Slashdot Mirror

Brilliant! Oh, except for the part where you don't actually patent ideas, but inventions. Big difference.

Man, people on /. used to know those kinds of things. Now we mod up those who don't.

Now look at the dates for release of Ultima Online and Everquest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everquest

Just for my own education, does release date really matter for prior art? Wouldn't the more important date be when UO and Everquest were dreamed up on paper, or when some technical and functional documents were written up, or even some early builds?

So to make my question easier, is prior art established only when the product is released?

Wikipedia's definition of Prior Art states:

Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings), in most systems of patent law,[1] 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. If an invention has been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.

However, I wanted more details and took a look at a page titled What is Prior Art? by IP Watchdog, and they state this:

Now comes the curve ball you have probably been expecting. Not all references, knowledge or events that can demonstrate that an invention is "old" or already known can be used by examiners or during litigation against an invention. This is where the whole definition of prior art takes a turn toward an Abbott and Costello routine. Before we go to far down this path lets set some definitive rules:

* If the invention in question was described in a patent issued anywhere in the world prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.

* If the invention in question was described in a printed publication published anywhere in the world prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.

* If the invention were publicly known in the US, but not necessarily patented or published, prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.

In each of these three cases we would say that the earlier reference of knowledge is prior art that prevents a patent from now issuing.

Now some more rules:

* If the invention in question was described in a patent issued anywhere in the world more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.

* If the invention in question was described in a printed publication published anywhere in the world more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.

* If the invention in question was publicly used in the US more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.

* If the device, machine or compound in question was offered for sale in the US more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.

In each of these three cases we would also say that the earlier reference, knowledge or event is prior art that prevents a patent from now issuing, but this time not because the invention was not new, but rather because an application was made in the US too late!

Sorry for the long quote. It almost seems like prior art would only exist if it were public knowledge, and of course with more than 12 months of usage or knowledge being key. So it sounds like if I have a product under development, but with no released publications to the outside world, that it couldn't be considered prior art ?

I could just be totally missing the point, but thanks for taking the time anyway.

The Supreme Court, however, has enunciated a definitive test to determine
whether a process claim is tailored narrowly enough to encompass only a particular
application of a fundamental principle rather than to pre-empt the principle itself. A
claimed process is surely patent-eligible under  101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular
machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or
thing.

http://ipwatchdog.com/cases/bilski.pdf

Lets all work to invalidate frivolous software patents.

The copyright treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty brought about around the same time. And when I said Signed onto, I didn't necessarily mean that they have adopted it. Generally, when a country signed on to a treaty, they only express a commitment to adoption so they have a say in the organization and structure of it. By all means, all members of WIPO had opertunity for a say in both of them.

Currently there are 184 members of WIPO which is more then the 1996 levels. I pullede the 150 number from here

Bruce Lehman was the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks under Bill Clinton. Clinton did form a working group but it didn't submit any laws until after WIPO. And yes, because of his positions in the Clinton administration, Lehman would have have direct input in the WIPO treaties, he did serve as the chair of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, and so on. The WGIPR did nothing but submit reports for revew within the group's parent structure.

Then in 96, the WIPO organization met and came away with two treaties requiring the DMCA to be corrected. These treaties were the "WIPO Copyright Treaty" and the "WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty," which were adopted by consensus by over 150 countries. A goof portion of the DMCA, especially title one and two, comes directly out of the WIPO treaties and over 150 countries are required to make the same laws.

You should look at the report they put forward. (PDF warning) In which they recomend a general structure and highlight points that should change. If you look at the recommendations portion, you will see that the terms of the WIPO as well as the DMCA are only similar in spirit but the real meaty portions of the DMCA aren't really there. By Meat, I mean the stiff penalties and so on.

They can't claim copyright, but they could claim trademark violation. I'm not sure if they trademarked their iPod ad images, but the shadow image with the white cables would most likely constitute a trademarkable image. I think that they call this Trade dress (Trade dress is the totality of elements in which a product or service is packaged or presented.)

See http://www.ipwatchdog.com/trademark.html for more

IANAL

Creativity is being crushed just because people are crying "I thought of it first!". There is always a better way to do something, unfortunately you have to hire lawyers just to make sure you don't step on anyones toes. Take a look at the ridiculuos prices I found in a 5 minute google search.. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent_cost.html

Why did the idea not exist, or at the very least have a patent pending?

Because patents cost MONEY. $5,000 to $10,000 per software patent. Does everyone have cash like that lying around in a sock? I sure as hell don't. If you'd like to share, feel free to send me some. So gee, no wonder those free software coders aren't busy patenting obvious things. Monied patent lawyers are busily patenting the obvious, let someone to the hard work of actually manufacturing the obvious, and then suing them for a cut when "no shit Sherlock" sells. Then they have the absolute gall to bitch and moan when the Chinese produce it without paying them.

The concept behind the waterless urinal might be as simple as a drain and a pipe. These are, of course, well known and generally not patentable. What is patented by Falcon Waterless is the combination of the liquid-filled canister in cooperation with the construction of the drain. Reference US Patent No. 5711037.

Incidentally, I am unaware of anyone obtaining a patent on a tree. However, check out this patent issued for a stick. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patents/US_6360693.pdf

Excuse me????

Patents are NOT affordable by private inventors and have stopped being affordable a long time ago.

http://www.patents.com/cost.htm, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent_cost.html

        * Relatively simple invention - $3,000 to $5,000
        * Invention of minimal complexity - $5,000 - $10,000
        * Invention of moderate complexity - $10,000 - $15,000
        * Invention of intermediate complexity - $15,000 - $20,000
        * Relatively complex invention - $20,000 and up

Look at these costs, as they are not chump change. This is only a patent in the US. To get a European patent knock on another 20,000K. Then to defend your patent you need yet again a 300 USD per hour lawyer. Frankly the reason why there are so many patents is because lawyers and the patent offices have how to create an economy where there should be none.

I think that the real issue here is that Apple needs to keep their trade secrets. The USPTO requires that entities ACTIVELY protect their trade secrets (Overview here http://www.lawguru.com/faq/19.18.html or here http://www.ipwatchdog.com/tradesecret.html. If products in development are not trade secrets, then what is?

they patented their algorithm

But methods are. I forget where I read it, but somebody said that then a lawyer was asked if algorithms are not patentable, and methods are, what's the difference between the two? His answer?

Listen carefully: algorithms are not patentable, but methods are ...

(a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;

(b) selecting a currency from amenu in which to obtain price information;

(a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;

(b) selecting a currency from amenu in which to obtain price information;

Now before some KW claims that first sale applies only to copyrights, I'd like to remind readers that an unconditional sale of a patented product, such as a retail sale, brings into play the similar exhaustion doctrine.

It already costs in exceses of $3K, usually very much in excess, to get a patent approved. See this article How Much Does A Patent Cost?

So, lifting the base price from $375 to $1000 isn't that big a deal. Ironically, this supports your original point - garage inventors already need serious investment to get a patent filed. So, patents are pretty much already solely the domain of corporations.

Furthermore, the problem alluded to in an earlier post in this thread is that all the corporations are patenting anything they can get away with. This frenzy is not about invention, it is about protection from other corporations doing the same thing (and, as usual, the lawyers are behind it all).

The reason this frenzy exists is to maintain the ability to cross-license patent pools. So, if MongoCorp A invents something and it turns out that it may infringe on one of MongoCorp B's patents, they spend some money on lawyers and eventually end up with some sort of low-to-no cross-licencsing agreement for their respective patent-pools. The attorney's get paid for handling the negotiation of a problem they created in the first place, and MongoCorp A gets to market its product without fear of interference from MongoCorp B.

But, this situation of low-cost patent-pool licensing results in the exclusion of players who don't have a patent-pool to threaten anyone with. This lone garage inventor guy with one brilliant invention to his name has no leverage. Turns out that his invention may infringe somewhat on MongoCorp B. MongoCorp B says, "sell us the rights to your single patent for this piddly sum and we won't sue you into oblivion." Garage inventor says, "shit, I either get sued to the poorhouse and MonoCorp B gets the rights to my patent or I sell it to them for a few month's worth of income and don't have to worry about losing my house and having to declare bankruptcy.

See, that's how the current system keeps the mythical little-guy out of the game TODAY. You would be hard pressed to come up with a situation with a worse result. So, increasing the fees to something outrageous, like $100K to file for a patent won't lock out anyone useful who isn't really locked out now and it will start to serve as a disincentive to the growth and maintenance of patent pools. Maybe with such crazy fees, 18 years down the road we would start to see the return of the individual inventor. But that breed is practically extinct in America today.

Or, we could go the other route and reduce the term of patents to something more appropriate for the fast pace of the modern age, like say, 2 years tops. I expect the results of either approach to be similar in the long run and also the chance of either happening is about zero, the entrenched interests like things the way they are.

(Ok, after I managed to completely delete my reply...)

You are right. I looked for the articles I had read before and can not find them. So I finally wound up at the Copyright Offices' website.

In my journey's I went to Find Law's website, IP Watch.com, and the Copyright Office itself.

So - I'm wrong! Oh well.

Mathematically speaking though, Life + 70 can equal as much as 190 years (if you listen to the MPAA's spokesperson). It still is not 270 years though. Wish I could find that article again about why, under the DMCA, a copyright could last as long as 270 years. It was very enlightening at the time.

Later!

So Canadian patents are monopolies but American ones aren't. I think I have to agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (one of the few supreme court justices to sport a working brain) when he says that the law is basically whatever the judge feels like saying it is and any kind of explanation of a legal decision is basically a kind of constrained bullshit that's made up after the fact.

A patent attorney would say: patent defenses a patent must be enforced within a reasonable amount of time that infringement is known, and there must be an intended use claimed by the patent.

Kodak certainly is pretty late in enforcing its patent, and I think its unlikely that they have a practical use either.

It seems to me that the reason Sun couldn't settle before going to trial is that there is nothing to settle here. Kodak is just wasting everyone's time and money.

I'm not sure anyone cares about the preciseness of these definitions. Every IP lawyer I have spoken to describes IP laws as granting the holders a monopoly and yet I found this article criticizing that point of view. The fact is, in these discussions people are arguing over words like 'steal' and 'piracy' because of their pejorative force. Unfortunately, in court, the judge probably has a pretty clear idea of what these terms really mean and whether you call it 'stealing', 'infringement' or 'piracy' is going to make little difference to your sentence.

See the following:

Motivation
Hindsight
Non-Analagous Art

See the following:

Motivation
Hindsight
Non-Analagous Art

See the following:

Motivation
Hindsight
Non-Analagous Art

I think the main problem with the patent system is that the "non-obvious" standard is mostly ignored by patent examiners. The standard for a novel idea is supposed to be something like "non-obvious to someone skilled in the field".

Sorry, no. This is a myth. There is no such thing as an effective commonlaw copyright or poor man's copyright. (I know I've seen a better reference for this somewhere, but one source would be here; Google may have more if you're more creative with search terms & less strapped for time than I -- perhaps check some of those online law sites, nolo press or one of Harvard's law sites, etc).

Think about it. You could easily mail yourself a manila envelope with a metal tab, unsealed. Then you just stick whatever you want in later and the postmark says you "wrote" a work that hadn't even been created when the letter was mailed...

But in any event, in the US, the US Copyright Office is correct about what copyright law is. They say there is no such thing as a "poor man's copyright." They say you need a registration to pursue legal action. They are right.

Another myth here is that you need to apply notice of copyright to a work for it to be protected. This is not true after 1986; a work is "protected" (though again, what that means when you can't sue is a mystery) as soon as it appears in fixed form. Doubly so if published. Copyright notice these days is an idiosyncracy for unpublished work and a formality for published work, and unnecessary (& somewhat insulting) when dealing with professionals who know the law. And besides, it doesn't really help prove that a work is yours; you could just as easily write "(C) ME" on your copy of someone's work as you could on your original one.

The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.

Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.

If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.

The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.

Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.

If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.

The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.

Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.

If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.

The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.

Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.

If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.

Most of the fair use provisions are highly specific exemptions from copyright liability that Congress has enacted to encourage, or at least to allow, certain behavior. These specific exemptions from liability can be found in Section 108 through 120 of the Copyright Act. The catch-all provision, which is the provision generally being referred to when the term "fair use" is used, is section 107. This catch-all fair use provision specifically provides a safe harbor for what would otherwise be infringing activities if such activities are engaged in for the purpose of teaching, scholarship and research.

So, you list a law firm as your web page and you do not emphasis the significant distinction between a a preliminary and permanent injunction?

I don't see anywhere a relationship between irreparable harm and a permanent injunction.

Yes, Judge Saris' summary judgement on State Street Bank vs. Signature Financial Group applied common sense. Unfortunately, that didn't help, because her judgement was overturned on appeal, and the final disposition of the case is what established the patentability of software business methods.

To make any difference in our legal system, common sense must be allied with and supported by solid legal argument. Otherwise, we can easily end up with legal conclusions that are absolutely nonsensical. Yeah, that's often frustrating...

As far as I can tell, the "No Electronic Theft" or NET act, making it illegal "to reproduce or distribute, including by electronic means, one or more copyrighted works having a total retail value of more than $1,000." (description from this page) is now law. It seems that you can read it here.

Now, it should be obvious to any reasonable person that 99% of the people who warez down software either can't afford to buy it, and so never would have bought it, or are just trying it out and will probably either buy it or decide it's crap and never run it again. Software "piracy" might not be a victimless crime, but it comes awfully close.

So why are the feds so concerned about it? Could be just that the adbusters people are right, and the corporations' interests override common sense and the public interest (like, having the FBI spend its time on actual threats to public safety rather than warez mavens, most of whom would probably never hurt a fly.)

But there's a subtler, more chilling trend going on, too. It's already illegal to buy or sell a radio scanner that tunes the cellular frequencies; you can't buy a wideband receiver unless you're the government (or live overseas; so much for the "land of the free"), and I believe you're not allowed to tune into alphanumeric pagers, though I can't find a reference for this. And the electromagnetic spectrum belongs to all of us, not the government, damnit; why can't I do what I want with the electrons running through my antenna on my property?

With these raids, they're telling us what we can and can't do with the bits that come down our cable modem; and with the truly chilling SSSCA and prohibitions on digital VCRs, they're going to prevent the computer and home electronics manufacturers from selling boxes that will even permit us from doing things they don't like with the bits.

It's still a pretty long way before Big Brother and the two-way, spying TV-- but that is the direction we are moving, and as annoying as it is that I'm not gonna be able to get warez as easily now, the broader implications are what really bug me.