Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents Microsoft

US PTO Gives Microsoft Credit For Lotus's Homework 172

theodp writes "On Tuesday, the USPTO granted Microsoft a patent for 'Email Emotiflags' despite ample evidence of a circa-1996 Lotus Notes precedent called Mood Stamps — sender-chosen emoticons that appear next to inbox messages. Among those seemingly aware of the existence of Mood Stamps is Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie, who appears to have fielded questions about the feature while at Lotus. While simply Googling for 'Email Emotiflags' would have turned up evidence of this prior art (including a Slashdot discussion), the USPTO came up empty after instead going with the more-upscale Google Scholar and patent databases for its search effort. Think we can count on Ozzie to do the right thing and give the USPTO a heads-up?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US PTO Gives Microsoft Credit For Lotus's Homework

Comments Filter:
  • by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:15AM (#28808323)

    The USPTO should really rely on Slashdot more often to flush out these illegal patents.

    Counting on Ray Ozzie to come to Lotus' defense is a fool's errand, though. Like all the once-luminary personalities that got bought by Microsoft, he belongs to them and will serve their interests instead of our own. :-)

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:17AM (#28808357) Journal
      Legally speaking, there is a duty to disclose any known prior art when filing a patent. In theory, we shouldn't have to depend on him doing the right thing, merely the legal one(typically a lower standard).
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Is the company required to consult him for every patent proposed?

        • I don't know what the standard for "known" prior art is. I'd assume that if something is known to the lawyer doing the filing, failure to disclose would be obviously out of bounds; but I don't know what their obligation is to find out. I'd find it pretty difficult to believe that whoever filed doesn't know about a feature of one of their major competitor's(who your chief software architect used to work for) products; but I have no idea whether they meet the legal standard for knowing or not.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Bobb9000 ( 796960 )
            The duty to disclose prior art extends to everyone substantively involved in the prosecution of the patent, [uspto.gov] including those associated with the inventor or assignee. Seems to me that unless Ozzie was actively involved with the patent prosecution, he doesn't fall into this category. You're right that somebody who was should have known, though.
            • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:37PM (#28810337) Homepage Journal

              I think that by focusing on prior art, you are all missing the real point of this story. This shows why software patents are sometimes good. This patent ensures beyond a reasonable doubt that grotesque user interface abuses like this one never make it into any generally accepted standard....

              • You're modded funny. I guess you're being sarcastic. Hope so anyway. Just in case - - -
                The first patent should never have been awarded, is should be held invalid as a patent, because it properly falls under copyright law. Once that first patent is done away with, for the proper reason, any similar patent requests will fall flat on their face.

                Sorry if I'm being dense, just felt I should point that out. ;-)

      • What sanctions can be brought against Ozzie if it can be shown that he withheld knowledge of prior art? Can he personally see jail time for this?

        Since this would be a Federal crime, how would Slashdot request an FBI investigation of Ozzie's allegedly criminal behavior? Should we put it to a vote or will someone just step forward and do whatever is necessary to inform the FBI?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Bobb9000 ( 796960 )

          What sanctions can be brought against Ozzie if it can be shown that he withheld knowledge of prior art?

          Most likely none, since it's not actually a crime. The patent would be invalidated by virtue of the inequitable conduct, though, if Ozzie was sufficiently involved to qualify for the duty of disclosure.

          • Most likely none, since it's not actually a crime.

            That doesn't seem to fit with the rest of USA law. Is it not a crime to defraud an agency of the Federal Government? Or is there a different standard of law that applies to corporations and corporation officers than to mere citizens?

          • Is there some way we can try him for the crime of inflicting Lotus Notes on an unsuspecting world?

    • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:21AM (#28808431)

      The USPTO has already stated that they won't be doing real prior art checks themselves. And why would they? They're self-funded, and each patent they grant is more money for them.

      The way I see it, the USPTO got their money, Microsoft got an extra patent to impress their shareholders, and anybody else who wants to use similar technology would have a rock-solid legal defense. It's not the way it should work, but it works.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by delt0r ( 999393 )

        ..and anybody else who wants to use similar technology would have a rock-solid legal defense.

        But can you afford it? These sort of thing can get ties up in legal proceedings for years.

        But the lawyers will do nicely.

        • by afidel ( 530433 )
          From what I've seen the vast majority of patents held by large companies are used for one of two things, either as a defensive shield against patent claims from another large or medium sized company (MAD) or as a bargaining chip in cross licensing deals (AMD and Intel).
      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:42AM (#28808689) Journal

        Yes, it's a self-serving, unethical system. And that's the problem.

        In my world, if you knowingly filed a patent with prior art, you would be fined 10% of your gross worth, you would be forbidden for filing any patent for a period of not less than 10 years, and any officer on your company would be forbidden to file any patents for 10 years, and any other company that they sat on would be forbidden for filing patents for 10 years, and any attempt to use another company (shell or partner) would be a criminal offense that would see your company stripped of all assets, you to spend no less than 10 years in federal prison and forbidden to ever have any direct or indirect dealings with the patent system ever again.

        • by Tanktalus ( 794810 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:55AM (#28808885) Journal

          You really shouldn't post off-the-cuff like that. Put some more thought into it, and see if you can't come up with something really nasty.

        • So if MS knowingly files a patent with prior art, then under your system no "partner company" could file a patent for ten years? I don't think you realize how many companies that is. (No, I don't have a number handy.)

          My point is, no system should let one nefarious patent-filer screw everyone else over simply by letting the law's punishment take effect.

        • Add five more 10's in there and it should be perfect.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chris Burke ( 6130 )

        The USPTO has already stated that they won't be doing real prior art checks themselves. And why would they? They're self-funded, and each patent they grant is more money for them.

        Yeah, and up until recently (though I think it is still largely this way) we had the awesome situation where the USPTO defaulted to assuming patents were valid under the reasoning that the courts would correct any mistakes, and the courts defaulted to assuming patents were valid under the reasoning that the USPTO had done their job

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by kbrannen ( 581293 )

          The USPTO has already stated that they won't be doing real prior art checks themselves. And why would they? They're self-funded, and each patent they grant is more money for them.

          ... We need a way to give the patent office a financial incentive to do their job, and not just rubber stamp everything that comes their way. I don't know, something like... penalties for patents found to be invalid? Maybe an extra surcharge on the next application from the same party, or some longer-term hysteresis that increases the cost of filing based on how many times you've been rejected in the past. Yeah that idea has lots of problems. It's not easy. But the PTO is never going to work right when it is in their financial interest to not work at all.

          Why not hand out small fines ($5000 to companies of > 10 people and $1000 to small companies/individuals?) to the patient applicants for not doing their research well enough, and give half of the fine to the PTO worker who found the prior art as a bonus. Now the applicant and the PTO worker both have an incentive to do the research.

      • Where exactly has the USPTO said this? They've been pushing for a requirement that applicants submit a thorough prior art search along with their applications, but that's a very different thing from giving up searching altogether. The USPTO rejects things all the time - in fact if you listen to many practitioners, they reject things on flimsy bases more often than they should, because making people jump through more hoops fills examiners' quotas and brings in more fees.

        Personally, I think that they should
      • The USPTO has already stated that they won't be doing real prior art checks themselves.

        Care to cite a reference?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I was referring to this. [slashdot.org] Reading it again, the USPTO doesn't explicitly state that they won't be doing their own diligent prior art searches anymore, but shifting the prior art responsibility to the applicant as part of a new "accelerated review" process is tantamount to it.

          • I'm not so sure it is. The press release also noted, after talking about the presumption of patentability (which is stupid, IMO) that "Thus, to reject an application the USPTO is responsible for ensuring that any evidence indicating that the invention is not new or is obvious (known as 'prior art') is identified and explaining why the invention is not patentable in view of the evidence." (Emphasis added)

            Will some examiners be lazy and not search as thoroughly when they have a nice package of prior art in
      • I'm pretty sure that you end up paying the application fees no matter if they end up awarding the patent or not. In fact, last time I checked the costs of applying for a patent, I was under the impression that you keep having to pay out more for each time the patent gets kicked back to you for modification by the patent clerks. (I could be misunderstanding the process though).

        • Okay, here's what happens (generally speaking):

          1. You file your application. You have to pay a filing fee, an examination fee, and a search fee. If you file more than 3 independent and/or 20 total claims, you pay an additional fee.
          2. At 18 months after filing, the application is published in accordance with our international treaty obligations (unless you request that it not be published and you file a statement indicating that you won't file the same application overseas). At this point, you have to pay

      • "...anybody else who wants to use similar technology would have a rock-solid legal defense"

        Since anyone challenging the patent could show prior art, the legal defence is on very shaky ground ....

        • That was your parent poster's point :P The people challenging the patent would have a rock-solid legal defense.

        • "...anybody else who wants to use similar technology would have a rock-solid legal defense"

          Since anyone challenging the patent could show prior art, the legal defence is on very shaky ground ....

          You misread that. The defense side would be whoever is using the technology. The "rock-solid legal defense" would be in a case where the patent holder is suing the user of the technology, not where the user is suing or challenging to have the patent invalidated.

      • The USPTO has already stated that they won't be doing real prior art checks themselves. And why would they? They're self-funded, and each patent they grant is more money for them.

        Why not just charge the fee for application only? Whether the patent is granted or rejected, the USPTO gets the same money. Or hell, tack on a rejection fee on top of it. Hell, let's just give the patent inspector a bonus for rejecting a patent when he/she can find clear prior art.

    • Counting on Ray Ozzie to come to Lotus' defense is a fool's errand, though. Like all the once-luminary personalities that got bought by Microsoft, he belongs to them and will serve their interests instead of our own. :-)

      Because Ray Ozzie never served his own interests until he got to Microsoft? Yeah right.

  • by just_another_sean ( 919159 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:16AM (#28808331) Journal

    Think we can count on Ozzie to do the right thing and give the USPTO a heads-up?"

    I keep hearing it's a new Microsoft so maybe.

    Ah crap who am I kidding [internetnews.com]... I'm betting no.

  • Criminal charges (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Norsefire ( 1494323 ) * on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:18AM (#28808369) Journal
    There needs to be tougher (and by tougher I mean "some") penalties to stop patent nonsense like this. If a patent is applied for and prior art exists there should be criminal convictions (huge, EU-like fines) as a result. Then companies would have to do their homework before they file for a patent, instead of the current situation where they use an idea that was used 10+ years ago and either the patent is rejected or the USPTO misses it and they get the patent.

    If the later is true (and it seems to be, quite a lot of the time) and they try to sue and prior art is turned up during the trial, there should be penalties strong enough deter cases like that, eg. If the defendant is not guilty because the patent is invalid the CEO goes to jail.

    And then you may as well hang an "out of business" sign on the doors of East Texas court houses.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RingDev ( 879105 )

      There needs to be tougher (and by tougher I mean "some") penalties to stop patent nonsense like this. If a patent is applied for and prior art exists there should be criminal convictions (huge, EU-like fines) as a result.

      So you're saying that as an independent inventor, I should assume a huge criminal liability by filing for a patent that may or may not have prior art that I was unable to find?

      Yeah... that's a great idea. I'm sure it won't stifle innovation or the open dissemination of knowledge at all.

      -Rick

      • Yes.

        Of course if you really were unable to find the prior art and did the required level of due diligence in looking for it then they won't be able to prove you knew about it, so you won't get convicted and hence won't get fined.

        There should be consequences for prior art turning up that you didn't find, not fines, but stricter processing of all future patents (maybe for the next 5 years instead of all). Since you are clearly not good at looking yourself.

        • Of course if you really were unable to find the prior art and did the required level of due diligence

          Since you are clearly not good at looking yourself.

          Yeah... that's not a subjective ruling. "Gentlemen of the jury: it is clearly very easy to find this prior art. He just used the wrong search engine and didn't bother to try all 25!" Hmm.

          • by MrMr ( 219533 )
            What's the problem? You'll be paying 100K just to maintain your worldwide patent for it's entire life, but trying 25 search engines on one rainy afternoon is too much effort?
        • Of course if you really were unable to find the prior art and did the required level of due diligence in looking for it then they won't be able to prove you knew about it, so you won't get convicted and hence won't get fined.

          You mean like how if you are innocent of a crime that you are never wrongfully accused and convicted? Yeah, that never happens [findarticles.com].

        • by RingDev ( 879105 )

          Of course if you really were unable to find the prior art and did the required level of due diligence in looking for it then they won't be able to prove you knew about it, so you won't get convicted and hence won't get fined.

          Again, as an independent developer with little to no knowledge of patent law, patent searching resources, or what exactly meets the requirements of "due diligence", I'm see this as a horrible idea.

          Just the phrase "due diligence" screams "SUE ME!" as we let lawyers hash out exactly what due diligence is as I the independent inventor foot the bill.

          And how exactly is someone going to prove that they DON'T know something? You are talking about criminal charges for a thought crime.

          And if I am criminally liable f

      • by MBCook ( 132727 )

        It's simple. When a patent is overturned, the patent office must refund the price of the patent, plus interest, to the person/company who proved it shouldn't have been granted.

        That way the patent office has a financial incentive not only to not grant bad patents, but also to fix their problems fast, not 20 years later.

        After some fixed point (say 10 years) this obligation would end, so people couldn't go around striking down 40 year old patents people don't use just to make money.

        • by Sique ( 173459 )

          After 40 years, patents are expired anyway, so no one except someone with an interest in historically correct attribution of an invention will ever try to overturn a 40 year old patent.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The scheme I've been thinking about* for fixing the patent system involves the patent being reviewed by two examiners: one who is trying to get the patent denied, and a standard examiner. It's like a mini court case: the applicants are arguing for their case, the "con" examiner is arguing against their case, and a (more senior) patent examiner judges between the two.

        1.Patent application is submitted to patent office, with a non-trivial (but not enormous) fee. This fee keeps the useless applications to a
        • Main problem I see is bribing the senior patent official. We need a little more base reform, such as denying patenting any kind of information such as genes, computer code, or algorithms. Process patents are way abused in many fields.
    • So, you're saying that patents should be allowed to exist, but hung with enough booby traps and high explosive that anyone attempting to defend a patent will be asploded for their arrogance.

      An invalid patent, innocently applied for in accidental ignorance (after due diligence) of prior art, shouldn't be a life-ending event. Especially since not all patents are held by teh huge EVIL corporations.

      Or do you make a distinction between innocent and ill-intentioned patent applications? It sounds like you assume t

    • I have a better solution. No more business method or software patents.

    • There needs to be tougher (and by tougher I mean "some") penalties to stop patent nonsense like this. If a patent is applied for and prior art exists there should be criminal convictions (huge, EU-like fines) as a result. Then companies would have to do their homework before they file for a patent, instead of the current situation where they use an idea that was used 10+ years ago and either the patent is rejected or the USPTO misses it and they get the patent.

      There's a pretty easy way to implement such a suggestion. As part of the patent application, add a paragraph about "to the best of my knowledge, I've done everything I'm supposed to do, and everything I've said is accurate" and get the applicant's signature below it. If you then discover that the applicant left out prior art that they knew about, you nail them with perjury charges. Lying to government agencies (the police, the IRS, and the courts come to mind pretty quickly) is usually not appreciated, and

    • by sorak ( 246725 )

      I would amend one caveat. There should be a due diligence criteria. If the prior art was something they should have known about (which in this case it was), then they should be prosecuted for fraud.

  • by cryfreedomlove ( 929828 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:19AM (#28808395)
    I've been involved in a few patent litigations. They almost always settle out of court or the plaintiff loses outright in court. The problem is that even when the defense 'wins' the case, they still spend millions in that defense. Why not force the plaintiff to compensate the defense for causing them to waste so much money?
    • by shentino ( 1139071 ) <shentino@gmail.com> on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:54AM (#28808877)

      That's known as "loser pays" and will have such a chilling effect on frivolous litigation that the legal lobbies will not let it happen without a huge fight.

      Merely suggesting it is political suicide.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        The US has a very strict "loser pays" structure, where "loser" is defined as taxpayers without their own personal lawyer and lobbyist militia.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by anyGould ( 1295481 )
        It also rewards rich people who can afford to raise the stakes. You might be 90% sure that you'll win, but the more money I spend hassling you, the more risk you have to accept. I can simply spend you out of the courtroom.
      • Absolutely, and the absence of a `loser pays` system in the US is the reason why every other country sees the US as the home of lawsuits. It`s so bad it`s becoming a running joke.

        "Hey folks, I'm going to USA this summer" "Woot! Did you remember to pack a lawyer with you?"

  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:20AM (#28808409) Journal

    Among those seemingly aware of the existence of Mood Stamps is Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie ...

    Isn't it possible that (since he worked on the Lotus Notes project) Ray Ozzie is the originator of this idea and Lotus Notes did not have the foresight to patent this technology when he worked for them? Isn't it possible that he thought this idea patentable and in a better late than never fashion he patented it?

    I don't think this is a novel idea and I think it should not be patentable ... I just find this summary to be very short sighted and subjective:

    Think we can count on Ozzie to do the right thing and give the USPTO a heads-up?

    What is "the right thing?" He works for a company with the priority to rake in cash. It's "right" in his boss' eyes, I'm sure.

    • by Imagix ( 695350 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:24AM (#28808455)

      Among those seemingly aware of the existence of Mood Stamps is Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie ...

      Isn't it possible that (since he worked on the Lotus Notes project) Ray Ozzie is the originator of this idea and Lotus Notes did not have the foresight to patent this technology when he worked for them? Isn't it possible that he thought this idea patentable and in a better late than never fashion he patented it?

      However his employment contact with Lotus likely had clauses about how Lotus owns the ideas since he came up with them in the context of being employed by Lotus.

      • by Dzimas ( 547818 )
        It doesn't matter if Roy Ozzie had something to do with the idea in Lotus Notes. All that matters is that there was prior art, developed by another company.
    • by delt0r ( 999393 )
      In the US you only get one year to patent after publication assuming it was you. In the rest of the world *any* prior publication is prior art, even if you are the publisher...
    • "Isn't it possible that .. Ray Ozzie is the originator of this idea and Lotus Notes did not have the foresight to patent this technology when he worked for them? Isn't it possible that he thought this idea patentable and in a better late than never fashion he patented it?"

      They why isn't his name anywhere on the patent, and why didn't Microsoft mention this prior art in the patent application?

      Inventors: Gwozdz; Daniel (Redmond, WA)
      Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
      Appl. No.: 11/152,524
      Fi
    • "Isn't it possible that (since he worked on the Lotus Notes project) Ray Ozzie is the originator of this idea and Lotus Notes did not have the foresight to patent this technology when he worked for them? Isn't it possible that he thought this idea patentable and in a better late than never fashion he patented it?"
      Please look up prior art.
      It was out and published for more than a year so too bad it is now not patentable.

  • Should I be retaining a lawyer about now?
  • Because it is a "new" micro$oft - the old microsoft was a ronery [youtube.com] place to be. The "new" microsoft will be a "clean and happy" place [youtube.com] full of "Good Will and happy customers." [youtube.com]

    Happy Happy Joy Joy.

  • This is insane. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CopaceticOpus ( 965603 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:47AM (#28808775)

    I wish someone could figure out a way to legislate common sense. We're talking about a patent and potential legal battle over putting little smileys and pictures next to a message? I'm sure we can find examples of six year old girls doing this hundreds of years ago, only it was on paper instead of on a computer.

    And even if this was a completely new idea, all we are talking about is tiny pictures with an associated feeling. Is it such a breakthrough? Could we never hope for such an advance for mankind unless the patent system would encourage companies to spend millions on smiley face research? The only reasonable response to this patent request is to laugh and tell them to get over themselves.

    • We shouldn't *have* to legislate common sense - that's what judges are for, to express it in their rulings/judgements.

      Patents can be declared invalid if it is ruled that they are 'obvious'. For instance, a patent for a door would be thrown out, but a new type of lock wouldn't.

      The trick is, of course, finding judges with common sense...

    • by db32 ( 862117 )

      legislate common sense.

      Do you even begin to understand what is wrong with that statement? Talk about circular. You do understand that the only reason legislation really exists is due to the lack of common sense right?

  • mood: puzzled.

  • ...give the USPTO a heads-up?

    IMO, they already have their heads quite far up something.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:16PM (#28809241)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Janthkin ( 32289 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:19PM (#28809277)
    First, the linked article doesn't render properly in Opera. Grrr. Second, here's the actual claim:

    1. A system comprising:
    a processor;
    a memory;
    an email application maintained in the memory and executed on the processor to perform a method, the method comprising:
    receiving an email message having an associated emotiflag specified by the composer of the email message to indicate an emotion the composer intends to be associated with the email message as a whole wherein:
    the email message comprises: a message body;
    and header data, the header data comprising an email subject;
    the emotiflag is separate from the message body and the email subject;
    and the emotiflag comprises: a graphical icon;
    and a text tag;
    and a display device for rendering a representation of the received email message such that the emotiflag is rendered as part of the representation, wherein rendering the emotiflag comprises rendering the graphical icon and the text tag.

    Looking at the (brief) summary of "Mood Stamps" linked by TFA, I don't see the emotiflag comprises: a graphical icon; and a text tag;, and I don't see wherein rendering the emotiflag comprises rendering the graphical icon and the text tag.

    New article summary: "Microsoft receives a very narrow patent on an incremental improvement over Mood Stamps."

  • General Magic's (doomed) Magic Cap OS had this feature in 1994. The system had a filing cabinet full of "stamps" that you could apply to an email message, some of which were mood depictions.

    G.

  • by azav ( 469988 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:45PM (#28809627) Homepage Journal

    This is amazing, because in 1991/1992, I had the opportunity to move over to the Lotus Notes team in Cambridge, Mass. Of course Ozzie knows about this since he created Notes. Argh.

  • by DdJ ( 10790 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:06PM (#28809907) Homepage Journal

    Essentially the same feature was built into the mail client of the MagicCap operating system, if I'm understanding what's being claimed.

    I have a Sony PIC-1000, a Sony PIC-2000A, and a General Magic DataRover 840, and they all have this feature. Basically, when you're composing email (or in fact any other message -- email is not all that's supported), you can open a "stamp drawer" and drop "stamps" on the message to indicate any number of things. This could be done for purely cosmetic reasons, but it was also how you added metadata to the message. Particular stamps had code attached to them and could actually do things. And I think this goes all the way back to 1994.

  • No wonder Lotus software is such a steaming pile. They're spending time working on emotiflags!? Gimme a break.
  • by sorak ( 246725 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @02:18PM (#28810951)

    Lately, the phrase "Jury Duty" has been rattling around in my head. I have been thinking about how our legal system is based on the idea that regular citizens have a responsibility to help it run smoothly, even if we have to occasionally send out letters and make them.
    .
    Because the patent office cannot have an expert for every field, I am wondering if we cannot implement a system in which patent requests are sent out to randomly chosen experts in whatever fields that patent may qualify for, and if the experts' (possibly defined as anyone with a M.S. or higher from an accredited institution), input can be taken into account by the USPTO. Of course the USPTO people would still have to verify that any criticism is really valid, but at least they would not be doing 100% of the legwork, and the people evaluating the patents would be more well-informed than the typical patent clerk.
    .
    The hard part would be incentives. Because a patent application costs around $10 grand, it wouldn't be difficult to increase the fee and pay out rewards for citations of prior art. And phrasing it as "your contribution to the arts and sciences" may provide some incentives for the idealistic. I'm wondering, assuming that we want to reward the inventors of new technologies, how would others fix the current system?

  • This is merely yet more evidence that the patent laws should be revoked, the patent office disbanded, and all extant patents declared null and void.

    I'm sure that there are legitimate patents. They seem, however, to be in such a distinct minority that the damage to their holders is significantly less than the damage that the majority of patents are doing to the country.

    I'm also sure that there are patents which are "nearly reasonable". Same argument. Even if you add the two together it seems to be a tiny

  • USPTO (Score:3, Insightful)

    by omb ( 759389 ) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:59PM (#28812711)
    The __EVER_BROKEN_US_LEGAL_SYSTEM__ should allow "costs in cause" in all litigation, what you have just encourages abuse, since you can sue people with little risk.

    The USPTO needs to be sanctioned and regulated, right now it is stupid disaster.

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Working...