Scientific American On Bad Patents 227
dltallan writes: "Scientific American has a short article in which Gregory Aharonian presents his picks for the four worst patents granted. I like the patent for training with manuals (1998)." The Bustpatents site is worth spending some eye-rubbing time on.
How about the telephone? (Score:2, Insightful)
already done. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:already done. (Score:4, Funny)
Attention moderators: I can charge from you. However I will not charge a cent from you if you moderate my message up.
Re:already done. (Score:2)
So moderating via a computer with a TFT monitor or without a mouse (or using only a mouse) is not yet patented?
Re:already done. (Score:2)
This specific breathing rate is a design from Nature. You state that Nature is your own creation. Therefore, you must be....... God!
I once heard that you (God - patent #1) is an all powerful, ever present, all knowing Great Entity. Therefore, you must have thought of everything, and knew everything, at the Dawn of Time.
Does this not mean that the basis of any patent, ever, anywhere, was already known by God? Does God not have prior art on *everything*.
Therefore, all patents everywhere must be invalidated if the law accepts the existence of God.
Edmund, I have a cunning plan........
The Christian far-right of America and Slashdot Readers everywhere must join hands in a holy union to fight the evil powers of MS, RIAA, and the Devil (patent #2).
Funny authors (Score:2, Funny)
I can't be the only one that finds humor in
- "U.S. Patent 5,851,117: "Building Block Training Systems and Training Methods"; Keith A. Alsheimer and others..."
Absolutely hilarious!!Re:Funny authors (Score:1)
This is why I always forget how I built my cool Lego(TM) models when I was a kid!
Three-Dimensional Presentation of Wha...?! (Score:3, Funny)
Gah, and you thought Marketing was the only group that made up complex phrases to describe something so obvious.
Re:Three-Dimensional Presentation of Wha...?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Gah, and you thought Marketing was the only group that made up complex phrases to describe something so obvious.
It appears to be commonplace for patent applicants to use overcomplicated language and jargon in an attempt to convince patent examiners that something is original.
The best way to stop this would be to have a rule that if an application can't be understood then at least that application is void, possibly any future application for something similar is also voided.
Another important thing is that the "obvious", to people skilled in the relevent area, may well not show up simply because people don't put obvious things in journal papera. Because doing so would be redundant.
Odd Einstein quote... (Score:2)
Re:Three-Dimensional Presentation of Wha...?! (Score:2)
Which is the point of using such language in the first place. Not being able to find something in a search means that patent examiners are more likely to consider something to be an "innovation", when really they might do better issuing a patent on the jargon used in the patent application
Re:Three-Dimensional Presentation of Wha...?! (Score:2)
THis is the sort of thing the criteria of an invention not being obvious (to someone knowlagable in the relevent area).
/. patent infringement (Score:1)
ha! osdn should be paying us for our role in determining there ad's effectiveness.
Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application (Score:5, Insightful)
- Documented Research and Development
- Resource Usage on R&D documented
- Professional Acceptance of Patent (Maybe a part of the USPO acts as a mentor program(?)
- Possible Prior Art and Explanations why it is not (I really like this one)
- Penalties for Obvious Patents
- Business Models and complex sociological functions unpatentable
- Physical patents require working model
- Web related patents with comparable real-life applications unpatentable (Amazon One-click)
And the list goes on and onI dunno. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the burden of proof could be higher or something for a corporation rather then an individual. But I don't really see a reason for not allowing people to patent something if it wasn't difficult to come up with, I mean sometimes the most useful things are 'obvious' in retrospect and their genesis consisted mostly of a flash of insight and a quick jotting down. I read a report on a guy who made most of his money coming up with new kinds of condiments containers. Those things do make your life better, and might not even ever be developed if the person who thought them up didn't think they could make money off of it.
Re:I dunno. (Score:2)
Claim 1 (Score:2)
>makes it much easier to remove the
>tiles from a Deluxe Scrabble board
The claim would be,
"Manually or with a gripping device, torque is applied to the planar element, until said element is orthogonal to the planetary or other gravitational field, effecting removal of tiles, pawns, and other instruments."
The muffin baking industry is a potential licensee.
hawk
Pointing out a potential misunderstanding (Score:3, Informative)
If you don't do anything with a patent, then (a) it's officially invalid
Technically, that's correct; patents expire after 3 1/2, 7 1/2, and 11 1/2 years after grant unless the holder pays periodic maintenance fees. If you don't do anything, not even pay the maintenance fee, the patent becomes invalid.
However, most people would take this to mean "an unenforced patent becomes worthless." That's not patents; that's trademarks.
(b) you're depriving society of technology which they would otherwise have had, for no good reason
No good reason except your own bottom line. For any for-profit corporation, that's reason enough. (Corporations that claim to have ethics do so in order to build goodwill, that is, the value of their trademarks, and that can be measured in dollars.)
Re:Of course corporations are doing that (Score:2)
One of the big problems is: Corporations are not people. Anyone who says they are is a liar. The court decision that declared them to be persons was a horrendous mistake at the time, and it has only gotten worse from year to year. Corporations are not people. Every law that implies that they are, or that they have ANY constitutional rights should be stricken from the books immediately. The constitutional rights of corporations are logical entailments of their being composed of people. Of their decisions being made by people. Of their ownership vesting in people. That's it. They don't have ANY constitutional rights in-and-of themselves. They are fictitious constructs, designed to simplify bookkeeping and to enable large projects to be built.
.
Re:Of course corporations are doing that (Score:2)
Yes but (Score:2)
Maybe the current patent system should be replaced with a 'compulsory rights' system, where everyone can license your idea for a price you set.
Re:I dunno. (Score:2)
You see, patents are made to ensure that people will put enough money into development of ideas by giving them a monopoly on the result for a certain number of years.
Actually the idea of patents is to encourage innovation. Something which someone came up with in 2 minutes is probably more innovative than something which took 10 years.
Re:I dunno. (Score:2)
Actually in the case of the USPO patents exist simply to encourage more inventions. If the original patent holder comes up with a marketable product simply isn't an issue...
easy work around (Score:2)
Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application (Score:2, Informative)
Models used to be a requirement until the Patent Act of 1870, which left it up to the Patent Office commissioner. Space and time constraints really don't allow the luxury of model examination and storage by the PTO. ( Patent Office History [myoutbox.net] ).
Add to your list better cataloging and indexing of patent documentation, advanced electronic search and cross referencing of patent files, and better paid, more experienced patent examiners.
Regards
Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application (Score:2, Insightful)
To take this step further, what about a committee made up from representatives from all different competing businesses to provide some oversight?
Wouldn't it make sense for the industry to police itself since it is in their best interests to ensure that only legitimate, truly unique innovations are patented?
--Jon
politics: competitors would squash good patents (Score:2)
While that sounds good, think of the motivations of the competitors. It would be in their interest to kill a "good" patent (read, real innovation with no prior art) which would be a competitive threat, and let a trivial patent through.
I'm not sure there is a good solution.
Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application (Score:2, Informative)
Also, again I don't know the situation in the states, but from the moment a patent has been filed - note: not granted - it is open to the public to examine. In fact a popular science programme on television here (Tomorrow's World) used to (may still) have a section called "Patent Pending" where they showcased interesting applications.
We seem to have far fewer stupid patents here. Although cross-border agreements to honour patents (largely driven by the US) are breaking down national legislation on this.
Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application (Score:2)
That's an excellent idea. How about a game show that allows contestants to win a prize if they can find prior art and invalidate a patent that has been applied for?
Any producers out there reading
Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application (Score:2)
[Some deleted]
* mathematical method
* a scheme or method for performing a mental act playing a game or doing business
* a computer program
The US once had similar restrictions. I don't know if they were formally lifted, but there was an easy workaround: patent a device that implements it. Your algorithm, theorem, game, or program could be implemented by someone else with paper or pencil, but no one could produce a machine that would implement it.
Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application (Score:2)
[stock rant on the subject] [halley.cc]
Patents are not about who is right, or who is first; patents are about who will sue.
The US PTO is a money-making service for the government, and this fact is why it operates as it does.
There is a misconception that it is the central duty of the PTO to form a blockade against granting patents. The PTO can and will block applications where there's heavy similarity with prior art or existing patents, but that's really just a guideline to using the service, not the core function.
The PTO's purpose is to grant patents for a fee, and it's wholly suited to do so.
The application vetting process of the PTO is a cost center for the operation of the PTO. This is akin to saying that customer service is a cost center for the operation of AT&T. It is required, but they'll cut costs as much as they can get away with.
To fix the patent application vetting process, two things must happen:
As of 15 March 2001, the USPTO has changed their policies to partially solve that second problem. They can now publish patent applications before the patent itself is awarded to the applicant. Third parties may now submit "helpful" arguments against controversial applications. The USPTO can then weigh obviousness against challenges without incurring the costs of doing all the searching themselves.
Breaking patents by finding simple prior art is not enough for most cases. Patents already granted are almost never cracked, certainly not by someone using an independent third party's prior art. In the famous Heinlein/Waterbed case [vt.edu], the patent was denied before it was ever granted by the Patent Office. Once a patent has been granted, the Patent Office rarely will get involved in disputes; that is a matter for the courts.
[end of stock rant on the subject]
Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application (Score:2)
Also, government agencies (with the exception of the IRS) rarely share the money they take in. I wouldn't doubt that all the money the PTO pulls in goes towards PTO-related activities, with some tax dollars thrown in for good measure. Government agencies bleed cash, but that's okay. The government is there to do things that aren't profitable but need to be done anyway. This is why they take 20-40% of our income every year.
Though I do agree with you that the patent system is grossly mishandled, and does need some sort of third party review. Originally it was not intended as such, and worked well for 150 years, but with the dawn of mega-corporations and high-speed communications, the individual tends to be drowned out. And I do agree that software should be non-patentable. Code should be copyrighted, but an algorigm/method used in software should not be patented (a la One-click.)
And of course, I could just be talking out of my ass.
The author (Score:1)
Disclaimer: I have now been up 36 hours, if this is not funny, darn.
It Reminds Me.... (Score:2)
of this humor [greenspun.com]. (Scroll down and read the sociology part).
Re:It Reminds Me.... (Score:1)
These sentences should follow that humor:
And, don't forget to submit your methodology to Patent's Office. Ding! Ding! Ding! Patent awarded!
Why is the system not changed... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comic-not
Re:Why is the system not changed... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) With the way the system currently works, patents aren't easy to overturn, even with substantial prior art.
2) Everything and anything would be patented (things even more rediculous), and the USPO would have to spend more time overturning all the senseless ones. At least they're disalloqing some of the patents at the moment.
My 2/5 of a nickel.
--ravyn
Re:Why is the system not changed... (Score:1)
Comic-not
My time machine patent was filed... (Score:2)
Re:Why is the system not changed... (Score:2, Insightful)
COURT COSTS.
In doing this you would have SOOOOOOO many court battles that most companies would just build a court room in their HQ just to save travel time.
The problem is that too much fluff is making it through now, why would passing everything be better?
Re:Why is the system not changed... (Score:3, Interesting)
The PTO would not have to find prior art itself if it could tap the resources of the community for that, otherwise it would make decisions on the same grounds as today. Also, considering the extended processing times of recent patents, especially IT patents are either obsolete or then overtly general in scope once they come out of the mill (independently of whether software should be patentable at all). The kind of shortcut I was suggesting would cut the processing time to minimum, if the patent could be immediately exercised until contested.
Ok, I'm a scientist, and on that field the process has proved to be very effective. Someone claims something, and then everybody is free to try to prove otherwise. Every hypothesis is held potentially true until falsified, but nothing is ever proved true, only the most plausible/widely accepted theory.
Comic-not
Re:Why is the system not changed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are first checked by the patent office for validity. If the patent passes that phase, then it goes on public display as a provisional patent. The person attempting to get the patent must post a bond of, say, $5000. Anyone can submit a challenge to the patent by paying a fee equal to the difficulty in reviewing their challenge. The first person to invalidate the patent by showing prior art, or any other method approved by the patent office, gets paid the $5000. If no one comes forward for a year, then the patent is presumed valid and non obvious, and the money is returned.
Each of us is an individual. And the name of that individual is Clancy Jones - Clancy Jones #185
The Problems of Quantity not Quality (Score:3, Insightful)
The other problem is that the PTO has gotten to the point where people are actually rewarded for issuing as many patents as possible. This is a system that really has to be reviewed. It has gotten the PTO to the point where they basically pass EVERYTHING and then let the courts throw out the frivilous stuff. What a waste of time, and even more money since court costs can be astronomical.
This doesn't even raise the problem of issues like people patenting something in HOPES that it becomes an industry standard and only when it is well entrenched - THEN do they say - I HAVE THE PATENT!!! Um, isn't the whole idea that anyone can come up with idea prove that the need for the patent is dumb?
While the PTO was origionally started as a great idea, over the past two decades things have just gotten out of control. Software and Business Methods are something that are just so unreasonable to patent that the PTO needs to either go back and decide:
1- this is something that will have to be SERIOUSLY researched before a patent is issued, OR
2- These are just things that CAN'T be patented
Good luck to them, because either way, they have a big problem facing them.
Re:The Problems of Quantity not Quality (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe something more like rewarded for processing as many patents as possible. Which would include rejecting ones which were questionable or incomprehensible.
Re:The Problems of Quantity not Quality (Score:2)
Re:The Problems of Quantity not Quality (Score:2)
It is far too easy to devise a product which unknowingly infringes an "obvious" patent. The patent holder will issue a "cease and desist" notice on the infringer. At this point the infringer has two options: to comply, and probably go out of business, or to fight. If they choose to fight, they have to engage lawyers, go to court, shell out squillions of dollars etc., and if they lose, they will then be liable for punitive damages for knowingly continuing to infringe, and will go out of business.
Now, if the patent holders are big corporations with deep pockets, and the infringers are small software developers who are coming up with competing products, you can see how the marketplace may end up without competitive products. The patent system is perverted from being a way of protecting inventors from being ripped off by corporations (ala James Dyson) and is instead a legal artifice which corporations can use to crush the little people.
Dunstan
Re:The Problems of Quantity not Quality (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue of quantity vs. quality has been a long standing issue in the PTO; it was a raging issue back when I joined in 1973. In the "olden days" (say up until the 1960's, according to the then lore) an examiner could make multiple rejections against an insistant applicant; the ethic was to reject claims. Also, the examiner's judgement was given high authority, and applicants had to make a good case to overturn adverse actions.
Well, the patent bar got pissed and started to get more aggressive about challenging examiners; after all, there was abuse of the system, and it is not much better to reject somtthing over clearly irrelevant prior art then to pass out a patent over a clearly anticipating reference. Also, applicants were concerned that applications were taking several years to get issued, making the whole process too expensive and time consuming.
As a result of these pressures a new bred of management was cultivated to counter this. One of the key provisions of this effort was the creation of the "Compact Prosecution" policy. This said that a typical contested application would receive a first action, then, on response by applicant, a second action, either allowance or a "final" rejection. If finally rejected, the applicant could appeal, but was not entitled to have any pre appeal submissions to be considered except under limited circumstances.
To "encourage" examiners to to follow compact prosecution the perfomance evaluation system for them was changed to significantly count an examiner's "production" by giving a credit for the first action and for the disposal of the application (generally abandonment or allowance).
An examiner still has discretion to make actions after the first non-final, but, clearly, the incentives go greatly against this.
From this beginning, management found an easy metric to rate examiners:very "objective" and requiring little "evaluation" of the quality of the work. Patent examining involved patent application "processing" Real quality only occured by hapenstance such as protest from the outside, but low production was the basis of a ticket out.
As far as the issue of software and business patents, look to the courts for that one; the Office, in true bureaucratic inertial fashion resisted those applications, but the patent bar won in the old Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and its post 1982 sucessor the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An express change in the Patent Law will be required to change this (or some kind of radical change in the legal thinking of the judges on the Court).
fighting the RIAA with patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I don't think that you can patent legal arguments at this point in time, but you can patent business models. I mean, we're all smart people, I say why not just patent everything we can think of that the riaa might need technological to fight fair use, etc. I mean they already have things like digital watermarking, and some business models, but why not try to stay ahead of the curve? I remember thinking about a Digital Rights management system built into an OS a couple of months before Microsoft's patent was announced. If I'd thought of it years ago and patented it I would have stopped MS from ever implementing it in the core of the OS. Hrm... not that I wouldn't have been unbribeable, but, maybe this could be done through some non-profit organization like the EFF or something.
Hrm, maybe I should patent this idea... method stopping tyranny through abuse of the patent system...
But... (Score:2)
Re:fighting the RIAA with patents? (Score:2, Interesting)
They can bully us around all they like - until we all realize how much the situation is in OUR hands. If they don't get more of our money, they'll starve. The only question is time. Simple as that.
Of course, there are other satisfying things you can do. Deny them mindshare. Disregard anything and everything they say as more lies. If someone you know is considering buying from them, tell the person why you don't buy from X company anymore and let them make up their own mind. Switch to a competitor's product to show your support. I'm sure you can think of your own ways...
It may seem daunting and you may think "well, one person won't make a difference", but a hundred million one persons sure will... that's how big companies get big... or small. It's up to each of us.
Google-trained monkey patent search (Score:2)
Of course you'd need a Legal gibberish to English translation tool [altavista.com] as well.
The problem with this is that most large companies deliberately give patent applications vague and general titles. This is because the title of the patent becomes public before the body of it - and there's no point telling your competition what you're working on until necessary.
Re:Google-trained monkey patent search (Score:2)
Or maybe simply a rule that applications must be in plain English (with a glossary for any needed technical terms or instructions for using a third party glossary/dictionary.)
Re:Google-trained monkey patent search (Score:2)
Soft Grounds (Score:1)
Best patent (Score:1, Funny)
Everything must be owned (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO one of the core issue with those IP problems is the notion that everything must be owned by someone. I suppose it makes kind of sense, if everything is owned, then money will be made out of everything.
When there will be a patent on the process of "a mother singing to help her children sleep", we will know for sure that we are slaves.
A mother singing to help her children sleep (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A mother singing to help her children sleep (Score:3, Funny)
"A method to induce somnolent behaviour in scions through the use of maternal cantillations."?
Re:A mother singing to help her children sleep (Score:2)
It's broader, it's vaguer, it's all new Marketeer!!
//rdj...
Re:Everything must be owned (Score:2, Interesting)
It's important to distinguish the exchange of labour for money from the rental of a good for money. Rental always ends up being money for nothing at the end of the period. Think of all the means of maintaining a large fortune(and therby a power structure) and they all involve rental in some form. This is why it requires money to make money. The traders who make money out of markets are those who have the fortunes to swing them and the cash reserves to withstand losses. Employment itself is essentially a system where those who aren't rich rent a factory in order to convert their labour into cash.
If it was impossible/illegal to rent it would be impossible to become or stay rich.
Ofcourse this is all Red Commie crap
Marx was always better at critiquing than providing any solution.
Part of the Problem: Patent Work Sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
People with technical skills and training to solve problems aren't interested in a job that is largely research and paperwork. Who can blame them? At the University of Maryland (just outside DC), some people from the patent office came to give a well publicized lecture about their trade and next to no one showed up to hear it. The most knowledgable people will go off and invent or even just teach and then people who can't find positions elsewhere end up working for the USPTO. [I'm sure there are some bright patent examiners, but they sure aren't likely to attract many.]
One might try using pay and perks to make the job more attractive, but that's only likely to go so far. It occurs to me that we might do much better if there was a system resembling that of peer review for scientific research. A lot of problems might be solved if patent applications were reviewed by a pool of people that had recieved patents in related fields. Just add a priviso that people that recieve a patent are obligated to review 3-5 patent applications per year for the length of the patent. Remove all the identifying details and send each application out to several people to referee.
Of course there are lots of details to work out, but IMHO such a system could go a long way towards improving the current state of affairs with the granting of patents.
Re:Part of the Problem: Patent Work Sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
There really are lots of bright people in the PTO (as well as the ususal portion of duds) but they get eroded down to either always being on the edge of being fired (because their production is low) or they have to compromise their own standards to avoid this fate. Either way, they are miserable, and, if they have waited too long, they are trapped in an occupation that has limited applicability elsewhere (Patent Attorney/Agent/Searcher).
The result: lots of turnover from people who make the correct decision quickly (leave fast, stay long enough to get law degree then go on the outside, etc.) leaving the inept and otherwise unemployable, the competant but ground down by the institutional crappy environment, and the few who ae luck to be competant and in an art that enables them to do good work and satisfy the bean counters.
And the management wonders why turnover is so high.
But who's going to bell that cat? (Score:2)
It would make more sense if applications were supposed to be made public in relevant industry journals - the applicant has to pay for an ad - and the public was given time to provide objections on the basis of prior art or overly broad or vague claims.
Re:Part of the Problem: Patent Work Sucks (Score:2)
Employment Announcements at USPTO [uspto.gov]
Also the main USPTO site is here [uspto.gov].
Bustpatents... (Score:2, Funny)
Whew! For a second I thought that was Bust patents. Almost had me...
Public Comments (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't help but wonder... (Score:1)
Somebody beat you to it (Score:2, Informative)
I was looking for the XOR cursor patent (Score:2)
"Write code to move a cursor around." Hmm, what are the operations I can use to set and clear pixels? AND, OR, and XOR. Hey, wait a minute...
At least they didn't grant a patent on "A Technique Whereby Raster Graphic Image Fragments Are Made to Appear in a Blank Frame Buffer by the Use of the OR Operator". Hmmm, wait, maybe I should file that one before someone beats me to it.
steveha
is it really the patent office's problem? (Score:2)
Nonetheless, a little common sense wouldnt go amiss.
Re:is it really the patent office's problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:is it really the patent office's problem? (Score:2)
I don't think the UK/Europe has a similar obligation though. Also, I'd be surprised if anyone has been sued/fined for not doing this
You thought those were bad. (Score:5, Informative)
Silly patents [totallyabsurd.com]
Really silly patents [washington.edu]
Really Very silly patent [legamedia.net]
Plain absurd patent [colitz.com]
Even law firms admit many patents are silly [lightlink.com]
Are you getting bored of all this silliness yet? [freeserve.co.uk]
I can go on [go.com]
And on [about.com]
And on. Even in Spanish [iddeo.es]
Incidentlly, I have just made my own patent application:
Method of recieving Karma Points from www.slashdot.org utilising process of relying entirely on external sources and/or hyperlinks - "Karma Whoring".
What not go European ? (Score:3, Informative)
These patents that only get granted in the US don't happen in Europe. Certainly in the UK this is because other people can challenge the acceptance of a patent, and the people investigating it put it out to experts in that field.
Sounds all to simple, but why not just switch to a system that has worked elsewhere.
Nice one-way traffic that works for Europe (Score:2)
Phillip.
Obviousness (Score:3, Insightful)
In the software/internet field, I think that the main problem is not that prior art is not found -- in a new field it may not exist -- but that the obviousness criterion is not tested.
IANAL, but AIUI, in order to be patentable, an invention must be both novel and non-obvious. But read this interview [oreillynet.com] in which the Director of the US Patent Office demonstrated quite clearly that he did not understand the difference between these two concepts.
It appears that the US Patent Office believes that obviousness can be ascertained by determining whether there is any prior art. Of course obviousness is much harder to prove conclusively. But until they understand that an invention has to satisfy both of these criteria separately, we will continue to get more ridiculous software and e-businness patents.
amazon 1-click (Score:2)
Maybe it's time to patent the 0-click mouse-over patent. "...the fool held the mouse over the image, he must have wanted to buy it..."
And the real reason is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because most of the inventors of the cool computer stuff didn't think their work was patentable, they didn't submit it and now if you can find something that hasn't been sbumitted, you too can get a patent on something you didn't invent.
The same is true for business practices which can now be patented. With no "prior art", anything can get a patent.
One easy fix to this would be to do something as patent a method to something uesless (but patentable) and submit all of google's database. the problem with this approach is that it requires the entire database.
Wrong (Score:2, Informative)
You generally start off with searching what is allready in a numberof patent databases, if youdon't find it there thenyou look elsewhere within the limited time alloted.
USPTO RFC on Prior Art searching... (Score:2)
The USPTO had an RFC regarding Prior Art searches a few years ago. Check out Written Comment #4 [mindspring.com] (chose it from the list - it's in a
Reasons for bad patents / trademarks (Score:2)
First off, we all know *yawn* how easy it is for a big company to patent a blindingly obvious idea. The little guys then have to go thought a painful and long process to get the patent overturned. The patent process is abused and big buiness wins.
Also remember that any company can claim patent pending to sound good.
e.g. Say I run a company making bog-standard parts for a Ford Escort. I then get a patent out for putting a roof on a toaster to stop the toast being poped up too high(!). I can now legitamately claim patent-pending !
Trade marks are similar. In the UK at least, putting TM after your trade mark is regarded as 'totaly meeningless', as it carries no legal weight at all. However, it is easy to bully smaller companies into submission by claiming you have many 'registerd' trade marks.
These Discredit Good Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we (the public) give PTO "obvious" examples? (Score:2, Interesting)
What I'm thinking of is a place where I could describe, say, shopping on a website (to pick an example from bustpatents), and describe in very general terms how shopping on a website works (e.g. "You fill out forms in a web browser, and submit what you want to buy along with your credit card number preferrably over some form of cryptographically secured link such as HTTPS"). It needn't be an especially good example, and (I would say) the more general the better.
The PTO may well require the information to be public, which makes sense (no-one would post anything of value on it). And perhaps the PTO could somehow penalise applicants who apply for something already described on this list (or on a "small" number of other lists)
I can see that it would need a form of moderation system in order to avoid abuse, as I'm sure the PTO probably don't want a few thousand "common examples" of spam. But unless we the software community describe (preferrably in a concise manner, and definitely in one place that the PTO can grab a complete copy for its own searching) what stuff is obvious, the patent office doesn't stand a chance.
PS: I live in the UK, where software patents are not legal. However, you'd be amazed at the number of "mechanisms" that most people would describe as "software"
Odd how many of the patents . . . (Score:2)
Greg has a tendency, as do many patent critics, to casually review patents without applying the appropriate rules of law, presume their scope are much broader than they actually are, and then conclude that they read upon prior art. This would be unrelated to the law.
In practice, the rules of patent construction and patentability are far more complicated than he appears to suppose. At least, he no longer presumes --as he did at one time-- that patents are defined by their abstracts.
Follow the money (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see who initiated this and how their profiting. I love capitalism as a system only until people start abusing government power.
What are patents for? (Score:2)
Forget gene profiling... we have patents for genes (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're developing a CF test which looks for this gene (even from scratch), you will be paying patent royalties.
It's logically consistent with this that you could be paying royalties if you (or your child) has CF...
Re:Forget gene profiling... we have patents for ge (Score:2)
Several US companies own patents for individual human and animal genes. No, not modified genes. Naturally occuring ones, like the one which causes Cystic Fibrosis.
While I agree this makes me uneasy, what are your alternatives?
Gene research costs serious cash. Highly trained people (in high demand). Very expensive equipment and lab facilities. Lots of chemicals (and disposal) If private companies can't get some return, they simply won't do the work.
Who else will do it? Government or universities? Both supported by your taxes- pay up, assuming you can get a tax hike past Duyba. Or you can cut other services (Meet hordes of angry seniors) or add to the deficit if you prefer (Ask the Argentinians how well this works in the long run.)
I don't like the idea much myself, but privates do useful work that otherwise might not get done. Is it better to have a patented CF gene or not know anything about it at all?
Eric
Re:Forget gene profiling... we have patents for ge (Score:2)
You can work out the economics. Make the assumption that it costs the same to produce an invention in a company as in a university (probably not true, since the univeristy doesn't have the lawyer/marketing overhead, and the peer review/academic competition in universities is arguably more efficient at spreading knowledge than closed corporate labs).
If the patent is granted, the average consumer will pay more and get less product (due to monopoly pricing) than they would if they had paid the required additional tax to fund the research in universities. The company makes more profit, but not enough to offset the consumer's loss. So the patent destroys value overall and is also probably regressive since corporate profits will tend to disproportionately benefit the rich.
With the invention in the public domain, companies can then compete in a free market to produce and market the product as efficiently as possible. This is in stark contrast to a patent-protected monopoly, which has far less incentive to cut costs since it is already sitting on a large margin and doesn't have to fight for customers. I actually think the companies would continue to innovate anyway to keep ahead of the competition even if they could not aquire a patent.
Basically, patents are bad, and the *real* free market solution is to abolish them.
Of course, people are dumb and don't like paying extra taxes, regardless of the fact that it might halve the prices of most products they buy. Ah well.....
Re:Forget gene profiling... we have patents for ge (Score:2)
With the invention in the public domain, companies can then compete in a free market to produce and market the product as efficiently as possible.
So, are you allowed patents on production? Good ChemE's don't come cheap, and if you think the production methods aren't covered in a flurry of patents you'd be wrong.
Of course, if you make all that free where's the incentive to improve production by inventing new methods? It costs a bloody fortune to develop a new method: why should any company bother when there's a free, inefficient method out there and any other company can take your new method away? There's no free market here- just a government sponsored research monopoly.
Who pays for clinical trials? The government would have to- no company could shoulder the ~$100M cost per drug under this system.
How about copyright on the informational/marketing materials that go with each drug? Can I take those free as well? I could save a bundle on technical writers/marketing staff. Perhaps the government should just take over those responsibilites too.
Patent works in the drug industry- it's probably the best example, since up front costs for drug development are immense but costs to copy are low.
Are drug companies angels? No, but shutting them down and transferring their entire R&D staffs to academia (where would we put all the chemists?) under government payroll is kind of a drastic solution. (BTW: I seriously doubt your argument that academic research is more cost effective- I've worked in both worlds. The amount of time spent writing grant proposals to get funded is huge. When I needed a new HPLC at Merck, I asked for one. It appeared the next week. In academia it would have taken 6+ months of writing and waiting.)
Eric
Re:Forget gene profiling... we have patents for ge (Score:2)
To answer a couple of your points (all good):
I don't think you would transfer that many people to university research - AFAIK a large amount of the manpower in drugs companies is around the production and testing of drugs, all of which would still have to be done by private companies if they wanted to compete. Even if they pick up the basic research for free, they still need to manufacture it efficiently and convince consumers that it is tested and safe if they want to make a good business.
You could even adopt a funding system where scientists are government funded but work within companies, on the proviso that the research results are available to all. This might be a good model for clinical trials as you mention.
Or as an even less disruptive alternative, the government could guarantee to write out the check for the development of any successfully researched drugs - essentially "buying" the development into the public domain. They would have to include a risk premium (to cover the risk of failed research), but the total costs would be exactly the same and the incentive to make a successful drug just as great. The only difference being that after the drug is made, you get the free market in production and supply rather than a monopoly once again. This might also work as a "bonus" for clever production techniques dreamed up by the ChemEs you mention.
Basically, we all know that patents are bad, that they restrict the free market, inflate prices and quite probably stifle future innovation. The only justification for them is to incentivise new discoveries, but I feel that this can be done in far more effective ways.
I've never worked in a drug company, but I've been in business and technology long enough to know that the ability to copy ideas and strong competition on a level playing field are the biggest drivers that force companies to perform and innovate. Patents prevent this from happening, and this more than anything else has convinced me that they ought to go.
The real problem is the 'justice system' (Score:2)
The USPTO frequently issues patents thinking any ambiguities can be worked out in court, but ignores the fact that the court process is prohibitivly expensive.
Were justice to become affordable to all, the federal government would be forced to correct the problem before the volume of suits effectivly shut down the 'justice system'.
It is quite possable that the flaws in the system were always there, but due to issues of scalability and the vast difference in the connectedness of society in the past compared to now have brought the problem to light.
For example, in the mid 19th century, a most people probably interacted (however slightly) with less people in a lifetime than we do in a week. Each interaction carries potential for a lawsuit. They also were never bombarded with advertisments and even 'entertainment' advising them to take others to court for every offense however slight.
Thus, today you are far more likely to be involentarily dragged into a dysfunctional system than at any other time in history.
Perhaps personal presentations would be in order (Score:2)
Obviously, the big downside is the major hiring the USPTO would have to do to have enough presentation/interview slots available. I can't see how the pie-chart patent would have ever been granted with this process--I mean, how do you present such an obvious concept like that to a group of people and keep a straight face or not get booted from the room within 5 minutes?
US Patent 6025810: hyper light speed antenna (Score:2, Interesting)
US Patent 6025810:
A method to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves which comprises generating opposing magnetic fields having a plane of maximum force running perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating a heat source along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic field; generating an accelerator parallel to and in close proximity to the heat source, thereby creating an input and output port; and generating a communications signal into the input and output port, thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light.
Certainly not going to get shot down by prior art...
Maybe they just forgot! (Score:2)
Maybe it's just coincidence and maybe I'm just reading too much into all of this, but:
(U.S.: 5,851,117: "Building Block Training Systems and Training Methods"; Keith A. Alsheimer and others.)
Altzheimer? Alsheimer? Hrm!!!
A reflection from my youth (Score:2)
We used to get into arguments over who "wanted it first."
"Hey! You can't want that! I wanted it first! It's mine!!"
"If you wanted it first, you should have circled it first!"
"You took the book! So how could I?!"
The underlying notion was claiming ownership of a wish... we were very poor and we rarely, if ever, actually got what we wanted for Giftmas anyway.
But with all the "IP" issues that come to light these days, I am wistfully reminded of those days. And I ask is it really so different? Perhaps, we were all forward-thinking prodigies preparing ourselves for 21st century "industry" where we get paid for simply claiming to think of something first.
Last night, during an internet chat, I quoted James Madison. I didn't know James Madison said the same thing I did 200 years ago? I never read the quote, I just happened to have the same idea he had and expressed it in the same way. It's a good thing we don't have too much problem with being able to express ourselves freely... oh wait, nevermind...
How much of this is "too much" and do we have to come to the point of revolution in order to stop the insanity?
If you can't beat them, join them? (Score:2)
All you would need to do is look for obvious ideas that the big corps will need to use at some time in the near future then hold those ideas hostage until either the big corps pay through the nose or someone with a clue decides to pass legislation that raises the bar for granting patents.
Who needs hyperlinks? (Score:2)
Education (Score:2)
So what can we conclude? The people working at the patent office have a very limited education, if any at all. Had these people attended any type of schooling they would have frequently used text books and this "Training Manual" patent would be incredibly obvious with many examples of prior art.
Eskimo Pie Anniversary (Score:2)