USPTO To Reexamine Eolas, SBC Patents 96
theodp writes "The USPTO Director has ordered reexaminations of the infamous Eolas Distributed Hypermedia Method (discussed earlier(1) on Slashdot) and SBC Structured Document Browser (discussed earlier(2) on Slashdot) patents. Maybe this will inspire Tim O'Reilly to get that killer piece of 1-Click prior art off his bookshelf!"
Pattent System (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Your Sig (Score:1)
Re:Pattent System (Score:5, Interesting)
the current malicious patent application process is to submit as broad and vague a patent as possible (particularly in software) and resubmit over and over, narrowing it down only as much as the particular examiner requires.
(not all patent applying company's do this - but the ones who do, -always- do).
at some point there should be a mechanism to prevent such obvious and disingenuous 'gaming' of the system.
the patent idea is supposed to be cooperative: a limited monopoly for an inventor in return for public disclosure of the invention (provided it meets the qualifications for being patentable), with the intent of enriching the public domain.
the business practice of filing patents for litigation purposes (sue your competitors out of business because they can't even afford to -defend- themselves) - is equal parts sickening and maddening.
Patent litigation should have to go through a review process at the USPTO to determine fitness of the claim (paid for by the sue-er, reimbursed by the infringer in the event of guilt).
instead we wind up having vague patents that are pushed across a reviewer's desk as fast as possible, being enforced in a court of law that does not and should not have the technical expertise to determine veracity of the claim.
If there was an internal USPTO review process prior to litigation - then they'd have the authority to revoke, suspend, or demand more specific clarification of overly broad patents that slipped through.
but for some reason there's never a call to restructure the procedures for established government bureaus. even when disaster strikes, and the problems hit the forefront, the solution always seems to be simply to create yet-another-layer of bureaucracy.
Re:paid for by the sue-er? (Score:1, Insightful)
you had lawyers to file the claim - doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
if there is infringement, you'll reclaim your expenses 100% on top of any settlement.
hell a fee for the USPTO pre-litigation exam wouldn't even be necessary. most company's would shirk away at unnecessary litigation at the mere thought of giving the USPTO another look at their carefully overly-broad patent.
surprisingly though, it's -not- the lawyers who are propagating this type of stuff.
How many times... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this can be duplicated for other patents, could this a possible route to pointing out how futile software patenting is ? I'd guess that if the USPTO had to constantly re-examine s/w patents they might be more leery of granting them
Simon
Re:How many times... (Score:5, Informative)
Director ordered re-exams are rare, a few hundred a year. They tend to only take place when the USPTO is absolutely forced to.
In this case the director is responding to a public request made by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web on behalf of the 600 odd companies in his consortium. This is the type of request that the director of the USPTO can hardly afford to ignore.
There are other ways to obtain a re-examination. Anyone can file at any time by paying a fee. The problem is that the re-exam process tends to be as prefunctory as the exam process and if you lose at re-exam the courts are likely to reject challenges based on the material presented in the re-exam.
I suspect that we will see the Eolas patent quickly evaporate. Director ordered re-exams in the middle of littigation are highly unusual. The trigger for obtaining a director ordered re-exam is considerably higher than the threshold for invalidating a patent.
Re:How many times... (Score:2)
Re:How many times... (Score:2)
It is possible, but over the years most of the pressure on the USPTO has come from patent barons and the lawfirms who service them lobbying to keep the rules loose.
I see this more as a recognition by the patent baron donors that trying to defend the Eolas patent might end up as the catalyst to wider reforms which would hurt their interests.
Re:How many times... (Score:2, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with the concept of software patents, or there merit.
The reason for this is because there are patent lawyers that would be out of work if were not for software patents.
There will be about as much progress here as there has been in tort law reform.
Re:How many times... (Score:1, Interesting)
The US gov. did a study a few years back which I'm having trouble finding. It shows that the average tort case is for a car accident with a settlement of $10,000. No biggie. They don't talk about 99.9999% of the tort cases on TV.
I've always wondered (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if they did? It's a patent that, in all likelihood, never should have been awarded, so it really doesn't matter much to me who got the USPTO to examine it as long as it and bad patents like it are thrown out.
Seriously people, you have to stop cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is a good thing!
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:2)
Sure, it's good to get rid of a bad patent, but what we really need is a way to get the ball rolling that does not depend on Microsoft's support.
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:2)
Daniel
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheesh people, the comment was merely meant to postulate on why the USPTO suddenly decided to review several of the patents. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it was Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Oracle, *insert big tech company here* but more so what actually triggered it. It just seems especially odd that suddenly the review is triggered when there have been several significant efforts to get some of the more questionable pat
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:1)
You might not need to be a billionaire to file for a patent reexamination. But given the number of ludicrous patents out there that haven't been reexamined, I can only conclude that you have to be a billionaire to get a patent reexamination, especially o
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:1, Informative)
Actually it was the World Wide Web Consortium W3C and Internet community but hey it's not like you have to read the article.
Re:Hmmmm, other motivations.... (Score:2)
IIRC, the W3 consortium had requested a reexamination of the Eolas patent.
I assume... (Score:1, Redundant)
Probably Not (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if these 2 clerks were forced by USPTO policy to grant these patents, regardless of thier opinions. I suspect this policy has been influenced by the Commerce Dept. and many federal judges over many years of litigation..
Hell, they may ever reassign the same 2 clerks to re-evaluate the patents with a li
Re:Probably Not (Score:1)
IANAPL, but the way I understand the situation, they ARE supposed to look at more than just the patent database - if they were able to do their jobs correctly, they should scan all of the literature which is "typically available to a practictioner of the art" for the field of invention that they are reviewing. All of that stuff represents "prior art", and by not including it in their acceptance decision, they are requiring that some
Putting a leash on the patent monster (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to stop the growth of USPTO is like trying to stop the sun from rising. Perhaps there is a way for them to collect additional (even higher) fees for re-examining questionable patents. Considering all the garbage that is out there, they is quite a bit of work to be done and a captive market to pay for it. I think the Patent Office needs something to do. Pulling the plug on misguided patents would be a worthwhile effort. All we need for patent reform is a way to align the inevitable collection of fees with the policy goal of protecting only those truly innovative ideas that cost big money for R&D.
Re:Putting a leash on the patent monster (Score:2)
Re:Putting a leash on the patent monster (Score:4, Informative)
As I am studying for the patent bar right now I can answer that....
Maintenance fees (for utility patents) are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years.
I hope I got that right!
Re:Putting a leash on the patent monster (Score:3, Informative)
The patent office needs to *do something* but it certainly doesn't need something to do.
I'm a law student who spent the summer at a patent law firm working on software patent prosecution. You would not believe how understaffed the USPTO is for the volume of CS related patents. One of the ways this is most obvious is that a lot of objections the examiners sent back to us were completely
Re:Here is the leash for the patent monster (Score:1)
What if it wasn't MS (Score:5, Insightful)
James
Re:What if it wasn't MS (Score:1)
I think you're right, with one exception... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Microsoft's power to litigate and make news.
2. The impact this patent would have on just about every web user.
Factor #2 has been demonstrated to have some leverage in the realm of very obvious patents (BT's hyperlink patent).
While Eolas' patent may seem obvious to your average software engineer, it isn't to your average Joe. Had it not been Microsoft, I think the impact of the installed base would have been a signif
Precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Precedent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Precedent (Score:1)
Re:Precedent (Score:2)
Anal Gel patent also being reviewed (Score:2, Funny)
What a lovely patent. [uspto.gov] Anal gel.
Re:Anal Gel patent also being reviewed (Score:4, Funny)
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
There are no drawings provided.
Thank goodness, no drawings provided!
Goatse guy (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Anal Gel patent also being reviewed (Score:2, Funny)
They left the drawings in the bathroom, and somebody used them to improve peri-anal hygiene.
Other reviews (Score:1, Redundant)
"6,520,942 Reexam. C.N. 90/006,758, Ordered Date: Sept.
24, 2003, Cl. 604/290, Title: METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER
A BOWEL MOVEMENT, Inventor: Edward L. Putman, Owner of Record:
Edward L. Putman, Vernon, CT, Attorney or Agent: Owner is
representing self, Ex. Gp.: 3761"
Well...
U.S. Cl. 604--290 6 Claims
1. A method to improve peri-anal hygiene comprising:
providing a gel of viscosity thick enough to rest for several seconds on a piece of toilet paper w
Re:Other reviews (Score:1)
I doubt it, this is Slashdot, home of the prison anal rape fantasists
Re:Other reviews (Score:2)
So wait (Score:4, Interesting)
Grandfathering is a different idea (Score:3, Informative)
This reversing of a patent will probably be submitted to the appeals court (if there isn't already a more convienent avenue), which will overturn the prior decisions.
Re:So wait (Score:2)
As you have surmised, patents are considered valid (and enforceable) until they have been overturned in Federal court through the patent appeals process. As long as the patent holder can pay to keep the appeals process going, they can still litigate based on the patent. (The company I'm working for has encountered this issue recently.)
Re:So wait (Score:2)
EOLAS isn't on the list (Score:2, Informative)
Re:EOLAS isn't on the list (Score:3, Informative)
The same article also says Eolas is a 'one man software company', which is news to me though not very surprising. "Software Company" is a misspelling of "litigation engine" I guess...
Xentax
Re:EOLAS isn't on the list (Score:1)
No FEAR! (Score:2, Funny)
Man, I love him on Fear Factor.
Especially when he makes them eat worms and stuff.
So... (Score:1)
That's SO unfair...
Patent on cookies? (Score:1)
Re:Patent on cookies? (Score:1)
Re:Patent on cookies? (Score:1)
Re:Patent on cookies? (Score:2)
You're reading it wrong. The patent refers to a method for allowing a user to customise the content of a page returned by a web server, through the use of a configuration page. Although the illustrative description of the patent refers to the use of cookies to identify the user, this is no more a "patent on cookies" than it is a patent on computers, networks, the Internet or any of the other technologies referred to as being involved in the process decribed.
Of course, it's still laughable to suggest tha
Re:Patent on cookies? (Score:2)
Your reading from it right now. I remember doing that eons ago on
Re:Patent on cookies? (Score:1)
Re:Patent on cookies? (Score:1)
Maybe the wrong link was provided but that "patent on cookies" leads me to a patent on a method of circuit placement in an IC layout:
"One embodiment of the invention is a recursive partitioning method that place circuit elements in an IC layout."
Re:Patent on cookies? (Score:1)
Another patent that was re-examined... (Score:4, Interesting)
METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT
Wiping your ass with moist toilet paper was actually patentable. Non-techies might be more interested to hear that absurd patents are not just limited to the technology realm.
Re:Another patent that was re-examined... (Score:1)
Re:Another patent that was re-examined... (Score:2)
One thing most people misunderstand is that patents do not grant the exclusive right to an invention to one person. It grants the right to control who and who does not utilize the invention. There is a subtle difference.
The latter basically means that it is up to the holder of the patent to determine if there is infrigement and prosecute. Patent holders must be vigilant.
GJC
Re:Another patent that was re-examined... (Score:2)
USPTO search [uspto.gov]
-----
What is claimed is:
1. A method to improve peri-anal hygiene comprising:
providing a gel of viscosity thick enough to rest for several seconds on a piece of toilet paper without causing noticeable disintegration of the piece of toilet paper;
dispensing a quantity of the gel onto the sheet of toilet paper;
applying the gel to an anal area using the sheet of toilet paper as an applicator; and
wiping the anal area with a dry sheet of toilet paper to dry the
Re-evaluation (Score:1)
Is this prophesied in the Book of Revelations, or Nostradamus or something? Will this throw the Earth out of orbit? Somebody get Satan on the phone, and ask if it's snowing.
~Knautilus
Re:Re-evaluation (Score:2)
GJC
What I have not seen mentioned (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the patent system is wrong, and yes it should be reformed. But if MS wants to get out of this mess, they should have to change the rules for all, not just themselves.
Selectively applying the laws will only continue the problems we face now.
They're not "Changing the Rules." (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, it's the W3C that's requested the Patent Re-examination.
Thirdly, it's a patent re-examination, it's rare, but it's a normal part of the process. No one is changing any rules at all here.
But of course, it's benefits Microsoft, so clearly, there must be some shenanigans going on, Microsoft getting(buying) special treatment that no one else would get, right?
Higher bar for patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Out patent office is biased towards approving patents, not towards denying them. This is probably somewhat due to the understaffing (and lack of appropriat
Try taking away the agriculture handouts from our (Score:1)