no doubt been thought of by numerous groups of geeks, and the patent really doesn't disclose anything beyond the idea and basic method of operation. But at least it's not totally silly.
Re:Actually that's not a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
You must go to crappy restaurants.. I do it all the time with coworkers.
either that, or the waitstaff there are complete morons and cant figure out the credit card machine.
Re:For everything else, there's the patent office (Score:5, Informative)
Making a wry comment based on someone else's poor interpretation of an article: $0.02.
Making a joke in a cliched format you didn't invent: $0.00
Reading the damned source article all the way before you make a fool out of yourself in public: Well, I wouldn't call it priceless, but something like that.
The patent describes a device for accepting credit card payments at the table of the patron, allowing them to pick their amounts paid, and therefore saving the patrons and the waitrons from the hassle of communicating all this back and forth and dealing with the subsequent mistakes.
Re:I think my company has prior art. (Score:2, Informative)
Prior Art: Adams, Douglas M., "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", segment dealing with "...splitting the check in a bistro...", forerunner to invention of "Drive, Improbability" type, space-time propulsion.
banzai
Man, I really miss that guy...
Re:So what's the invention? (Score:3, Informative)
More accurately, it is on a device that allows the restaurant to present one bill to the table, then have the individual patrons at the table enter payments by credit card against the bill total, rather than the restaurant breaking the bill up into individual bills for each patron, then (presumably) handling each bill by hand, which ties up server/cashier time. If I could go to a restaurant and then present a bill to the restaurant when I'm finished eating, I'd eat out a lot more often.
Re:Actually that's not a bad idea (Score:3, Informative)
That's the problem; this isn't an invention at all. It's an agglomeration (or conglomeration, or perhaps both) of existing technologies to obtain the expected result of combining those technologies. Inventions are things that either involve new technology or combine technology to achieve results that are not obvious from the constituent parts. Anything else is just an engineering exercise. Consider: when Ford, GM, Toyota, or whomever create a new car model, they don't say they "invented" a new car even though they have a different combination of engine, interior, amenities, etc. than they had before. (Yes, they may have inventions inside that car, say a new type of emissions control or something, but that's a different thing entirely.)
That said, at least this patent is a machine - the claims explicitly refer to circuits and other hardware.
Re:For everything else, there's the patent office (Score:1, Informative)
I think this could be a slick idea. I haven't read the article in detail; however, I was reminded of the Microsoft Surface demo video:
http://www.microsoft.com/SURFACE/index.html :58 second mark
-Click "Possibilities"
-
VERY slick concept.
Re:Actually that's not a bad idea (Score:3, Informative)
The simple answer: customer's wont pay for it because it doesn't save them money. Establishments weren't paying for it because they wouldn't see enough increase in revenue or decrease in cost to pay for it.
Products and services - be they inventions or just good engineering/marketing/whatever - are only developed, as far as I can tell, for two or three reasons: A) someone is interested in making new things because they like creating stuff, B) there is something that someone thinks is too difficult so creates something to make it simpler for themselves, C) (closely related to B) someone sees something that could be done better and thinks others would be interested in a different solution.
So, basically, while people invented the "million" payment/tip calculators because they were tired of thinking, nobody is yet tired enough of splitting checks manually to automate the process. Heck, I'd pay good money for devices that would perform certain everyday household tasks and nobody's put one together yet... so what does that mean?
Re:Actually that's not a bad idea (Score:3, Informative)
And I wouldn't have a problem with that type of patent at all. I agree that sometimes commercial success is an indicator of non-obviousness. Most of the time commercial success a better indicator of changing values though.
Probably, but note I put "on the basis of combining a credit-card reader with a POS terminal" in there. I wouldn't have a problem with a patent if there was some trick to get a POS terminal and a credit-card reader to work together and the patent covered that invention. If the patent is "let's put these two things in the same box" then it's kind of ridiculous. The "at the table POS" thing that it sounds like the IBM patent represents, while it is a piece of hardware, probably shouldn't be patented on that basis alone (legal ability to obtain a patent aside).
In general I don't have a problem with patents that provide new technologies; patents which just cover novel applications of existing technology are the ones that concern me: I don't believe that you should be able to patent a particular use of a technology, just a particular technology. It is a subtle distinction, and I appreciate that sometimes it is indeed difficult to differentiate between new technologies and new uses of technology.
Re:Not a problem here (Score:3, Informative)
As a previous waiter in the U.S., and a patron of many establishments outside of the U.S., I've never had a problem with splitting checks. Whenever it looked like it wasn't a family unit, my policy was to ask when taking the order if checks would be split. I've had that happen maybe half the time at other venues (in some situations it's easily assumed). When not asked, a simple "please split the check" sufficed.
I would say that with our tipping system, splitting the bill is a benefit to waiters. When one guy pays for it all, he'll be less likely to tip largely; having four guys tip separately means you get four moderate tips (so, on a $40 total bill, you might get 4 $2 tips instead of one $5). Yeah, you'll get someone now and then who won't tip because the others did, but oh well.
(Related story: My fraternity went to a rather expensive (to us) restaurant to celebrate some new members. Everyone paid for themselves, and a few covered a new member a piece. No one made mention of splitting the bill at any point I remember, member or wait staff. At the end, we got one bill for almost a grand (this was about 15 guys). We asked that it be split, and were told that there system couldn't split a check after it was put in the system. What a horrible system for such an expensive place. I wound up taking the whole thing on a credit card and tracking down each person to get their portion of it. Yeesh.)