Crowdsourcing Site Offers Rewards To Bust Patents 96
holy_calamity writes "Article One Partners is a new startup that offers $50,000 rewards to people that find prior art for certain valuable patents. The company's founder told New Scientist she thought the initiative would improve 'patent quality' by increasing scrutiny on poor patents. She aims to profit by selling the information contributors collect, or trade stocks based on it. Current patents they are looking for help to bust include those being used by Konami to sue Harmonix over Rock Band and Guitar Hero."
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite like ambulance chasing. This is a reward for helping to see that the patent system gets the information it needs to work as it was designed. That is like outsourcing patent examiners, in an after the fact mode.
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's really not much different from how public oversight usually works. since we can't all be involved in every single government decision as they're being made, public oversight allows the public to correct mistakes made by government officials after the fact. this allows the collective wisdom of a larger group of people to be employed without hampering the day to day operations of government.
however, it's probably better if the USPTO offered these rewards instead of a private company. this way when a bad
Re: (Score:2)
Prior Art for "musical-rhythm matching game".... Simon circa 1978 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_(game) [wikipedia.org]
-ellie
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SAN FRANCISCO/LOS ANGELES, March 12 (Reuters) - Gibson Guitar Inc has told Activision Inc (ATVI.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) that its wildly popular "Guitar Hero" video games infringe one of Gibson's patents, and Activision has asked a U.S. court to find the claim invalid.
Gibson said the games, in which players press buttons on a guitar-shaped controller in time with notes on a TV screen, violates a 1999 patent for technology to simulate a musical performance.
Not their job, buddy (Score:2)
Like outsourcing patent examiners after the fact that the real patent examiners have failed to do their job and issued a patent for something that had prior art.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the patent examiner's job is to check for prior art. Scanning the entire patent library for prior art is a non-trivial task which cannot be automated or done properly in a hurry.
It's actually the responsibility of the person submitting the patent, and if they're wrong, they're vulnerable to expensive lawsuits from anyone who does hold prior art. The third possibility, however, is that prior art exists but isn't patented -- meaning the patent examiner would
Re: (Score:2)
The patent examiner's job is to check for prior art. They use keyword searches over multiple databases. They also identify related classes of invention and do a quick check (e.g., checking out the abstracts and drawings) of dozens, if not hundreds, of patents, to try to find relevan
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of jobs like that in the world. Do cops get a percentage cut of any drug money they capture? How about firemen getting a '2% of the value of the house' bonus from each homeowner whose home they save from fire? The list goes on. You have to be a C?O or sports player to get the kind of thing you're thinking of.
Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)
Cops rake in millions from drug busts [bakersfield.com]
Report: Cops Keeping Drug Money [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Do cops get a percentage cut of any drug money they capture?" Not exactly -- legally, anyway -- but ...
Legally, in many jurisdictions, they do. The proceeds from seized cash and goods (like cars) go directly to the department and then directly to the salaries of the police. Bonuses are granted for officers that seize more stuff.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a great place! I bet they have ponies. Beam me up, Scotty!
It's probably like any other reward. (Score:4, Insightful)
The patent will have to be revoked and beyond legal appeals to get the reward.
Let others re-invent patent; if able, then obvious (Score:2)
I thought of an idea some time ago to get rid of obvious patents, like the (not-so) Amazing One-Click. It would mean less work for the PTO (Patent/Trademark Office), too. The case of prior art might be considered a special case of "obvious" (or known) patents. See what you think:
When someone submits a patent, claiming to have found (let's say) A Wondrous Way For Customers to Order What They Want By Clicking The Mouse Only Once, the PTO would publish the claim. Not the contents of the patent, simply the
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe I'm missing something . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
re:maybe i'm missing something . . . (Score:2)
can we start calling them the anti-SCO?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be nice to go after patent trolls; but there really isn't much to get them on. They've come up with ways to game the system, with undesirable effe
Re:Maybe I'm missing something . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure there is:
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot:
4) watch Company X's stock value plunge
5) buy up a ton of said stock
6) back off the lawsuit, watch stock value rise back to former levels
7) Profit!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe I'm missing something . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Why not go after patent trolls
The problem with that is that most companies with enough spare money to pay have created ridiculous patents.
For example, the Telco's have ridiculously vague patents they've used to crush innovators like Vonage. A while ago, Microsoft was using language like, "[Insert OSS project demon] violates 23 Microsoft patents."
The unfortunate among us know that Patent litigation is a way to bankrupt under-capitalized competitors. The beauty of this tactic is that most of it stays out of the media and the litigant typically repeats the litigation a variety of ways until the competitor is bankrupt. My definition of "patent troll" would include the fat, lazy and well-capitalized.
So, "patent troll" is a pretty big umbrella.
Re: (Score:2)
A while ago, Microsoft was using language like, "[Insert OSS project demon] violates 23 Microsoft patents."
Actually, it was 235 (IIRC)
Re:Maybe I'm missing something . . . IBM??? (Score:1)
Well, I think IBM should open up the Lotus SmartSuite patents list to review so that end users such as myself can feel more comfortable about sharing or trying to make money from database apps/interfaces we designed in Lotus Approach. Until Lotus/IBM update Lotus SmartSuite and make SmartSuite OS-agnostic, or at least allow external developers to help out, what will we have as regards competing suites.
IBM, look at SUN. They are going to axe 70,000 or so jobs in the next 10 or so months. What if they cut fun
Re: (Score:2)
I had a similar thought -- how is this not just another form of patent trolling? The object is to *profit* from breaking someone else's patent -- that really isn't morally any different from profiting from screwing someone else out of a patent.
I foresee this being used to cost *legit* patents a lot of money, while benefiting no one but the project's founder.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose you're trying to say only prudes will be offended by that link. But a pixelated penis is a penis nonetheless. I don't want to explain to my coworkers why I've got one sitting on my desktop, complete with pubes.
Not safe for work. Period.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Because clearly, getting paid to write about penises on a non-work related website via a network where text is much easier to sniff than pixels is OK with the company.
Make Money Fast (Score:4, Funny)
Its the Prior Art Generator. Its only fair. They have infinite computers to generate infinite patents, but now you can hit reload until you win that $50,000:
http://thesurrealist.co.uk/priorart.cgi [thesurrealist.co.uk]
Annoying Corporate Buzzwords (Score:4, Funny)
A lot of prior art is proprietary. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've had access to millions of LOC over the years that I couldn't legally release as proof of prior art without getting corporate legal involved, and that's usually not a trivial undertaking.
I'm not sure $50k is worth potentially trashing a career.
There are hundreds if not thousands of companies out there that have written software in-house for decades, and I'm guessing most are in the same boat.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I've had access to millions of LOC over the years that I couldn't legally release as proof of prior art without getting corporate legal involved,
The one thing that everyone forgets regarding prior art is it isn't prior art unless it's published. From Wikipedia: "Prior art ... constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. ... Information kept secret, for instance as a trade secret, is not usually prior art..." (italics added)
Magically whipping out secret information which hasn't been published before doesn't invalidate the patent. In t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I did forget that bit.
Of course, many techniques which have been around for the past 40 years are also obvious to anyone skilled in the art of programming, and the patent office has fallen down so many times on that count that I'm not sure publishing means all that much either...
Re: (Score:1)
The law also states that if a item was on sale or in use In this country, that can be used as prior art. 102(b) On sale bar
So if someone invented a widget product with some hidden internal structure and a person tried to patent it, the sale of said widget would be prior art.
Then it's not Prior Art (Score:4, Insightful)
For something to be considered prior art it must have been publicly available in some form. For example, a released product is prior art, a prototype or in-house product is not. A paper published in a journal is prior art, a internal whitepaper or lab notebook is not.
While the courts to accept internal schematics, code and documentation as evidence that a released product is implemented in a certain way and thus prior art for a certain patent, they would not consider a product that has never been released as prior art.
That is what the first-to-file rules changed - when multiple people apply for overlapping patents all the other internal documentation that is not considered prior art is now only looked at if it was created within a year before the patent was filed. In the past it was looked at much farther back to determine who invented a product first, but only in the case of multiple filers. Even before the change, it wasn't prior art, and thus couldn't invalidate a patent if the other party never filed for a patent.
Signal and noise (Score:2)
.
There is the second problem:
To contribute anything of value you have to read and understand the patent. What geek ever RTFA.
It will be easy to find something that bears a superficial resemblance to what you have read in an abstract or summa
Slashdot (Score:2)
A self-defeating business model? (Score:2)
The bigger they get, the fewer such patents there will be, the harder it will become for them to stay in business. Hardly a viable model...
Re: (Score:2)
no prior art for GuitarHero/GuitarFreaks case (Score:2)
There's a reason why it's patented, it's a completely original concept.
Not that Harmonix would understand that. Nearly every game they've made has either been a rip off of a Konami music game or developed FOR konami, save Anti-Grav.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every game they've made has either been a rip off of a Konami music game or developed FOR konami, save Anti-Grav.
So are you accusing Frequency/Amplitude of copying Beatmania?
Re: (Score:2)
and badly too.
Parappa (Score:3, Insightful)
[Amplitude copied Beatmania] badly too.
You may have a point there. But Parappa the Rapper [wikipedia.org] was released in Japan in December 1996, a year before Beatmania. Which Konami game did it copy? Likewise, Bust a Groove [wikipedia.org] was out ten months before DDR 1st Mix.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Parrapa or Bust-a-Move were games where you simulated the synthesis of music with multiple lines representing notes or other play components of instruments.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Parrapa or Bust-a-Move were games where you simulated the synthesis of music with multiple lines representing notes or other play components of instruments.
So in other words, you claim Konami's patent covers rhythm games where the note marks come in parallel tracks, one track per key, right? That would mean that Taiko Drum Master and Donkey Konga don't infringe because the different keys are sent down one track.
Re: (Score:2)
Just down to up, and/or up to down. Laterally, not so much.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a reason why it's patented, it's a completely original concept.
Now, I'm bad at understanding why one person can't have the same idea after someone else has had that same idea, so maybe I'm missing the point, but how about this [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
"Now, I'm bad at understanding why one person can't have the same idea after someone else has had that same idea"
That's not what Harmonix did. They were perfectly well aware of GF/DM when making Guitar Hero. The debt has been explicitly acknowledged in interviews with top-level Harmonix people.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not a guitar, that has no connection a TV style display, doesn't make guitar noises...
Re: (Score:2)
Sound roughly the same when you smash them against an amplifier while drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
How? GuitarFreaks has been in development and continual release since 1998. GuitarFreaks V5 released this year and V6 next year.
Just because a patent isn't American doesnt' mean that the patent doesn't apply. We're in numerous trade agreements that secure this.
(Konami was in a similar situation with a Korean company named Andamiro over a game called Pump it Up, which was decidedly DDR like(even had a replacement board for operators of DDR cabinets who wantd to convert, not to mention the first generation
Anti Patent Trolling (Score:3, Informative)
Another organization: Peer-to-Patent (aka Community Patent Review)
Currently a pilot project, renewed once per year, as long as it's useful.
Read the fine print. (Score:2)
PRIOR ART! PRIOR ART! (Score:2)
And on the LEFT side of the screen it says:
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, pick anyone who knows anything about Guitar Hero and Rock Band and see what they know about anything at all similar produced by Konami. With a small company, it would be excusable that they are working in a niche market, but someone like Konami has the resources and experience to make something like this popular. If they couldn't manage to do what Harmonix has managed to do (twice, none the less), then what good is it doing the public having Konami sit on these ideas?
I drink your Tranya. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
She might claim moral high-ground in front of the press, but it's patently obvious that this is about money, pure and simple. Issues of politics are 100% irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
p
She might claim moral high-ground in front of the press, but it's patently obvious
I see what you did there...
OK. The world can end now (Score:2)
The other day on NPR there was a bit about how the check cashing industry was actually helpful to poor people. Now maybe patent trolling isn't so bad? What next? Dogs and cats sleeping together?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It also does not beg the question. Therefore, I conclude that what the sig is actually about is trolling people who care about correct usage.
Uh... (Score:1)
Am I the only one who misread that as 'crowdSURFING' ?
Participating is dangerous (Score:2)
Participating in this project is not only useless, it's actually dangerous. Suppose you come across a pending patent that's similar to something you're working on. If you submit prior art, then that might invalidate the patent, but it might not. However, by submitting prior art you publically reveal the fact that you know about the patent. If that patent is granted, and you are later sued for violating it, it becomes "willful infringement", which means you owe triple damages. Because of the way patents are
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose you come across a pending patent that's similar to something you're working on
If that patent is granted, and you are later sued for violating it
I don't think the people planning on submitting prior art objections to these patents actually work in the fields or industries of the patents they're investigating, and therefore this would be a meaningless threat to them. They're just scientists for hire (and in this economy there's probably a lot of those). Or, at the very least, only working on pat
Glad to see the interest in Article One Partners (Score:1)
Re:Glad to see the interest in Article One Partner (Score:1)
Considering the identical nature of the products-- (Score:1)
I realize the point is that the patent is broad
Prior Art's a no-brainer (Score:2)
The Software Toolworks released The Miracle Piano Teaching System back in 1990, that included a MIDI keyboard (with a non-MIDI-standard port) and software to teach people how to play the piano. The software included games to improve timing as well as games to improve note selection.
The system was available not only for Nintendo and Sega Gensis(Megadrive) game consoles, but also the Apple Macintosh, Amiga and PC computer platforms.
Hard to believe Konami was granted three patents for the same thing.
http://e [wikipedia.org]
Why? (Score:1)
If there is no indication that the patent in question is new or non-obvious, well... then this is some weird kind of inverse patent trolling.
And yes. IAA(Patent)L. But not yours.