Inventor Has Waited 43 Years For Patent Approval 258
An anonymous reader writes "If you think the average wait of 28.3 months for a patent to be approved is ridiculous, don't complain to Gilbert P. Hyatt. The 76-year-old inventor has been waiting over forty years for a ruling on whether his electronic signal to control machinery should be granted a patent. 'It's totally unconscionable,' said Brad Wright, a patent lawyer with Banner & Witcoff in Washington who specializes in computer-related applications and isn't involved in Hyatt's case. 'The patent office doesn't want to be embarrassed that they might issue a broad patent that would have a sweeping impact on the technology sector. Rather than be embarrassed, they're just bottling it up.'"
That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Haven't carried out a detail search on the said patent, but if TFA's description is to be believable
electronic signal to control machinery
...that gonna be one heck of a very broad and very VERY valuable patent !!
'The patent office doesn't want to be embarrassed that they might issue a broad patent that would have a sweeping impact on the technology sector. Rather than be embarrassed, they're just bottling it up.'
Oh sure! With the issuance of that patent now many manufacturers / users of devices that use that technology may start receiving lawyer's letter demanding $$$, if that patent ended up being sold to some patent trolls.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:5, Informative)
Haven't carried out a detail search on the said patent,
You won't be able to, either. The article states that due to age of the patent, the application is confidential.
Without seeing the application, it's difficult to tell what its validity is. But when this patent application was filed in 1971, electronic control of machinery was already quite widespread. So, it would have to be quite specific about its implementation. Then there is the question of making companies pay for something they knew nothing about.
In the end, congress would have the power to invalidate this patent outright, if they wanted to.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hyatt refers to it as his square wave machine control patent.
But that's about all that is known.
I'd speculate It would flow out of his digital processors patents, and probably has something to do with controlling motors with a microprocessor via pulse width modulation [wikipedia.org] or some such other common technique.
His problem is that the world plus dog independently discovered a variety of means to do the same thing in the interval since his first filing, if for no other reason than once you have a microprocessor (which he also invented), it is the obvious and natural way to control external devices.
Still, patents should be granted or denied. No reasonable excuse to sit on this forever. No way should the PTO get a "pocket veto" authority.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all its easy to show patents are not about protecting inventors hard work. Otherwise at the very least independent invention would be a defense. Since if you have done the same amount of work and invented something presumable valuable enough to get a patent. So its not about inventors. A quick look at some of the fist patents with Watt and steam engines and its pretty easy to see that patents are only justified via "protecting inventors" but where never really implemented for that reason.
Secondly if 2 different people faced with the same problem come up with the same solution, then it is clearly not as unobvious as lawyers would like to claim it is.
At the end of the day, patents are a win for lawyers. Guess who defend the current system the most? Its not the inventors.
Proof of obviousness (Score:3)
I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.
Really? Newton and Leibniz [wikipedia.org] independently developed calculus. Are you seriously going to claim that was proof of obviousness? Two of the finest minds humanity has ever had, came to the same ideas roughly concurrently but that does not remotely imply that it was obvious to anyone with "ordinary skill in the art". You have to examine what the state of skill in the art is before you can come to any conclusions about what is obvious to most.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the difference between an invention and a discovery? Is the distinction precise enough for practical cases?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you trolling, or have you somehow missed the point entirely?
The Newton/Leibniz example shows that independent invention does not necessarily imply obviousness. That calculus has never been patented is entirely irrelevant.
Starting to get it at last?
Re: (Score:3)
This is Slashdot. Nothing written here about patents is believable.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:4, Funny)
>Nothing written here about patents is believable.
From broad patents to sweeping statements. /. has it all.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:5, Funny)
This is Slashdot. Nothing written here about patents is believable.
I don't believe you!
topic != claims (Score:3)
Just because that's the topic the patent is related to doesn't mean he's trying to patent the entire topic.
Re: (Score:2)
"if TFA's description is to be believable"
Why should this be a matter of speculation? You can look at the claims yourself.
Of course we can be fairly sure that what has happened is that somebody read only the abstract of the patent application and took the most extreme interpretation they could think of on the spot, because reading the actual claims looks like work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But no one outside the patent office has seen the application, or the abstract, or anything.
It's all secret, because it's so old. As explained in TFA.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:4, Informative)
"if TFA's description is to be believable" Why should this be a matter of speculation? You can look at the claims yourself.
Unfortunately, we can't. From TFA:
Because the filings are so old, they fall under a law that keeps them confidential, said Patrick Ross, a PTO spokesman. That means the office can't discuss them or even say how many pending patent applications predate a 1995 change in the law, Ross said.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, they want to stall, becuase if they deny the patent it could be appealed in court.
So, they just sit on it.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt it's a stall. There are more likely reasons for it.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. (2001)
Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory. (1985)
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice (sometime after 1973)
You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity. (1941)
Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives. Do we not often afflict others undesignedly, and, from mere carelessness, neglect to relieve distress? (1812) ... misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent. (1774)
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Gilbert Hyatt is a patent troll of the worst kind.
His patent are always overly broad and best described as 'Ideas' He uses the courts like a club, and intimidates people. When ever he gets a patent denial(often) he makes the patent office spend million in court, and he usually looses. If not always.
This is a guy who ,in 1990, submitted a patent for a micro controller. He claims to have invented the microchip, in 1990.
It was latter overturns, but he got millions in royalties and, surprise surprise, didn't have to pay to back.
Is anyone asking why is is suing after 43 years and not, say 30? or 20 years?
And sending a signal to control something has been done for 100 years. This article is just GIlbert Hyatt attempting to bully million out of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely they are tired of him taking him to court every time the deny something of his and our just sitting on it.
Of course this is GIlbert Hyatt, so there might not even really be a patent, and its near certain that f there is a patent, it's more of an idea and nothing that's actual working. It's like he grabs whatever is starting to become well know, lists what it does, and the applies for patent.
Look at this submission from 1989. It's list of idea about how a microprocessor works.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... [uspto.gov]
Or this one form 1996 about how a kernel works:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... [uspto.gov]
How could it be valid? (Score:2, Informative)
Seems like prior art should be easy to find, people have had relays on things longer than 43 years, or is this patent going to try and distinguish between electronic and electromechanical controls?
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it can be valid if it covers a set of methods relating to how to use relays.
This guy seems to only want the patent so he can sell it to patent trolls. It seems that the patent office doesn't want to deny the patent because they know that as soon as they do he'll sue (again). I wouldn't call this guy an inverter, I would call him another part of the patent troll machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, you're right. I think they prefer to be called "single-input NAND gates" these days. Political correctness gone mad, I tell ya...
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well - yes and no.
The fundamental problem with the patent system is that it gives patents to 'actual engineers that create things'.
This wouldn't be a problem - but for a major fundamental flaw in the system.
Patents were originally granted (amongst other less noble reasons) to foster innovation and encourage the spread of knowledge, rather than having ideas locked up as trade secrets and lost.
Unfortunately, it should be clearly obvious to anyone that if:
An averagely skilled engineer, faced with the same problem could solve the problem in under the time it takes to do a full patent search, and apply for the patent including all the time to write the patent and get it through all the steps - patents are not actually fostering innovation at all.
Should patents be abolished - no.
But - patents should only be granted for inventions that take - at the very least - several months for the averagely skilled engineer in the same field to come up with a solution to the same problem.
Patents should be for the benefit of society.
If society is burdened by patents - innovation and business is slowed, competition is harder - and advances in technology are slower - why do we have them?
In their current state, they are broken.
https://www.google.com/patents... [google.com] - is the most recent english patent I can find.
It describes - broadly - something very similar to NTP - and is basically the same way any sensible engineer approaching the problem would do it.
The problem is it has a lot of superfluous crap implying it's special to one tiny area - and hence as it's not been patented before - it gets a patent.
This helps _nobody_.
There is no inventor in the conventional sense in this patent - as there isn't in most patents.
If you claim there is - you need to claim that every 4 year-old faced with the problem of making a lego model that looks like something is an inventor.
It's plugging obvious blocks together in obvious ways.
May sometimes the blocks be hard to fit together, and require a bit of thought - sure.
This doesn't make the arrangement of blocks not likely to be replicated in 17 (or more) years if anyone else hits the problem.
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:5, Informative)
Looka t his inventions and their timing.
1996 - Patents the Kernel
1989 - Patents the microprocessor.
A little late to the game, don't you think?
Oh, but when he gets denied, it turns into a large court case where he continually files for appeal, WHILE collecting royalties. And then when he loses he stop collecting royalties; which he doesn't have to pay back.
Go here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtm... [uspto.gov]
Search for this:
in/Hyatt AND Gilbert
Read some of his patents. He is the original patent troll. One who submits patent for things that exists, and then extract royalties from companies while it's "Patent Pending".
This Licensing = trolling is a ridiculous definition of patent troll. One that got the patent office to change in a way that is far worse for the small time no money inventor.,
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what his patent claims, aside from the oversimplification in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what his patent claims, aside from the oversimplification in the summary.
And what's your point.. or were you just stating the obvious?
Since it appears that no one knows specifically what the patent contains it's really no more than a nebulous threat to claim ownership over something that someone else did. It may or may not manifest in the future, and if it does then it was impossible for anyone in the present to know whether something they are building today infringes on it. No matter what this patent contains if it was ever granted it would be a complete abuse of the patent sys
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This guy invented the microprocessor, holds over 70 patents, is a self made millionaire (maybe billionaire) and has successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him. So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we're not talking about Lemelson here.
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy invented the microprocessor (Score:2, Insightful)
No, he didn't.
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:5, Informative)
He filed a fanciful patent application describing the possibility, waited until someone else figured out how to make it reality, then sued them.
He might be the patent troll patient zero.
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:4, Insightful)
This asshole is running a standard 'Submarine Patent' play. Fiddle with the application until everything is using the tech and it's firmly embedded in daily use (lasers and UPC codes are other classic submarine patents) then sue everyone when the patent is finally granted.
Fuck this guy.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Is Gilbert P. Hyatt just a pseudonym used by Jack Kilby?
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:5, Informative)
This guy invented the microprocessor
Under dispute. Actually, he eventually lost his patent, but not until after he managed to extract millions in licensing fees from it. An anti-Hyatt [intel4004.com] page.
successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him
Whether he owes them or not is still not settled. He won money from California on the basis of a Nevada jury for California's auditory process. The bottom line is that he moved to Las Vegas to avoid California taxes from his license windfall.
So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.
From the article: "While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, Bassett said.
"I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work -- the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did.""
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not assuming either right or wrong. What I am assuming is that he clearly moved to Las Vegas to avoid paying California taxes. Whether it was legal or not is one thing, but it's a shady tactic either way.
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From http://www.intel4004.com/hyatt.htm The Gilbert Hyatt Patent
A patent on the microcontroller, predating the only two Intel patents related to the MCS-4, was granted to Gilbert Hyatt in 1990. This patent described the architecture and logic design of a microcontroller, claiming that it could be integrated into a single chip. This patent was later invalidated in a patent interference case brought forth by Texas Instruments, on account that the device it described was never implemented and was not implemen
Re: (Score:2)
This guy invented the microprocessor...
The patent he had on a "microcontroller" was invalidated. Based on what you're saying, it sounds like he's very good in the courtroom, however.
Re:How could it be valid? (Score:4, Insightful)
FYI, anybody who allegedly owes the state of California over $50 million in taxes earned way more than that. The maximum income tax rate in California in 1990 was 9.3% for individuals (although I'm not sure if individual income tax is the rate that would apply). We're looking at about $500 million in earnings for which he was allegedly dodging a $50 million tax. Not to mention that those $500 million he got was from a patent granted in 1990 for microprocessors, long after they were invented by someone else and in common use. Don't feel too sorry for him.
Damnit people, why doesn't anybody realize that the government is the people? A nearly $400 million dollar judgement paid out from the state of California is $400 million dollars in tax hikes (or college tuition hikes, or delayed infrastructure maintenance, or funding cuts for public schools, police departments, state parks, etc.) for everyone else that doesn't have $500 million in ill-gotten patent license deals to pay for lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
The patent for the Teletype machine was issued in 1907, any variation thereof, up to and including paper punch cards would probably invalidate the patent.
Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
But they'll let Amazon patent "one-click" shopping?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know that corporations and the "elite" have more privileges and rights than lowly peons like this inventor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
But all that is more proof that what should be banned is the ability to patent a process or business plan. Patent objects, or the plans to build them. Not software, not math, not genes, unless you invent a machine that does something with them. If you can tell someone the result (one click) and the rest of the process is easily guessable, it's obvious. Much like "sweat of the brow" doesn't determine copyrighability, just thinking up something new isn't sufficient for a patent.
Now all we need to do is convince the patent office of this simple truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.
I'm not entirely convinced the object thing is the right answer, though. I think it's possible to generate a nontrivial non-obvious useful process which is as useful as a nontrivial non-obvious useful mechanism. Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor
Re:Seriously (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.
Before modern bars, you'd go to the local shopkeeper, and place an order for flour, sugar, salt, and you'd walk out the door, usually without paying. It was "one click pay" where the shopkeeper would collect later based on previously negotiated terms. There's thousands of years of documentation of "one click" transactions. It's not just a modern bar tab, which fails because you one-click each item into the cart, but then settle with a non-preciously agreed payment on your way out. Though some do it more like one-click. But regardless of the details, the idea of a near-authorizationless transaction based on previous agreement is thousands of years old.
Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor less patentable than a novel mechanism for making a physical lock, even though it has a mathematical/software basis.
I agree, but the nuance is lost on most, so we'd be better off with none than having it similar to now, with lots of room for error.
He sounds like a dick (Score:2)
He pissed the patent office off and sued them, now his patents get delayed.
California asked him for taxes on his millions, he sued them for even more.
Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent troll. (Score:2)
We could, and often do, argue all night whether the patent system should cease to exist in it's current form.
For the purposes of this argument, we are forced to stipulate that it presently exists. This is about a government patent office holding a grudge against an inventor for friggin' decades.
Re: (Score:2)
"SCOTSO", is that some Scottish demonym?
Quit making up cutesy acronyms that not even a google search reveals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nevada's Supreme Court would have sufficed then. I guess some people like typing in all caps...
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS is bog-standard, IANAL but AFAIK you should be able to figure out SCOTSO Nevada. If he had said SCOTSN you might have had a point. IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
scotus, potus - again sounds like hocus pocus to me.
But, whatever...
Re: (Score:2)
scotus, potus - again sounds like hocus pocus to me.
But, whatever...
All right, some budding musical genius make that into a song.
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme court of the state of oregonahomaho? Why didn't you say so?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is interesting in light of the 11th amendment
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't change the fact he owed taxes and wasn't paying them.
Never said he was a troll, just a dick.
Perhaps if he was nice to people he'd be a billionaire by now.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing they did wrong (Score:3)
He patented the microprocessor, too (Score:5, Informative)
As Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor#Gilbert_Hyatt) says:
Gilbert Hyatt was awarded a patent claiming an invention pre-dating both TI and Intel, describing a "microcontroller".[9] The patent was later invalidated, but not before substantial royalties were paid out.[10][11]
And from http://www.intel4004.com/hyatt... [intel4004.com]:
"This patent was later invalidated in a patent interference case brought forth by Texas Instruments, on account that the device it described was never implemented and was not implementable with the technology available at the time of the invention. "
I know that 1990 (when that microprocessor patent was granted) is pre-Slashdot, but srsly, what's happening when patent trolls' whinging is front page news here?
Parasitic Rentiers (Score:5, Insightful)
What value has this man added to a single piece of equipment sold in the last 40 years? What part of these machines relied on his effort or ingenuity? If his patent had never been filed, are we to seriously believe that progress would have been held back by so much as an hour.
Let drop this passive-aggressive geek myth of the vital "small-guy" inventor and the civilization changing ideas which supposedly emerge from his superior brain. It is far, far easier, and far, far better for society as a whole to simply regard all patent holders as parasites, and simply stop issuing them. Inventors can start their own companies or get a job like everyone else.
Reward belongs to those who add value. To those who produce things; produce wealth. it does not belong to the people who "thought" of doing so, or who had some "bright idea" sometimes in the 1970s. It belongs to the three generations of people since who put their -- unpatented -- ideas into action and made them a reality. To the people who competed based on the merits of their results, and not the entitlement they felt their intellects deserved.
It's time to put patents away. All patents. Our society will make better progress without them. Inventors are not worth the price being paid to parasites.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This case is a classic example of how the patent system does not benefit innovation or society. The patent that the article focuses on is secret, which means that "his invention" has not benefitted any product. On the other hand, it
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant, so let's say the inventor starts his or her own company. MegaCorp sees the idea, likes it, and uses its massive financial and market power to create their own version which is better, faster and shinier. MegaCorp gets a 3% rise in stock prices, the inventor gets nothing.
The inventor has another brilliant idea, but this time he or she keeps it under their hat and the whole of society suffers as a result
Seriously, why does this need to be explained. But since it does I feel obliged to also mention
Re: (Score:3)
Regarding trade secrets, patents do nothing to reduce them as getting a patent on anything that could be kept a secret more than 20 years would be very foolish. If you intend to undermine trade secrets, then aim to get trade secret law pulled back.
Re: (Score:2)
Frivolous patents, patents which haven't been put to use (ie defensive patents), software patents, submarine patents and patent trollery benefit larger corporations, but these are abuses of the patent system. There's nothing wrong with the basic idea, and nothing that can't be fixed if the will to do so ever materialised.
Re: (Score:3)
Frivolous patents, my well be abuses but they are also a direct result of the patient system. The patents are all about controlling, obtaining a monopoly, the more "Ideas" you control the more you benefit.
It is in a companies very nature to maximize profit, as such it will always push the patent system to its limits. Using its vast resources to do so, by lawyers, and bribing, ops I meant lobbying politicians, to change the laws.
I am not completely opposed to a patent system but patents should be very short
Re: (Score:2)
They're already reasonably short lived - most industries don't move at the breakneck speed of the IT/tech business so they may seem overlengthy here, but everywhere else they're acceptable. And even in IT, the guy that invented the mouse didn't get a cent because mice didn't become widespread till after his patent expired, so there's another side to the story.
Re: (Score:2)
When you patent something it's your own responsibility to monetize it. Engelbart didn't monetize the mouse patent, but by patenting it he sure claimed credit for it, which is probably more important in the long run. It would certainly be more galling if Apple were allowed to claim they invented it because he hadn't patented it.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents further the advantages of large companies more than independent entities by their very nature.
I dunno, I make a pretty good living licensing out my patents. I make more from licensing than I do from my regular "day" job (which I do because I love doing it) - enough to live comfortably. And that includes having monster CE/tech licensees including Microsoft...
Monopoly (Score:2)
You assume that patents do anything to prevent MegaCorp from competing. You also assume that it is Joe Inventor filing most of the patents, and not said MegaCorp. In practice, neither of these things are true, and the primary beneficiaries of patent litigation are lawyers.
Patents are the right to squash competition. Competition in the ideal sense is a very efficient way to allocate resources. If one company is first to market, and a competitor makes a product which is "better, faster, and shinier," what exa
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that patents do anything to prevent MegaCorp from competing.
That is in fact exactly what they do.
You also assume that it is Joe Inventor filing most of the patents, and not said MegaCorp.
No, that would be you putting words in my mouth.
Since you started off with a patently (ho!) false assertion and a strawman, the rest of your argument - which also happens to be based on these two items - can safely be discarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are posters in this very thread who say they make a good living from Megacorps who've licensed their patents. Is there some reason they haven't been "crushed"?
Re: (Score:3)
One of my arguments was Jefferson's, so you are bizarrely dishonest in claiming that it was based on any fallacy of mine. You are also incorrect in identifying said fallacies.
If patents prevent competition, as you assert, then why is it that Apple is not the first smartphone inventor, nor Microsoft the first OS inventor, nor Dell the PC inventor? I would be harder pressed to find markets that were dominated by a single entity by virtue of patents; perhaps you can suggest some. In the strict sense though I a
Re: (Score:2)
because that's not how it works in real life.
If Megacorp wants to crush you, it will, It will put into play its warchest of patents, with its army of lawyers, you will go bankrupt paying legal fees long before you make any money.
Your best hope is remain unnoticed until you are successful enough to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Patents, in theory, are actually a reasonably good idea.... the problem is, you need to find an adequate balance between rewarding innovation, and allowing others to benefit from them as well. That latter bit is the reason they expire. The former bit is because it can be very expensive to come up with and implement a new idea. Development costs, and all.
In practice it doesn't always work that way, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We should figure out how to prevent abuse, not get rid of
But at least a few of those years... (Score:3)
was waiting in line at the damn post office to mail the application in.
Poor journalism (Score:2)
The Chicago Tribune writes an article involving a patent application but does not include the number of the patent application.
Re: (Score:3)
It wouldn't do you any good anyway. It is under the old laws where everything is confidential until/unless a patent actually issues on the application.
The new laws were actually put in place because of this guy's actions and the 1990 microprocessor patent (and Lemelson's claims covering all of machine vision of course).
This article reads like (Score:2)
he might a writer told them his story and the writer agreed to write about it, hoping to make some quick cash. This guy is obviously an ass, based on the story, and since his claims are unverifiable probably not very honest either.
First patent troll (Score:3)
From browsing the list of his patents [google.com] it looks like most of them are written with overly generalized broad claims which don't actually describe anything that wasn't obvious at the time. This gem [google.com] filed in 1972 describes a "Machine control system operating from remote commands". Whoopty do. Remotely operable computers existed before the filing date. Why the USPTO awarded him so many patents on obvious things is beyond comprehension.
Why should we accept lower growth for this man? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not pretend that the USPTO is doing anything acceptable or would be doing anything acceptable in any hypothetical universe.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative title: "Submarine patent issued" (Score:4, Insightful)
Oddly no application number is cited (Score:4, Insightful)
Slanted beyond all comprehension (Score:5, Informative)
Article seems to be talking about patent application 05/302771, and the status of the case is miles away from the way it's described in the article. This patent has been through several levels of non-final and final rejections, appeals, and court actions. Through the USPTO's public PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval) system, you can access hundreds of pages of information and history on the case, including what are now several hundred pending claims. Even if the application itself hasn't been published, the file history is ripe with lots of information. You can see the patent examiners' rejections and there's a 494-page appeal brief filed on behalf of the Applicant, from which you can see many of the pending claims. The patent office rejections appear mainly under section 112 on the basis that the claims aren't adequately supported by the patent disclosure. It's not as if he just applied for the patent and waited 43 years - he's been trying hard not to take NO for the answer.
In addition, there appear to be about 150 additional patent cases filed as continuations on dates between 1977 and 1995 - some still pending and some abandoned. Most of them aren't accessible under the public PAIR system because of the pre-1995 filing dates. Presumably there's no continuations filed after 1995 because under the post-1995 rules, the application would expire 20 years from the earliest filing date, so they'd expire before granting. If many of these continuations have hundreds of claims like the parent case, there could be tens of thousands of claims that he's trying to get granted.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically they're keeping it in limbo on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Square wave machine control" (Score:3)
...sounds suspiciously like what (Baudot) teletypes had been doing for decades around 1970, the approximate date TFS indicates.
Seems broad, all right... and obvious, and like there would be prior art.
But since it's secret... who knows.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems broad, all right... and obvious, and like there would be prior art.
Actually, it's a patent for "Square wave with rounded corners machine control", so it's OK.