Slashdot Mirror

Let me add something - The way the patent office works, Patent examiners get one "point" for opening the patent file, and one more "point" when the file closes. Sometimes, an applicant just keeps resubmitting the application until the examiner gives up to make them go away.

I guess the point sytem is the government's way of keeping track of how much "work" their employees are doing.

My understanding is also that patent examiners can't even do Boolean searhing on their own patent database. This has to make things much harder when trying to find prior art analagous to the patent they are examining.

The patent system is horribly screwed up, visit PubPat to find out more about what you can do to help.

Anyone notice that the EFF announced that they were going to be challenging bogus patents 2 days after PubPat announced that they had submitted a request to have Microsoft's FAT patent re-examined?

Help the organizations that are fighting them Pubpat Electronic Frontier Foundation

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

who are working to make our patent system a bit more fair and help with reducing the current abuses we are seeing. Pubpat Electronic Frontier Foundation

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Why don't we create an industry funded board whose job is to make sure that silly software patents are no longer awarded

I asked the same question a few days ago on another /. story about patents, and was referred to PubPat...

If only people knew more about these things, and cared about them. As a developer, I despise the fact that the obvious things that I may design/develop to assist my fellow man in using my software have become 'owned' by someone else in order that they may profit.

Patents suck. Period.

straightened out! EFF = Electronic Freedom Foundation and Pubpat = the Public Patent Foundation. They are just getting started at working toward getting this patent mess brought under closer scrutiny. Somebody has to do it.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Like The ublic Patent Foundation you mean?

I'm starting monday as a summer associate at the Public Patent Foundation. Looks like I know what I'll be doing my summer research on.

These improper patents have to be fought by someone. See PubPat and, if you agree with what they are doing, make a contribution. The Electronic Freedom Foundation is doing some of this worthwhile work, too.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

The plan should be:

1) Like you said, F/OSS organizations should file for their own patents that are freely available for all to use. I am unsure how this will be sponsored though since filing for a patent is nontrivially expensive.

2) Support PubPat in looking for prior art for the worse offending patents against free / open source software, and other patents that are harmful to society. A story from Groklaw about PubPat.

3) Try to get patent reform done including disallowing software patents, and have more patent examiners hired with actual experience so they can sniff out bogus claims.

Excellent point you made: We need to look at the big picture of these companies using patents to stifle P2P progress.

The Public Patent Foundation and the EFF (Patent) are starting campaigns (Story here) to invalidate bogus patents like the one here, #5,978,791 , you mentioned. Time to donate your money to these organizations (or your time with letters, and email to inform the public if you cannot afford it) to curb corporate threats to technological innovation.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 15, 2004

PUBPAT challenges microsoft patent to protect competition in software markets: Patent Office Shown New Evidence Proving FAT Technology was Obvious

NEW YORK -- The Public Patent Foundation filed a formal request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office today to revoke Microsoft Corporation's patent on the FAT File System, touted by Microsoft as being "the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices." In its filing, PUBPAT submitted previously unseen prior art showing the patent, which issued in November 1996 and is not otherwise due to expire until 2013, was obvious and, as such, should have never been granted.

"Microsoft is using its control over the interchange of digital media to aid its ongoing effort to deter competition," states PUBPAT's Request for ExPartes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517. "The '517 patent is causing immeasurable injury to the public by serving as a tool to enlarge Microsoft's monopoly while also preventing competition."

Last fall, Microsoft began to demand royalty bearing licenses for the entire portfolio of patents around the FAT File System. However, the fact that Microsoft has not offered licenses for use in Free and Open Source Software has led some to speculate that Microsoft intends to use its patents to fight the competitive threat posed by Free Software.

"We'd like to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are not adopting a strategy of foreclosing competition through the use of dubious patents," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director and Founder. "Unfortunately, their past anticompetitive behavior combined with their recent launch of a comprehensive patent assertion campaign causes us to have serious concerns about their intentions."

Although PUBPAT's filing only directly deals with one patent, the fact that it is the oldest of the patents in the FAT File System portfolio makes it more likely that, once it is held invalid by the Patent Office, each of the other patents will be viewed similarly.

"In the end, our beef is not with Microsoft per se," says Ravicher. "It's with our broken patent system that is completely failing to ensure only deserving patents get issued."

The Request for Reexamination can be found at PUBPAT Activities > Protecting the Public Domain.

Contact:

Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director, Public Patent Foundation: 212-545-5337;
info@pubpat.org; www.pubpat.org.

About PUBPAT:

The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal services organization working to protect the public from the harms caused by the patent system. PUBPAT provides the general public, particularly those persons or businesses otherwise deprived of access to the system governing patents, with representation, advocacy, and education. To be kept informed of PUBPAT News, subscribe to the PUBPAT News List by sending an email with "subscribe" in the subject line to news-request@pubpat.org.

I just gave them the $72.38 I had sitting in my PayPal account. Stupid software patents have cost me a lot more than that in time reading Slashdot articles alone. Give till it hurts.

The "Online" link on this page will take you straight to PayPal.

Don't forget to donate!

It's now being challenged by PUBPAT.