Slashdot Mirror

Their approach seems familiar. Many years ago your nation use to go to England, visit the plants, and steal textile manufacturing trade secrets.

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/201...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012...

you forgot to find a way to include a reference to tiananmen square in your rant.

No, that's not even true.

Court rulings aren't the sort of blah-blah you posted. You weren't mis-remembering anything other than whatever blather your friends spew about the subject. Not the same thing as having looked it up, and then decided to talk about it. Maybe in the future you could preface these types of wild guesses with something like, "Some guy at the bar told me..." instead of just saying it cold as if it is knowledge you have.

You looked up something as obscure and irrelevant as "As-Easy-As," but you didn't bother to look up Apple vs Microsoft to find out if the guy at the bar was even correct before repeating it. The court didn't say MS already had a license, the court said mainly, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."

Ideas can be copied. It is allowed.

Abstract ideas can be copied. Specific implementations cannot - as the Federal Circuit noted recently, upholding an Apple GUI patent as directed to patent eligible subject matter.

Yes, there's a claim that IPR is somehow voided if the owner has sovereign immunity - but what is the legal basis of that claim?

I think the answer you are looking for is at this site. Read the section with header "Patent Owner Benefits of Sovereign Immunity Assertions" because it explains the benefit of sovereign immunity and that implies why IPR should be void for the holder.

The patents are BS , most are basically "DNS server over a VPN' list http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017... .

I had to look up 'EME'. Here is a reference, for other readers: Encrypted Media Extensions in the HTML5 standard

How does that address the patent issue?

My point was that the maker of the linked device obviously figured out a way around the EpiPen patent.

I am 100% behind patent reform, the system needs work, I get that. But the inventor of the EpiPen device actually did create a better way for people to inject themselves, I think that deserves patent protection. But now, that patent (assuming its this one) is 10 years old, probably about time for that device to become public domain.

In my googling I came up with this interesting article, explaining why they feel that patents aren't the issue here. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016... (I don't know a thing about ipwatchdog, up to you if you take the article at face value or not. Their points seemed valid.)

Sorry, no. If you do not violate claim 1, then you do not violate the dependent claims. Dependent claims limit the scope of the dependent claim. They can be used to cover explicit corner cases, but they cannot expand the scope of the independent claim. That's the law.

"Claims written in dependent form that broaden the scope of the claim from which they depend are considered to be in improper dependent form, which should result in an objection."

Ehhhh you might want to re-examine the assumptions

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015...

Premium Channel Promotion System and Method is one of the patents in here

Take a look at that and ask yourself if TV Guide didn't have prior art 60+ years ago.

Umm no. If he was a journalist perhaps. But selling goods based on his likeness, no.

"It must be remembered that the line between trademark bullying and rightful enforcement practices is not always black and white. In light of the fact that mark owners are shouldered with the affirmative obligation to personally police violations of their intellectual property rights; aggressive enforcement campaigns do not necessarily rise to the level of abusive bullying tactics as previously described by the USPTO. By failing to control third party use, a mark owner’s rights may be substantially restricted."

"Thus, when encountering a questionable letter regarding the violation of another’s rights in a mark, the recipient must discern the following: 1) whether the enforcer’s mark is actually being used in commerce; 2) the similarities of the marks at issue; 3) the specifically delineated goods and services used in connection with the alleged senior user’s mark; and 4) the trade channels and consumers that encounter the mark alleging superior rights."

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015...

Put it to you this way, the NFL would have something to say if they guy did the something with the NFL.

I was oversimplifying. Yes, technically only trademarks can be "lost" outright in this manner. However, you can hurt your case and limit the recoverable damages if you don't pursue infringement in a timely manner. IANAL, but the legal terms that apply here are "laches" and "equitable estoppel".

Citation

Citation

You can't patent game mechanics

Not exactly, no (i.e., you can't patent "guy with gun runs around and shoots things" for FPS games) but a board game itself, complete with its rules, can be patented. See the history of Monopoly and how several different board game patents were bought up by Parker Bros. back in the day to be able to release the game.

This, interestingly, actually works to the advantage of would-be game cloners because patents expire relatively quickly compared to copyrights. Consider Late for the Sky, a board game company whose output consists almost entirely of Monopoly clones, right down to the -opoly suffix (i.e., Aggieopoly, Miamiopoly, etc.) Rather than try and bat them down with some sort of bullshit reason, Parker Bros. instead just decided to get in on the game too, thus Star Wars Monopoly, Hello Kitty Monopoly, NASCAR Monopoly, etc.

Strictly speaking, though, none of this is really relevant because the article doesn't mention patents or copyright at all and really it's just the shit stirring summary that's trying to make Gygax into some thieving asshole after the fact.

If they really want things to change, they should agree to work towards abolishing stupid patents---not to create semi-trusts that other companies have to fight.

Google has been spending tens of millions lobbying for patent reform, and only started to playing the patent game when it became clear that changing it wasn't going to work quickly enough -- though they haven't stopped trying to reform patents. The apparent contradiction has led some some pundits to question their motives, though I don't see that it's really a contradiction... the patent system is badly broken, but that doesn't mean Google can function in the industry as it is without playing the patent game. It's perfectly reasonable to play by rules you hate because that's what you have to do while simultaneously trying to change the rules.

Personally, I think software patents are a crock, but I'm listed as inventor on a few of them. I hate the game, but it is what it is so I play it while donating to organizations trying to change it. My rule is that I donate 50% of my patent bonuses to the EFF. I suppose if I were a better man I'd donate 100% (after taxes), but I do like to have some recompense for the effort I put into writing disclosures.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but I'm speaking for myself only, not for Google.)

The best part is hearing the lamentations of software patent attorneys and rejoicing in the sounds of their despair.

Mongol General: "Conan! What is good in life?"

Conan: "To crush the software patent attorneys, drive them before you, and hear their lamentations as their business model is destroyed" :)

The best part is hearing the lamentations of software patent attorneys and rejoicing in the sounds of their despair.

For anyone that wants to troll a patent autorny that has his feelings hurt over this, go here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014...

In what can only be described as an intellectually bankrupt opinion, the Supreme Court never once used the word “software” in its decision.

Hahahahahahaha... had tears in my eyes reading that.

I know the headline is correct because Gene Quinn is hopping mad. Quinn makes a living by obtaining software patents and always says he can draft around any limits imposed by the courts, but here's what he's saying today:

"an intellectually bankrupt opinion ... will render many hundreds of thousands of software patents completely useless ... On first read I donâ(TM)t see how any software patent claims written as method or systems claims can survive challenge."

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014...

I didn't want to trust my own reading, but I knew it was a big victory when I read Quinn's reaction.

For example, in the fine article you linked to, Gene Quinn says:

Software can be described by reference to a series of physical actions operating through gates. This type of micro level description of what happens is going to be required, [...]

This is BS. Software that can run on different architectures cannot be described in terms of the physical hardware the software runs on. At best the patent that resulted would only be valid on the specific hardware that was described. I grant you, Microsoft (IIRC) did argue this nonsense successfully in a courtroom once but just because they were able to buffalo some lawyers and judges, that doesn't make it true.

Here you go

Gene Quinn? Yes, an excellent reminder of how much we need PJ to cut through the BS for us. Thank you.

Here you go

Actually, board games, food recipes, and fashion designs are all patentable. Board Games: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/12/22/patenting-board-games-101/id=21356/

Hm, interesting; According to Copyright.gov, games cannot be protected under US copyright law. I had thought the same applied to patenting game mechanics, but I've lost my reference to that one.

I don't think it makes sense to allow patents on good ergonomic design for the same reason we don't allow patents on food recipes or fashion designs, or board game rules.

Actually, board games, food recipes, and fashion designs are all patentable.

Board Games: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/12/22/patenting-board-games-101/id=21356/
Recipes: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201306/ADVICE.jsp
Fashion: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/10/16/nike-sues-walmart-on-design-patents/id=217/

I don't think it makes sense to allow patents on good ergonomic design for the same reason we don't allow patents on food recipes or fashion designs, or board game rules.

Actually, board games, food recipes, and fashion designs are all patentable.

Board Games: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/12/22/patenting-board-games-101/id=21356/
Recipes: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201306/ADVICE.jsp
Fashion: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/10/16/nike-sues-walmart-on-design-patents/id=217/

Which is so painfully obvious the phonebook is prior art.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/

Meanwhile, another judge ruled that Xio, although using none of Tetris's code, still violates copyright because it infringes on the core concept or rules of the games. Copyright strengthened.

That's not what the judge ruled at all. It wasn't the "core concept" or "rules", since those are not covered by copyright; rather, the judge ruled that Xio infringed because of the creative, aesthetic and design features. From your link:

Judge Wolfson took a detailed look at both the Tetris and Mino games in an effort to identify those items that were protected under the law, and there were a number of things that stood out in the Judge’s view. First of all, when placed side by side, various screenshots of the two games were just about impossible to differentiate. The Court stated (and I love this quote, by the way) that “if one has to squint to find distinctions only at a granular level, then the works are likely to be substantially similar.” Moreover, Judge Wolfson spoke to the many elements of both games that were hard to distinguish, some of which included the look, color and shape of the game bricks; the movement/rotation of the pieces; the way the game pieces could be put together to form a complete line; the exact size of the playing area; and other specific design decisions that Xio had copied.

(emphasis added)
It's also on page 15 of the opinion:

The game mechanics and the rules are not entitled to protection, but courts have found expressive elements copyrightable, including game labels, design of game boards, playing cards and graphical works.

Copyright is strengthened by the decision, only in that decades-old precedent continues to be upheld.

He's saying that the Judge smacked down Oracle's claim that they can copyright an API. Copyright weakened.

Meanwhile, another judge ruled that Xio, although using none of Tetris's code, still violates copyright because it infringes on the core concept or rules of the games. Copyright strengthened.

Got any citations for that claim that aren't from conspiracy sites?

0) Who the fuck are you to ask me? You don't even have a mother.

1) Conspiracies are the norm. Any time two people get together secretly to bone a third, it is a conspiracy. The only overarching conspiracy of which I'm aware is that to deprecate the word "conspiracy". Those involved thank you for doing your part as a useful idiot.

2) If you actually wanted a citation, you would already have found one with google. But you don't actually want a citation, you just want to make me look bad so that people won't believe what I'm saying. For example:

However, Microsoft lobbied vociferously for the World Trade Organizationâ(TM)s TRIPS agreement (the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property), which obliges member countries to defend patents for a minimum of 20 years after the filing date. As recently as 2007, Microsoft was lobbying the G8 to tighten global intellectual property (IP) protection, a move that would, Oxfam said, âworsen the health crisis in developing countriesâ(TM).[1]

Or perhaps you would prefer it to come straight from the horse's mouth, where their primary IP lawyer places "respect" of IP laws and markets above saving lives, by making it the primary consideration? He includes a lot of weaselly speak about protecting access, of course, but what he focuses on is the law — which the Gates foundation is promoting.

There are no shortage of similar references, and if you are unaware of them it is because you are willfully ignorant.

[1] The flip side to Bill Gatesâ(TM) charity billions. Bowman, Andrew. New Internationalist Magazine, April 2012. ( )

Humm, well let's see.

1) RIAA and the MPAA spend lots of money lobbying congress. The MPAA for example has a former US Senator as it's current leader, Chris Dodd. Because of lobbying and influence in terms of campaign contributions we have such wonderful legislation like the DMCA.
2) Patent Trolling in the US is a legitimate business, there are examples of this going back nearly 200 years. My favorite example of patent thickets and trolling involves the Sewing Machine wars which started in the 1850s. It's an interesting read.
3) Businesses in this country derive special protection, some business practices while questionable aren't illegal. To make something illegal there has to be some law prohibiting it. If RIAA and the MPAA can go after people with John Doe cases which amount largely to fishing expeditions then that's allowed under our right of due process. Some judges have disagreed with these tactics while some still are proceeding on appeal. reference: https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later
4) The tool that all of these folks use is the DMCA, which is a flawed piece of legislation. Not only is it flawed, it's also being pushed worldwide under the guises of free trade agreements like the "secret" ACTA treaty.
5) Congress really doesn't write anything, they take pieces of put together bullshit from lobbyists, change a couple of things and present it as their own bill. Others attach their bullshit, called a rider onto the Bill that may or may not have anything to do with it but makes it more "passable" because they included a mom + apple pie subsidy along with the big bad legislation. It gets out of dozens of committees and then is voted upon. It's the worst form of legislative process possible run by career politicians and staff people who have no fear of ever losing their jobs. It's no wonder that the approval rating for congress is in the low teens.

So, in simple terms. lobbying + campaign contributions + pre written legislation = DMCA
DMCA + Legal System that allow John Doe suits = (RIAA + MPAA + Big Money Law Firms) + Courts flooded with meaningless cases + defense lawyers + big fees = screwed John Doe who can't defend himself with a fine that exceeds the value of the pilfering many fold.

this is the worst possible outcome and if you download a CD from a file sharing site you could get slapped very heavily. In a word don't do it but in another word, defending yourself in a wrongful prosecution could become extremely costly. That's why John Doe cases need to be abolished, the DMCA needs to be appealed and where pirating has been found, only the value of the property illegally copied * number of copies should be the penalty. If you have kids at home, I suggest you let them know about downloading and its dangers, not just from malware and viruses but because of that knock on the door from a process server saying you're being sued.

Mod parent up, patent infringement has a statute of limitations of six years. If the patent holder can show you were violating the patent while it was active they have six years to do something about it, assuming that they don't wait years after finding out you violated their patent and triggering laches.

As far as I care, the very idea that ideas can be owned is wrong and a hindrance on every aspect of society.

Well actually, owning an IDEA is not something that a Patent, or even a Copyright grants. Ideas can't be patented. Patenting an Idea makes it known to the world.

Historically You had to actually produce something from your Idea. You had to implement your idea in order to obtain a patent. Now it seems all you need do is scrawl it in paper.

At best you are granted a limited time in which your competitors can not use your invention drive you out of the market. You are granted a limited monopoly on the ability to profit from your invention. Someone else can read your patent, see a way to do the same thing in a different way, and develop that.

If you want to own an idea, never disclose it to anyone, and only use it shielded from public view.

The Judge suggests we return to the requirement to implement the idea in a patentable form, and further to do this within a set period of time (a period that may very depending on the industry).

You should read the Judges article (linked to this story). His explanation is quite lucid, and his examples are quite clear.

Moran. Everyone knows that the guy who files the patent is the real innovator. You know, the idea guy. Coders just follow instructions.

ps FUCK SOFTWARE PATENTS

I believe you. However, here you are preaching to the choir. You may want to champion your beliefs at, say, IP Watchdog.

I learned there that you should apply for software patents before any code has been written, and that thinking of the idea is the hard part. Coders just do what they're told -- that stuff is simple. It takes a really smart ass^H^H^H guy to come up with ideas like this patent.

This has to stop, as it's happening across the program spectrum. I blame the influence of smartphones and similar touch oriented devices.Speaking as someone who has never owed a smart phone I have always found them restrictive and confusing. Using one is like navigating a theme park without a map. Eventually you'll want to just find a place to sit down but you'll only get more lost among the theme rides and hot dog stands.

emphasis mine

Welcome to Web 3.0. They're banking on it. The future is turning your computer into a money making machine for them. Google's doing it by turning your page views into dollars from advertisers. Other corporations are hoping you'll use their software, they'll peek and poke around your habits, churn information that is useful to them in the hopes that they can get you to stick around and give your money to them.

The Hot Dog stands and amusement rides of today are applications like Angry Birds and such. You think the web of 1997-2000 was ad-ridden? Wait until your OS is! Apple is working on one now (or at the least, it considering it!).

Let's be clear about one thing- IP lawyers are succeeding in creating a parasitic lifestyle on our industry and on our lives and futures. They impose themselves as non-value producing entities on an industry and then begin siphoning off money from that industry.

They do not add value, they remove value; they do not promote progress, they retard progress. There are so many dollars being thrown off from any given product, and lawyers have conspired to insert themselves into that revenue stream, directly and negatively effecting your bottom line.

This parasitic lifestyle is as good an example of the 1% staging a systematic assault on the 99%.

In fact, The imposition of a software patent regime is as clear cut a case of the 1% consciously organizing to cut off economic opportunity from the 99% as you're going to find outside of a smoke filled room in Texas.

There are about the same percentage of software developers who favor software patents as there are climatologists who don't believe in global warming. 98% of software developers want to write software, create a product, and add value.

Precious few look at the patent troll lifestyle with envy and wish to pursue a career litigating over simple minded applications of middling value.

But for those that do favor software patents, just exactly how do you propose to win at this game?

That the realistic cost of acquiring a software patent starts at 15-30k and goes well north of there.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/

although note that one IP lawyer comments that "In Los Angeles it is not unusual for partners to charge in excess of $600/hour which makes your estimates on the low side."

which is more than you're likely to make from your patent:

The cost of patents is greater than the revenue they generate. ÃoeAbout 97 percent of patents generate less revenue than the patent costs." Return on patent costs. How much does it cost to patent an invention? (Andy Gibbs, CEO of PatentCafe.com Inc., quoted in Celia Lamb, ÃoeNew program at Sierra College aims to help would-be Pre Plastics,Ã Sacramento Business Journal, February 7, 2003)

But never mind that, now that you have spent more than your likely savings on your one single patent, exactly what is it you're thinking about doing with this patent?

Licensing it? Do you think that licensing is automatically negotiated and enforced by the government?

No, you're going to pay a lawyer an hourly rate which is two to ten times what your own hourly rate is to approach, approach and then re-approach company after company none of whom are even slightly sympathetic to your request for a taxation on their profits and will, in fact, do everything they can to resist any kind of licensing deal, including using the tactic of exhausting the rent-seeker's financial ability to pursue rent.

Oh so let them use your "intellectual property" you'll sue! For millions! Well, good luck with that. Because you're sure as hell not going to be doing that on your own unless you're in the 1% or can find some subset of 1% who are sympathetic to your quest to join their ranks via litigation.

The cost to sustain an infringement claim starts at one million US and goes to 5 million and beyond. So unless you're befriended by some part of the 1%, you're not going to be enforcing your "intellectual property rights" anytime soon.

So what do we have, really? We have a system which has the net effect of imposing an impossibly high barrier- call it a poll tax- upon the most vibrant and valuable form of economic participation our economy has - starting a company.

And who created that barrier?

Highly paid (1%) lawyers working for highly compensated (1/10 of 1% ) CEOs.

Let's be clear about one thing- IP lawyers are succeeding in creating a parasitic lifestyle on our industry and on our lives and futures. They impose themselves as non-value producing entities on an industry and then begin siphoning off money from that industry. They do not add value, they remove value; they do not promote progress, they retard progress. There are so many dollars being thrown off from any given product, and lawyers have conspired to insert themselves into that revenue stream, directly and negatively effecting your bottom line. This parasitic lifestyle is as good an example of the 1% staging a systematic assault on the 99%. In fact, The imposition of a software patent regime is as clear cut a case of the 1% consciously organizing to cut off economic opportunity from the 99% as you're going to find outside of a smoke filled room in Texas. There are about the same percentage of software developers who favor software patents as there are climatologists who don't believe in global warming. 98% of software developers want to write software, create a product, and add value. Precious few look at the patent troll lifestyle with envy and wish to pursue a career litigating over simple minded applications of middling value. But for those that do favor software patents, just exactly how do you propose to win at this game? That the realistic cost of acquiring a software patent starts at 15-30k and goes well north of there. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/ although note that one IP lawyer comments that "In Los Angeles it is not unusual for partners to charge in excess of $600/hour which makes your estimates on the low side." which is more than you're likely to make from your patent: The cost of patents is greater than the revenue they generate. ÃoeAbout 97 percent of patents generate less revenue than the patent costs." Return on patent costs. How much does it cost to patent an invention? (Andy Gibbs, CEO of PatentCafe.com Inc., quoted in Celia Lamb, ÃoeNew program at Sierra College aims to help would-be Pre Plastics,Ã Sacramento Business Journal, February 7, 2003) But never mind that, now that you have spent more than your likely savings on your one single patent, exactly what is it you're thinking about doing with this patent? Licensing it? Do you think that licensing is automatically negotiated and enforced by the government? No, you're going to pay a lawyer an hourly rate which is two to ten times what your own hourly rate is to approach, approach and then re-approach company after company none of whom are even slightly sympathetic to your request for a taxation on their profits and will, in fact, do everything they can to resist any kind of licensing deal, including using the tactic of exhausting the rent-seeker's financial ability to pursue rent. Oh so let them use your "intellectual property" you'll sue! For millions! Well, good luck with that. Because you're sure as hell not going to be doing that on your own unless you're in the 1% or can find some subset of 1% who are sympathetic to your quest to join their ranks via litigation. The cost to sustain an infringement claim starts at one million US and goes to 5 million and beyond. So unless you're befriended by some part of the 1%, you're not going to be enforcing your "intellectual property rights" anytime soon. So what do we have, really? We have a system which has the net effect of imposing an impossibly high barrier- call it a poll tax- upon the most vibrant and valuable form of economic participation our economy has - starting a company. And who created that barrier? Highly paid (1%) lawyers working for highly compensated (1/10 of 1% ) CEOs. And what does that barrier do? Discourages people of normal to modest means (99%) from starting companies at all. For those with the temerity to do so, it enables anyone in the 1% or with the backing of the 1% to deal them (the 99%) a fatal blow at will

They impose themselves as non-value producing entities on an industry and then begin siphoning off money from that industry.

They do not add value, they remove value; they do not promote progress, they retard progress. There are so many dollars being thrown off from any given product, and lawyers have conspired to insert themselves into that revenue stream, directly and negatively effecting your bottom line.

This parasitic lifestyle is as good an example of the 1% staging a systematic assault on the 99%.

In fact, The imposition of a software patent regime is as clear cut a case of the 1% consciously organizing to cut off economic opportunity from the 99% as you're going to find outside of a smoke filled room in Texas.

There are about the same percentage of software developers who favor software patents as there are climatologists who don't believe in global warming. 98% of software developers want to write software, create a product, and add value.

Precious few look at the patent troll lifestyle with envy and wish to pursue a career litigating over simple minded applications of middling value.

But for those that do favor software patents, just exactly how do you propose to win at this game?

That the realistic cost of acquiring a software patent starts at 15-30k and goes well north of there.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/

although note that one IP lawyer comments that "In Los Angeles it is not unusual for partners to charge in excess of $600/hour which makes your estimates on the low side."

which is more than you're likely to make from your patent:

The cost of patents is greater than the revenue they generate. âoeAbout 97 percent of patents generate less revenue than the patent costs." Return on patent costs. How much does it cost to patent an invention? (Andy Gibbs, CEO of PatentCafe.com Inc., quoted in Celia Lamb, âoeNew program at Sierra College aims to help would-be Pre Plastics,â Sacramento Business Journal, February 7, 2003)

But never mind that, now that you have spent more than your likely savings on your one single patent, exactly what is it you're thinking about doing with this patent?

Licensing it? Do you think that licensing is automatically negotiated and enforced by the government?

No, you're going to pay a lawyer an hourly rate which is two to ten times what your own hourly rate is to approach, approach and then re-approach company after company none of whom are even slightly sympathetic to your request for a taxation on their profits and will, in fact, do everything they can to resist any kind of licensing deal, including using the tactic of exhausting the rent-seeker's financial ability to pursue rent.

Oh so let them use your "intellectual property" you'll sue! For millions! Well, good luck with that. Because you're sure as hell not going to be doing that on your own unless you're in the 1% or can find some subset of 1% who are sympathetic to your quest to join their ranks via litigation.

The cost to sustain an infringement claim starts at one million US and goes to 5 million and beyond. So unless you're befriended by some part of the 1%, you're not going to be enforcing your "intellectual property rights" anytime soon.

So what do we have, really?

We have a system which has the net effect of imposing an impossibly high barrier- call it a poll tax- upon the most vibrant and valuable form of economic participation our economy has - starting a company.

And who created that barrier?

Highly paid (1%) lawyers working for highly compensated (1/10 of 1% ) CEOs.

And what does that barrier do?

Discourages

The first inventor can be screwed by a first-to-file system. Those with more resources can go from invention to filing faster.

That seems exaggerated. A provisional patent can cost a few thousand dollars or less.
http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/

One concern is translating a useful invention into 'patentese', as well as doing a lot of searching for prior art.

A provisional patent skips a lot of the formalities. This will need to be addressed eventually and a regular patent will need to be filed.

Examiners get credit towards their quotas by saying no.

First action on a case gets 1.25 "counts" a final rejection gets .25 and a disposal gets .5 counts. see http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/uspto%E2%80%99s-new-examiner-count-system-go-into-effect/id=9310/

  An examiner can get 2 counts if they allow it at the beginning but that is exceedingly rare as applicants usually make overly broad claims the first time around to get an idea of what art is out there. If the applicant gets an allowance from the start, then perhaps they did not claim enough and the patent is a weak patent in terms of value/protection.

Another reason that examiner's don't willy nilly allow cases the first time around is that there are multiple layers of review (depending on the art unit), even for primary (more senior examiners who approve their own work). The IP community has been at odds with this as these reviewers may come to a conclusion without ever having had any discussion with the applicant themselves.

One may not be aware that right now you have examiners examining outside their speciality in order to move cases out of overly backlogged areas (COPA). Sure this decreases the wait times, but applicants may recieve rejections that do not have the best possible art out there prolonging the process, leading to higher costs, and potentially worse patents for similiar reasons as those for brand new examiners examining cases with little oversight.

If one wants a better examination system look into the EPO and JPO processes. JPO rejections are super short and to the point, the US ones are not, as they spoon feed the applicant. Alternatively, have the courts and BPAI stringently enforce the broadest possible reasonable interpretation standard to be in line with the specification.

Patents are by definition about protecting ideas.

This patent attorney disagrees with you.

http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/19/riaa-attorney-appointed-to-top-doj-position/id=1594/

Er, ignoring the fact that your cousin wouldn't be protected by patents anyway (as that's copyright), and ignoring the difference in perceived value this isn't the best idea.

Patents aren't copyright, they aren't protecting you (or your cousin) they are harming you, they cost a lot to create and even more to enforce. Example US costs here http://ipwatchdog.com/patent/patent-cost/ but it ranges from $5k to $15k+.

The fun thing about patents is that they harm you, even if you never apply for one. Take your cousin for an example, there's nothing hugely different in what he does compared to a computer programmer, he uses tools to achieve an end, be that programming techniques / product features or the type of hill to put in a painting. The difference between the two is that (currently) you can't patent a type of hill to put in your painting, however you can patent (in certain countries) features in your product.

It doesn't matter if you created those types of hills yourself, or if you looked through a list of hill types people have created before (although in the software patents example - it can triple the damages) if someone else has patented them, then you're not allowed to use it - at least without paying them. Imagine the world your cousin would live in if he had 20 patent infringement suits for a single picture he'd created, that he "put an enormous amount of effort, talent and training into his work" but it turns out people had done it before. His worry wouldn't be some chinese printer ripping him off, no, it would be the american company who has sued him for willful infringement.

But lets say you've spent $15k on your complex patent, and a large company infringes it, how much money do you have to enforce the patent? I mean you've got to take them to court, they probably won't just admit fault and give you the money, that can take years, years of lawyers, costs etc, you could spend millions trying to enforce a patent, and even if you win there's no guarantee of breaking even.

Your fear of anarchy is blinding you to the reality, you're afraid of big companies just stealing ideas - which is what they're already doing! It costs too much to try and take them down, about your only hope is to go to one of their competitors and licence it to them and make them pay to defend it. Which is basically trying to play school yard bullies off against each other - it's stupid, immature and frankly most clearly highlights the issues with the current system. But what is the definition of anarchy? "A state of lawlessness and disorder" - I mean if large company X takes your idea, that's contrary to law, and yet they get away with it because you don't have the financial resources to fight, ergo we're in anarchy and you're blindly defending it.

There are around 7 billion people on this planet, a lot of them have brains, and use them. A lot of them have problems similar to you (and if you look through history you'll see my point - numerous discoveries and inventions happened nigh on simultaneously around the world) and a lot of them find similar solutions. I'm sorry, you're not unique, your thought? You're not the first to have that idea and you definitely won't be the last. Why do you think that you should have ownership of something you came up with if someone else comes up with it without your help?

The most I could agree with is that if you come up with an idea and tell the world immediately, and clearly that you might deserve some recompense, after all you just saved someone time. But patents? Have you ever read a patent? They aren't designed to be clear, they're designed to be vague (yes I have several - and I was disappointed with how an idea could be mutilated) because vague covers more related inventions. Patents are legal tools to bludgeon people/companies, not to protect.

Pay attention, think - you believe it's a valid use of time, so do it! But don't blind yourself to thinking that the status quo is a perfect solution, and

In particular, without knowing how many applications were rejected, we don't know whether the USPTO is approving a higher percentage of applications, or whether they have just increased up their processing rates.

It would also help to know how applicants have been behaving over the last year. Have they been abandoning patent applications with claims that are too difficult to get through? If so, that would have meant that patent examiners have had stronger applications on their desks, and it would make sense that more patents applications would be allowed. 2009 saw an increase in application abandonments (perhaps budgets for intellectual property protection underwent greater scrutiny because of the economic downturn). Were weaker applications abandoned more often than stronger applications? Maybe.

It is worth nothing that the article contained a bit of misinformation in saying that "Because patent examiners were judged on how efficient they were -- meaning how many patents they were able to complete their analysis of in the short amount of time they had. So here's the problem: if you approve a patent, you're done. If you reject a patent, the inventor (well, the lawyers) get an unlimited number of times to change the examiners mind, resubmitting modified applications." This information isn't complete. An examiner receive credit when a patent application is allowed and when a patent application is abandoned. This includes when a patent applicant files a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The amount of credit an examiner receives for multiple RCEs has diminished, but an applicant who continues to make weak arguments could see an application rejected over-and-over again without ever receiving a patent.

Get all those facts, number of examiners, number of applications rejected, etc., and then you might be able to draw some conclusions.

Why base conclusions on facts when it so much more fun to jump to them instead?

Incorrect unless you happen to be a fully qualified and practising patent laywer yourself with lots and lots of free time on your hands.

The European Patent Office estimated in 2005 that the average cost of obtaining a European patent (via a Euro-direct application, i.e. not based on a PCT application) and maintaining the patent for a 10 year term was around 32 000 Euro.

under the US system inventorspot claims that it can cost 10,000 to 15,000 to get to the point where you own a proper patent.
(distinct from just a Provisional Application for Patent which some ads for law firms claim can come in a little under 2,000 though for computer related inventions and software it's more).

For reference:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/patent-cost/

The figure this guy gives is $12,000 to $15,000.

So no.
A small company would most certainly have trouble paying 15 grand for a patent.

Your claim of 500 is pure and unadulterated bullshit.

Let us hope that Monday SCOTUS rules that software patents are void in RE Bilski

If that was going to be the ruling, it would have been out long ago. Here's an interesting article discussing the unusually long time its taken for them to rule, and what that might mean.

A patent attorney says that Computer Software is Not Math. Fuck you, too.

Thx for the clear explanation.

Ipwatchdog's coverage of the oral arguments in the Bilski case (presented November 9, 2009) also provides great insight into these issues.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/#comment-10030

Based on reading this coverage, it seems unlikely that the U. S. Supreme Court will overturn all software patents.

There are a lot of wackos out there who believe all software patents should be invalidated because they are merely ideas. One of the commentors at Ipwatchdog gives a great refutation of this assertion:

"...you clearly do not understand computers and software if you believe they are abstract ideas. . The arguments against software patents have a fundamental flaw. As any electrical engineer knows and software developer should know, solutions to problems implemented in software can also be realized in hardware, i.e., electronic circuits. The main reason for choosing a software solution is the ease in implementing changes, the main reason for choosing a hardware solution is speed of processing. Therefore, a time critical solution is more likely to be implemented in hardware. While a solution that requires the ability to add features easily will be implemented in software. Software is just a method of converting a general purpose electronic circuit (computer) into a application specific electronic circuit. As a result, to be intellectually consistent those people against software patents also have to be against patents for electronic circuits."

The first paragraph of 35 USC 112:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

How can a invention be describe well enough for a PHOSITA to make and use the invention if it has not been reduced to practice, in particular by an inventor who has not or cannot do so?

Further, 35 USC 114:

The Director may require the applicant to furnish a model of convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his invention.

When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the Director may require the applicant to furnish specimens or ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment.

Should some doubt as to the adequacy of the invention's description in the specification surface during the patent pursuit, the USPTO may require practical proof that an invention is useful. Imagine requiring practical proof of Bill Gates patent applications on hurricane prevention. It might require a reliable method of generating hurricanes first in lieu of disproving a negative.

Sorry; we are talking past each other. If something is sufficiently well described as to pass the tests of patentability.. to wit, describing a clear and repeatable "embodiment" of the invention, this is an "invention," not a mere "idea". Simple ideas are a dime a dozen. Describing them in sufficient detail to describe an embodiment (and a workable embodiment at that) constitutes an "invention," and is far more difficult.

Anyway, as per subject:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inventing/patent-ideas/

http://www.patentlawportal.com/information/patentability/can-you-patent-an-idea.html

C//

An article by a U.S. patent attorney says Bilski doesn't really present an obstacle to software patents, if the patent attorney understands software the way a programmer does. The article explains that one of the keys is to "define the process as it is done by a computer." You just can't refer to it as "software." And, you need to "protect software in an indirect manner by protecting the computer itself, and by protecting a computer implemented process." This is why the patent law world needs more former programmers with law degrees.

What is "non-mathematical software"?

Well, I've read a lot of Knuth's stuff and though I don't see quite eye to eye with him, I definitely agree with his views on this. The source of the idea of non-mathematical software seems to come from patent attorney Eugene Quinn:

I have been criticized quite a lot for statements I have made that computer software is not the same as math, and I simply cannot back away from that. Nevertheless, as I have read through comments provided to Groklaw I am not so sure that my critics and I are as far apart on this position as one would belief.

And yes, he goes so far as to cite E. W. Dijkstra's three claims:

• So much for the care needed to keep the arguments manageable: we can summarize it by stating that in programming mathematical elegance is not a dispensable luxury, but a matter of life and death.
• The programmer applies mathematical techniques in an environment with an unprecedented potential for complication; this circumstance makes him methodologically very, very conscious of the steps he takes, the notations he introduces etc.
• Much more than the average mathematician he is explicitly concerned with the effectiveness of this argument, much more than the average mathematician he is consciously concerned with the mathematical elegance of his argument.

And he claims these statements do not invalidate his idea that non-mathematical software should be patentable! Knuth and probably 90% of software developers will argue that Quinn is either ignorant or insane.

And these are the people arguing the case and ensuring software patents stand. Worse yet, Eugene teaches the most popular patent bar review course in the US. Ignorance begets ignorance.

I doubt anyone at the patent office other than a classifier has read this. The backlog for cases is really long at about 2.5-3 years. It's calssified in class 705, the Business Method class, and that has an average backlog of 34-106 months. Maybe when this patent application actually gets looked at in a few years, an examiner can have a good laugh too and hopefully reject. Maybe by then "Business Methods" will become unpatentable, who knows (let's hope).