Halliburton Applies For Patent-Trolling Patent

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."

This

This is hilarious on SOOO many levels. I don't even know who to root for in this story! Help me Slashdot, should I go for Hallburton, the Patent Office, the trolls?

Re:This

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.

Re:This

I doubt it, more likely they'll just take a small piece of each settlement as a licensing fee.

But, it's not like nobody saw this one coming so I'd suspect that it'll get blocked on the grounds of the inherent obviousness of it.

Re:This

I can't wait to hear from the other patent trolls whining about being trolled.

Re:This

This makes me so mad I just wanna shoot someone in the face.

Re:This

I already have a patent on angry face shooting, please do something else. I might sue you.

Re:This

Seriously hilarious. Though as long as it's not illegal, and it meets all the 102 requirements and is not obvious, it will probably be granted.

Maybe the best we can hope for (besides dying in our sleep) is that this kind of slap-in-the-face application can spur some of the much needed reform.

Re:This

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.

Re:This

It sounds like you're assuming that Halliburton will indiscriminately go after anyone who violates their patent, thus making patent trolls everywhere tremble in fear. I don't think it will work out that way. What seems more likely is that they'll hold onto it, using it only against their competitors when it's to their advantage and having little effect on the world of patent trolling as a whole -- and meanwhile, setting yet another precedent for the granting of truly horrible patents. The best thing is for this and every other business method patent (and software patent, and patent on a naturally occurring gene, etc.) to be denied until people get the message that patents are intended to cover physical inventions, and nothing else.

Re:Need a better search function.

It's not "patenting patent trolling" that needs to be non-obvious, it's the action they're trying to patent - "patent trolling". Patent trolling, although it may not have been obvious back when it became a major problem, is now so common as to be laughably obvious. Unfortunately, prior art exists everywhere.

Sorry...

No, they can't do this because it violates MY patent on patenting patent trolling!

Re:Sorry...

I was waiting for you to exercise because I have patented patenting patent trolling.

hmm...

...I would think that the very act of finding "prior art" (the very fact they found an invention) as described in this system would invalidate any patent attempt of the trade-secret...

Re:hmm...

Moreover, their attempt to patent this procedure would seem to indicate that they were knowingly violating prior art, in fact intentionally doing so, which would seem to imply that they could be charged with fraud or something similar.

I'm surprised they filed this patent attempt, and that their lawyers let it happen - it's like saying "I would like explicit government recognition of my plans to violate the law to ensure that when I do so everyone will recognize exactly what I did."

From TLWA

Although patents normally go to the first inventor under a first-to-file system, an inventor who keeps the information secret or just does not publish generally loses the right to the patent and also does not establish prior art. Without prior art, a later inventor can get a valid patent on the same invention and then apply it against earlier inventor(s). All this is easily prevented simply by recognizing the invention and applying for a patent, or by publishing details of how to practice the invention, thus creating prior art.

Emphasis mine.

Re:hmm...

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?

Like Radar Detecting

I'm reminded of something that happened to me a few years ago in a Circuit City or Sears or someplace. I was looking for a radar detector for my car. The salesman was trying to upsell and said "You know, cops can detect radar detectors now, so you should get this upgrade with a radar-detector detector." I said, "Why do I want a radar-detector detector? Obviously I want a radar-detector-detector detector." The salesguy did not appreciate my point. I ended up just buying my original level of detection.

Re:Like Radar Detecting

What's funny is that there actually are units with a radar-detector-detector detector circuit in them, in order to to protect against police units such as the Spectre III.

Re:Like Radar Detecting

Of course, the police don't tell you about the Spectre IV, which has a radar-detector-detector-detector detector circuit in them.

Why stop there?

When you get to the level of paranoia where you want this, perhaps I could interest you in my radar-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector detector.

It consists of a black box with a little red light, which always blinks to indicate that you're always being watched.

Let Them Patent It

The methods of figuring out trade secrets are almost always illegal, and can be sued over.

In re Bilski

This is a silly business-methods patent application that will certainly be rejected by the PTO after Bilski. And no, a trade secret certainly does not qualify as prior art in the US. Nor should it.

Excerpt from patent

What is claimed is:

1. Being an asshole.
2. Effectively wielding the trait in claim 1.
3. Using the trait in claim 2 for the purpose of making money.
4. Using the trait in claim 3 as a business weapon.
5. Using the trait in claim 4 to pursue litigation against entities with desirable assets.
6. Using the methods and techniques in claim 5 to transfer ownership of desirable assets from the prior owner to the new owner, the user of the trait in claim 4.
7. Using appropriate legal contracts and agreements to ensure that the prior owner in claim 6 cannot publically disclose the use of the methods and techniques in claim 5 or the successful results therefrom in claim 6.
8. ...
9. Profit!

Wow

Halliburton, you magnificient bastard! Making patent trolls pay you license fees for violating your patent trolling patent? I revel in your sheer self-referential evilness. My hat is off to you. That takes huge balls — I think I saw one of them chasing Indy in a Peruvian temple.

Re:Patent being a dick.

So basically halliburton is trying to patent being a dick... I think there's some prior art for that...

You mean Cheney?