Inside Look at Patent Examination 214
KingFatty writes "This article written by a former patent examiner describes patent application as a matter of luck when it comes to the competency of the examiner. "Every examiner starts with his or her first patent application after receiving just two weeks of training at the USPTO Patent Academy, where he or she learns the basics of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Will your patent application be examined by that newly recruited examiner? If so, will the examiner's supervisor (supervisory patent examiner or SPE)[be] sufficiently skilled in the art in which the patent application is classified?" Gives insights as to the problems with the US Patent and Trademark System."
Peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Finding qualified reviewers. Many academics in my field (network theory) have been complaining about "reviewer burnout". Simply put, any popular field will have lots of people submitting papers [patents, in your analogy] in an effort to boost their publications. Oftentimes, many of these people will submit stuff that's obviously not publication-quality material, but reviewers still have to spend their time first to evaluate it and then to produce a good writeup justifying rejecting it. To be sure, there are still good papers, but the general experience seems to be that the signal-to-noise ratio of submissions is directly inverse to the popularity of the field. Imagine how much worse this would be for patents, where the payoff is not just CV bragging rights but actual profit dollars.
The end result is that it's difficult to get quality reviews, because the reviewers (who, by definition of peer review, tend to be very busy professionals who already have a lot to do) get burned out and are tempted to just breeze through reviews. Since the patent office gets many more patent applications than your typical journal, I'd imagine this would be an even bigger problem for patents.
2. Finding honest reviewers. By making patents peer-reviewed, you're forcing applicants to disclose the details of their technology to their peers before their patent is accepted. A similar situation exists in academia where often multiple research groups are working on the same research project. Sadly, it's not unheard of for particular reviewers to stonewall acceptance of papers because they have similar results which they are submitting / hope to submit soon to another journal. Imagine how, in the case of patent review where people are competing not just for notoriety but for profits, an even bigger incentive would exist for this sort of thing to go on.
I understand that your point is that it would be nice to have highly qualified individuals doing patent reviews, which would hopefully inject more common sense into the proceedings. I'm just saying that setting up such a system may hhave its own problems to iron out.
IP tax (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IP tax (Score:2)
Re:An IP Tax would distort the process (Score:2)
Re:IP tax (Score:2)
5. Don't try to discuss "IP": You are discussing IP, too. We are talking specifically about patents, one kind of IP. Most specifically, we are talking about funding the PTO, whose ranks are filled with underpaid civil servants, as documented so frequently on
4. [...] E
Re:Peer review (Score:2)
It's now being challenged by PUBPAT. [pubpat.org]
Re:Peer review (Score:2)
In academia, I assume that work is under a commons. But in business, work is private in order to exploit and control profits.
I can see it now: your company submits a patent, and the patent gets reviewed by "peers" (i.e. officers, scientists and engineers from other companies). These peers get a review of their competitor's work, turn down the patent, then file their own immediately by the magic of cut-n-paste.
I happen to know a company who was subject to just this kind of thing. They a
Re:Peer review (Score:2, Informative)
Nonsense. (Score:5, Funny)
Now patent clerks everywhere do half-assed work, their brains busy trying to come up with the next great theory of time, gravity, and light.
Re:Nonsense, ala Family Guy (Score:4, Funny)
Einstein thumbs through the papers.
Enistein knocks out Mr. Smith, and runs.
Re:Nonsense, ala Family Guy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nonsense, ala Family Guy (Score:3, Interesting)
From the linked book review:
The young Einstein was not, of course, employed in the academic world but in the Swiss Patent Office. And Switzerland, as we know, was a centre of invention and innovation in clock technologies. The patent office at Bern was a clearing-h
Huge Patent Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel the largest problem with the patent system is allowing people to patent "ideas" without a working prototype. I think this can and will lead to intuitive innovations being passed over because the manufacturer would have to pay patent fees to the "inventor". Total BS.
If the "inventor" didn't have the balls to put his/her money where their mouth is, then they don't deserve shit! Let's not punish companies willing to put forth money into a great idea by making them pay some lazy ass moron who payed a small patent fee to patent his idea of clapping to turn on a light.
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Itellectual property rights are important in a capitalist society. Without being rewarded for work, less work would be done and society would be worse off.
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Where would we be today? Probably not so different in your imaginary world as this real one; patents expire (unlike copyrights).
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Frankly, it's a good cause for more limited times on Patents and Copyrights. If you reduce the time for them to something reasonable...like 7 years instead of 20 that would capture 90% of the p
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
What if the inventor can't afford to create it? And the VCs won't invest in him until they are sure the item is patented -- they don't want to lose all their money later because they find out he stole the idea from someone else.
I think rejecting it outright due to lack of prototype would be bad, but to avoid the creation of "companies" like PanIP, how about the patent being granted on a trial basis? If, after maybe two years, there is still no actual working de
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Used to be that the default status of inventor-to-backer relationship was mutual trust. Some uncontrollable social developments have changed that; I can think of three, off the top of my head:
1) Popularization/validization of the greed instinct (getting used to a 20% ROI),
B) More popular focus on "having stuff" rather than achieving things,
III) The internet and "free" information-flinging, where everything
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Likely, the "Next Big Thing" will be completely different. Using your thoughts presented here taken back in time:
40 Years ago: "You can't go much further than having everyone connected by telephone! Instant communication!"
Now: "You can't go much further than having everyone on the net. REALLY instant communication!"
Future: "You can't go much further than having everyone connected to
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Do you know how much it costs to succesffuly apply (meaning retaining a lawyer throughout the process) for a utility patent? Don't you conisder the thousands of dollars "putting money where your mouth is?"
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
What most regular folks do (e.g. individuals who aren't a patent factory like IBM, 3M, GE, etc) is file for a provisional patent. This is a relatively cheap process (in the neighborhood of $1500) which protects the basic idea for one year, with the intent of allowing you to file changes (improvements) to the basic claim. That's the INTENT -- because changing a "real" utility patent is very time consuming and expensive.
What most people actually use the provisional patent for is to protect their idea while they shop it around to investors and licensees. Then you make it a condition of the licensing that the first licensee pays for the full-blown patent expenses (or something along those same lines).
But it should actually be pretty rare for the expenses to run as high as $10K. (I happen to be in the process of patenting something, and luckily a friend of mine is a patent attorney.)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Let's give people "temporal patents" that would give them some time to create a prototype of what it is they want to patent. This way they could go to a manufacturer to have it made without having to worry about getting their idea stolen. If they do not create their prototype within some given time-frame, then they lose the patent.
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huge Patent Issues (Score:2)
Awhile back on slashdot, there were links to all sorts of bizarre things which people have patented. The specific one which comes to mind was a radio which communicated faster than light through "hyperspace".
So it would seem that not all patent examiners necessarily agree with yo
salaries (Score:5, Interesting)
"The salaries of entry level patent examiners presently range from $32,819 to $70,959. Overtime is strongly encouraged after several months of experience is accrued, and it is not unusual for a junior examiner with three or four years experience to make more than $100,000 annually with overtime and bonuses."
Sounds like they're trying pretty hard to entice people to become patent officers, because the pay scale seems abnormally high for a governmental job. Starting salaries up to $70k per year? Geeez.... Or maybe the salary range is required because the job sucks so much.
Re:salaries (Score:3, Interesting)
(now, compared to other government jobs, yes, you're right; it's a high salary)
Re:salaries (Score:2, Informative)
Patently Obvious [typepad.com]
Re:salaries (Score:2)
Lawyers???? We don't need no darn lawyers at the patent office, we need qualified people in different fields to examine the patents and decide whether to grant them or not based on their merit.
The only thing you'll get if you put lawyers there is junk that's correct
If it's so poorly researched, (Score:3, Insightful)
"Did a search on Google for some of the keywords in their description, but only a few thousand webpages came up... Patent Granted, next!"
Because, it makes for good FUD. (Score:5, Interesting)
The real problems for other manufacturers are the submarine patents, where the inventor keeps the application alive for 15 or so years, tweaking the application. Since there is an application pending, all other applications for the same thing get denied. An example would be single-chip-microprocessors. Since everyone in the industry tried to patent it and were denied, they assumed that it was not a patentable idea. Big surprise when the submarine came up to sink the industry. When I went to a police academy, we were taught never to assume anything. The saying goes, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
The big problem for the software industry is that there have been enterprising crooks filing patents based on obscure theses and books, hoping that no one notices it was plagiarized. The patent examiners are not stopping duplicate patents now, they want the user fees, and to the devil (err the courts) with the details.
Re:Because, it makes for good FUD. (Score:2, Informative)
Patent applications filed on or after November 2000 are published within 18 months of filing.
See the USPTO notice [uspto.gov]
Of course there are exceptions but a part of proving infringement is proving your competitors knew about the contents of the patent application. IANAL but if you delay the publication and didn't notify your competitors that they are possibly infringing, the judge will
Re:Because, it makes for good FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
An application shall not be published if an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen-month publication.
So unfortunately, you can still keep things completely secret for a very long time, assuming you're willing to forgo patent protection in other jurisdicti
Re:Because, it makes for good FUD. (Score:2)
Isn't "probable cause" essentially a form of assumption?
They are getting into my head... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:They are getting into my head...seriously (Score:2)
I love all of the jokes about antigravity devices. They are lovely. Curiously though not only have methods of developing antigravity been developed, they have in fact been demonstrated and are the focus of some research.
The issue of antigravity efforts seems to center around scaling the demonstrations to a practical level. A considerable amount of natural evidence exists for antigravity functions as well. Tornados for example have clearly demonstrated this function.
Essentially the issue seems to center
Re:They are getting into my head...seriously (Score:2)
I suck at Physics, so I apologize if this a is a completely stupid or obvious question. Does something have more gravitational pull if it is compressed? IE, if the earth were compressed to the size of a basketball or something, would the gravity be roughly the same?
Of course, I realize that gravity is measured from the center of the object, so you would have to be floating in space at the same radi
Re:They are getting into my head... (Score:2)
Hamstrung When Looking for Prior Art? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hamstrung When Looking for Prior Art? (Score:3, Insightful)
As best as I can tell the examiners are limited to prior patent applications and official publications in searching for prior art. Little room seems to be reserved for common sense.
I dunno... "Official publications" could cover a heck of a lot of ground...
And besides, it's probably awfully hard to place a reliable date on unofficial publications... whatever that would mean. They have to guard against fraud.
What do you mean by "common sense?"
Re:Hamstrung When Looking for Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)
As a former USPTO examiner, I can say that it is not a matter of prior art availability. An examiner has pretty much all of the prior art they wish for in their examination. It is not just the old patent "shoes" and prior patents. Examiners have access to a large number of private databases, the Internet, foreign language translation services ... what have you.
What is limited is the time the examiner has to thoroughly investigate all possibly relevant prior art. Patent examiners in the USPTO are subject to "productivity" expectations, and if they spend too much time on any particular application, then another application will suffer from insufficient review. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any particular patent application will come back to bite them. The system (like many others) is geared toward looking at numbers and not quality.
And that is exactly where the problem lies (Score:2)
If we allow a greater scope of potentially patentable things, then we need to spend a lot more time in review, because the negative effects on innovation and the economy in general are potentially higher.
On the other hand, limiting the scope would then allow for a looser process, for the same reasons I just mentioned.
Since we seem to be heading toward a very wide scope, those that do get patents should have to work ha
Patent examiner technology (Score:4, Funny)
Turnover (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what is the turnover rate at the USPO?
What percentage of the examiners are seasoned examiners of patent applications etc.
What percentage of the examiners have worked there for less than 2 years?
Always Reject on the First Round (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Always Reject on the First Round (Score:5, Interesting)
On the inside (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I know its a hard job.. but even the worst fuck-up gets it right once in a while.
The solution is simple. Pay the experts what they are worth to do the job. Just like they should with teachers. Its never going to happen.
There is way too much money to be made in having IP control over an uneducated populace.
Possible Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Possible Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Possible Solution (Score:2)
Limit X for sole propietorships, dual propietorships, and corporations having fewer than P employees.
Limit Y for the rest.
Floods of patent applications at beginning (Score:2)
a flood of applications held till the "new year" began
OR
a massive backlog of applications that haven't been considered yet because 25,000 was already reached
Why does each patent officer have to spread their knowledge so thinly? Wouldn't departments with specific fields of knowledge make more sense (i.e. a motors dept. and a plastic mold dept. and a computer/electronics dept.)?
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Patent Examiner... (Score:3, Funny)
Ronco Spaghetti Drainer (Score:3, Funny)
Jeez, how many words do I have to use to say a pot with holes in the lid??:}
Suggested Patent Reform: Require working model (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Suggested Patent Reform: Require working model (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of patents is that they give an incentive to invent by giving the inventor a time-limited monopoly on their idea. If there is no incentive to invent, why bother?
Re:Suggested Patent Reform: Require working model (Score:2)
There is plenty of incentive to invent things without a 70 year copyright. Back when it was 10 years that argument would be valid. Right now a copyright doesn't serve its intended purpose since it still screws somebody. It was originally designed to allow everyone to benefit from an advance while giving the inventor compensation. During the earlier years if you invented something you'd keep
Re:Suggested Patent Reform: Require working model (Score:2)
Copyrights are different, and apply to the original expression of an idea.
That's the simplest way to put it anyway.
Re:Suggested Patent Reform: Require working model (Score:2)
Ironic new stem cell research cannot be conducted int he U.S. so the Pentagon pays for it to be done in Switzerland among other places. Nice to see government money well spent, too bad its not on researchers willing to do it here.
Re:Suggested Patent Reform: Require working model (Score:2)
If you can't build it, how do you know it is such a good idea?
Why wouldn't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? If you aren't going to implement it, why not share it? Right now, it costs thousands of dollars to put through a patent application. If you think you might get a patent, you have a strong incentive not to tell anyone (hard to prove that they didn't have the idea first if they file first). Thus, the current system provides a strong incentive for people who do not have the resources to get a patent to keep quiet.
How many patents are actually sold that way? How many
Re:Why wouldn't you? (Score:2)
And you see nothing wrong with that? Today, your cousin's wife has a chance to make a little money. Get by. Pay
Re:Why wouldn't you? (Score:2)
I find it very unlikely that she will ever have enough money to patent it. If she tried, she might find that there was prior art (it is common sense obvious from existing products). Even if not, she would s
Re:Suggested Patent Reform: Require working model (Score:2)
And how would you verify that the working model actually implements what is claimed? For example I could patent my new compression algorithm accompanied by 100,000 lines of heavily commented code, test suites etc. Could you establish if my new algorithm is actually in there? If part of it is present, is that ok? Could you tell?
Re:Suggested Patent Reform: Require working model (Score:2)
*All* Positions? (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently a bachelor's degree ain't what it used to be...
--Stephen
Re:*All* Positions? (Score:2)
Inside Look (Score:2, Funny)
Examiner: Let me see... [thinking] mmmm... `One Click Shopping'... what on earth is that!!!... Oops, shouldn't show that I didn't understand anything about it... passing things this way and that... there's something about saving... should be a cool way to save money... it's a tough one to figure out, and quite lenghy too... they won't write all this for a trivial one... better approve it and get rid of it... [after an hour of empty gazing] Yes, tha
And this is surprising how? (Score:2, Funny)
Thoughts... (Score:4, Interesting)
I would think the rejection of Patents would fall into a few categories: 1)Bad Spelling, 2)Bad Grammar, 3)Bad Idea. Once these are past - THEN - the object could be compared against pre-existing documents.
I know there are probably millions of documents which might match a new document but, like Google, they could be pared down based upon how closely they look like another invention. Google has how many servers and how many pages to look at and decide upon? Yet you get feedback in only a few seconds. Why not base how the PTO works on Google's model? The PTO could even sell priority for first consideration to companies.
Truly though, since every invention has to be written up, and since we already know that millions of pages can (and are) rejected by a good search engine - this is what the PTO really needs.
Which brings up the question: How many patents are filed for items which are not really in that category? Like an idea for a game which might overlap how something is done in the real world. Would that patent be enforceable because it was already given out? Or does the fact that the patent is filed in different categories mean that you can patent something which has already been patented - but in a different category? So a toothbrush used by a robotic servant (and is a part of the robot itself) can be patented separately from a regular, toothbrush which is held in the hand?
If the former - then that cuts down on the number of patents which has to be searched. Otherwise, all of the patents have to be searched. Which is why it becomes so hard to determine the merits of a given patent. A good search engine though - could shave a lot of time off of how long it would take to determine the merits of any given patent.
This does not, however, eliminate the need for people who are smart enough to know that a flashlight is still a flashlight. No matter if it is called a flashlight or an object which emits a beam of light. This too (the phrase "an object which emits light") should become a part of the search engine. Or, in other words, you create a relational database which relates single words to phrases so the search engine can make better judgement calls.
Just a few thoughts.
Re:Ignorance pays off in the patenting process... (Score:2)
I h
einstein (Score:2)
I've searched and can find no opinion expressed by him on patents.
Can anyone give some thoughts as to why this seems to be, or find evidence to the contury?
Re:einstein (Score:2)
I think I got a newbie (Score:2, Interesting)
one thing they should do (Score:2)
For 99.99% of patents, the time between filing and grant is a small time (and so the time period before the patent expires) could be extended by said small time.
But it would put an end to peope who attempt to delay granting by backhand tricks (in an attempt to hide their patent)
Re:one thing they should do (Score:3, Informative)
The term of a patent is 20 years from the filing date assuming it is granted. It used to be 17 years from the issue date, but they changed it precisely because of that reason.
Change patent office funding (Score:3, Insightful)
That should at least give them some incentive to not pass questionable patents or even opaque ones.
Re:Change patent office funding (Score:2)
That should at least give them some incentive not to let dangerous criminals walk our steets.
Re:Change patent office funding (Score:2)
Re:Change patent office funding (Score:2)
This is why we're getting patents on things like breathing --- The patent office is now a government profit centre. It's gone from bei
Trademark examiners (Score:2)
Anyway, that being said, the trademark side of the PTO works just the same. If I could count t
FTC conference on patent reform starts today (Score:3, Informative)
By INQUIRER staff : Donnerstag 15 April 2004, 14:03
*A CONFERENCE* chaired by the Federal Trade Commission, the National Academy of Sciences and the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology kicks off in California in a few hours time.
The idea is reform the patent system without stopping innovation, but the industry is along there in the shape of giants Intel, Microsoft, Symantec and others, and we're sure they'll try to pursue their own agenda.
There will also be representatives from the European Patent Office and the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Luckily, they are counterbalanced by legal organisations and academics.
The agenda for the workshop is here http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/patentsystem/pate ntsystemagenda.pdf [ftc.gov], and
there's a very lengthy discussion document about proposed reform on the FTC
site, here http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf [ftc.gov].
The FTC document proposes a number of changes to the current system including a new admin procedure to challenge a patent's validity without having to go to law, allowing courts to find patents invalid on the preponderance of evidence rather than clear and convincing evidence, and the limiting of awards of "treble" damages.
It's pretty clear that for many large companies, patent actions have become a wing of marketing. Kicking off big patent cases can tie a smaller competitor up for years as the painful battle continues through the courts. Let's hope sanity prevails. But don't hold your breath for that.
Day 1: Thursday, April 15, 2004 at the Bancroft Hotel
1. 12:00 - 1:00 pm, Press Conference
- Mark Myers: NAS & Xerox Corporation
- Commissioner Mozelle Thompson: FTC
1:30 - 3:00 pm
Overview of the Patent System and FTC Proposal for Reform
- Susan DeSanti: Senior Policy Analyst, FTC
- Prof. Peter Menell: BCLT & Boalt Hall School of Law
- Prof. Robert Merges: BCLT & Boalt Hall School of Law
Day 2: Friday, April 16, 2004 at the Bancroft Hotel
8:00 - 8:30 am
Opening Remarks
- Dean Designate Chris Edley: Boalt Hall School of Law
- Robert Merges of BCLT and Boalt Hall School of Law
- Mark Myers: NAS & Xerox Corporation
- Commissioner Mozelle Thompson: FTC
8:30 - 9:40 am, Non-obviousness Panel (Reinvigorating the Non-obviousness Standard)
- Rochelle Dreyfuss: New York University
- Rebecca Eisenberg: University of Michigan
- Ron Laurie: Inflexion Point Strategy, LLC
9:45-11:00 am, Opposition and Post-Grant Review Panel
- Robert Blackburn: Chiron Corporation
- Prof. Joe Farrell: Economics, UC Berkeley (CPC)
- Bronwyn Hall: Economics, UC Berkeley
- Dietmar Harhoff: European Patent Office
- Steve Kunin: Patent and Trademark Office
- Prof. Robert Merges: BCLT & Boalt Hall School of Law
- Douglas Norman: Eli Lilly
11:00 - 11:15 am, Break
11:15 am - 12:45 pm, Litigation Panel (Including Presumption of Validity)
- Mark Janis: University of Iowa
- Mark Lemley: BCLT & Boalt Hall School of Law
- Lynn Pasahow: Fenwick & West
- James Pooley: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
- Matthew Powers: Weil Gotshal & Manges
- Arti Rai: Duke University
12:45-2:00 pm., Lunch
2:00 - 3:45 pm, Industry/Institutional Issues Panel
- Carl Shapiro: Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley (co-moderator)
- Commissioner Mozelle Thompson: FTC (co-moderator)
- Robert Baechtold: Fitzpatrick Cella Harper and Scinto & AIPLA
- Robert Barr: CISCO
- Bart Eppenauer: Microsoft
- Sean Johnston: Genentech
- Jay Monahan: eBay
- Ron Myrick: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner
- Kulpreet Rana: Google
- Robert Sacoff: Pattishall, McAuliffe & ABA IP Section
- David Simon: Intel Corporation
- Herb Wamsley: Intellectual Property Owners
3:45-4:00 p.m., Concluding Remarks
Commissioner Mozelle Thompson
PUBPAT Challenges Microsoft Patent (Score:2)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 15, 2004
PUBPAT challenges microsoft patent to protect competition in software markets: Patent Office Shown New Evidence Proving FAT Technology was Obvious
NEW YORK -- The Public Patent Foundation filed a formal request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office today to revoke Microsoft Corporation's patent on the FAT File System, touted by Microsoft as being "the ubiquitous format used fo
Re:Give them a zero budget. (Score:4, Insightful)
- US Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
Good luck getting that changed anytime soon.
Re:Give them a zero budget. (Score:2)
Of course that's the game...business men fund the politicians and pay the taxes. So the PTO is viewed as a govt "service" to help the business make
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Q.
Exploit. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Patent Examiners (Score:2, Insightful)
Example question (paraphrased):
Below are 5 obscure sentences taken from somewhere in this New York Yellow Pages sized book (the MPEP). We have inserted the word "not," or changed the word "or" to "and" in 1 sentence. You have 2 minutes to figure out which sentence we altered.
It is a sadistic test that tests nothing about your knowledge of patent law.
Re:Linux sucks a lot of cock for a specific reason (Score:2)
Re:*squints at screen* (Score:2)
Because these guys, at least, have a Design Patent on it, fer Chrissake! Look at the bottom of the page -- it has a copyright, two different kinds of patents and a trademark. So who was asking what's wrong with IP law these days?