Slashdot Mirror

THe problem isn't allowing the patent office to grant these kinds of patents, the problem is the people passing these are the same people passing drug and industrial ones.

Bunk! The USPTO examination staff is divided into hundreds of art groups and subgroups. To get to work in one of an art group, an examiner must have specialized training for those classifications of art areas examined by that group.

An index to the extensive USPTO classification system can be found here

While it was not always so (there was a time when USPTO did not have software examiners on staff), the PTO does, and has for some time, had software examiners who pass primarily and virtually exclusively on patent in that art area.

here is the link to the new rules

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/u tilexmguide.pdf

It's now much easier to apply for a trademark. The USPTO web site now has online trademark applications. The process is straightforward, and they accept credit cards. Costs about as much as a year of web hosting.

Still, "Ximian"? Yikes.

I believe that WIPO should change its name to something more descriptive and fitting. For those that missed this:

WIPO PRESS RELEASE - September 11, 2000

The World Intellectual Property Organisation, to improve commercial profitability, are to have a name and Internet site change. Formally WIPO, is now to be known as SWIPO. We can be found at our new site SWIPO.ORG.

We have the full backing of United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO.GOV) and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN.ORG).

We are the first and most excellent of the arbitration services for ICANNs big business friendly process - the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Do not think just because we are part of the United Nations (UN.ORG) that we are even-handed, therefore may rule against you. Being financed by big business - we know where our loyalties lie.

We are to shortly start an advertising campaign to inform of this name change, aimed at the corporate and celebrity world. We will guarantee to them with absolute certainty, that they we will get any domain name they covet - whoever already owns it. Unless owners have more money and power, of course. We can do this because of rationalisation, ridding ourselves of honest panellists in readiness for our Initial Public Offering in January 2001.

Do not use any of the other arbitration services - eResolution etc, even in the past we were the most successful in getting the name you want. We made the rules - we know all the tricks. We are the most powerful, growing daily, and can take whatever you want. Tell us the name; we will do the rest. Example: Paramount approached us a short while back, saying they would quite like CREW.com for their camera crews to use. We thought about it and came up with a winning excuse - Star Trek has the most famous crews of any ship on the planet (or off). We told them to hang on until after a smaller case for the name had gone through. It would be silly to turn down jCREW money.

We will push aside ALL competition, using the quote from Francis Gurry, Advertising and Publicity Executive, "Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best".

We deny all of the libellous slurs being put by our critics. WIPO.org.uk say we do not look after the interests of all trademark holders. It is a malicious lie; we follow a strict set procedure to make sure we do so:

1. We give domain to UDRP appellant, after their cheque clears.
2. We contact each trademark in turn, no matter how obscure or tenuous the link.
3. We offer them arbitration to take domain away from the new owner.

Case in point: After winning them JethroTull.com, told Tull about JT.com, which we just usurped for Japan Tobacco. Tull decided it was wanted; their money is as good as anyone's. We came up a winning argument; they are 'JT' to friends, all families and fans.

Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from our site at SWIPO.ORG.

"Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best"

Semblance of any the above to reality is purely a joke, as is the true state of affairs. All TM acknowledged. This has been written in the spirit of 'free speech' (you may have heard the expression). SWIPO is pointed to WIPO. If you want more of the truth (you be the judge), visit my site wipo.org.uk. You can see the answer to trademark problems there.

Wipo.org.uk and swipo.org have no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization. The above is considered and informed opinion.

If you read the abstract and the rest of the patent, it's clear there is no claim on the gene itself. All that is stated is

A method of detecting cone-photoreceptor-based vision disorders is disclosed. In one embodiment, the method comprises the steps of examining the amino acid sequences of a patient's L or M photopigments and correlating the amino acid combinations associated with vision disorder.

That's all the abstract says, absolutely nothing like patenting human genes. That simply is a poorly written press release by the company. The only thing that is disturbing is that nobody must have questioned that statement and double checked its legitimacy.

One more thing, what can actually be patented. From the FAQ of the patent office, there are several key statements made

Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
Any person whoinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent

This makes clear several things- firstly The Onion article about the patenting of one's and zero's by Microsoft cannot come true, that gravity and genes can't be patented as well, and finally processes such as the infamous one-click shopping system are legitimate (which is of course why some of those got past in the first place). The question lies in whether or not it's a new and original idea.

STATUS UPDATE (31-12-1999):
We are finally in contact with Apple's legal department. However, we'll be unable to comment our discussion until they take an official position regarding the patents. This could take some time so don't expect anything soon.

This page will shortly be updated with more detailed information on the patented "inventions" and what can be done meanwhile.

--> STATUS UPDATE (12-mar-2000):
There are sadly no news on the patent front. However, we have started working on a new auto-hinting module, that will ultimately replace the TrueType bytecode interpreter for those builds that cannot accept the patent issue.

Please go to the FreeType Auto-Hinting Resources Page for more information.

This page is an attempt to sum up various information which recently emerged on the FreeType mailing lists after the discovery that Apple owns several US patents on TrueType. Its purpose is to explain what the patents are, how they can affect us and what can be done.

We are the developers of the FreeType engine, a free and portable TrueType rasterising library. FreeType was written from scratch from the TrueType specification published by Apple and Microsoft, and thus qualifies as a "clean room" implementation of this standard. It is distributed with a BSD-like license, which allows any kind of developers to include it in their products, be they commercial or not.

We recently discovered that Apple owns several patents related to TrueType. A simple advanced search on IBM's Intellectual Property Network website (http://www.patents.ibm.com/advquery) shows that Sampo Kaasila, who were the original TrueType architect at Apple, was granted 5 patents for Apple related to digital font technology. Three of them seem to relate directly to the TrueType specification :

• • Patent #1 : US5155805: Method and apparatus for moving control points in displaying digital typeface on raster output devices

  • Filed on May, 8 1989

• • Patent #2 : US5159668: Method and apparatus for manipulating outlines in improving digital typeface on raster output devices

  • Filed on May, 8 1989 too. Actually, the two patents were filed and granted concurrently.

• • Patent #3 : US5325479: Method and apparatus for moving control points in displaying digital typeface on raster output devices

  • Filed on May 28, 1992 which is the continuation of patent #1. The difference with this patent are extremely subtle, and we fail to see what it covers which isn't in patent #1.

Apparently yes, it affects the bytecode interpreter used to hint TrueType outlines. It also affects any other similar engine that render TrueType fonts per se the specification.

Note that the TrueType specification used to write FreeType doesn't mention any patent, nor any pending patents. We used the "TrueType Font Format Specification" document, version 1.0, published in 1990 and available from Apple under the reference "ADPA M0825LL/A". None of the successive releases of this paper document, be they in paper or electronic forms mentioned them either. (And yes, we're speaking of the documents produced by both Apple and Microsoft).

It's hard to tell, as this depends mostly on Apple's response to the situation. We can imagine having to modify some parts of the code in order to not use the patented "invention". Depending on the patents' peculiarities, this may come at the price of inferior rendered quality, if we're unable to find an alternate algorithm producing the same results.

Another deep question is to know what to do about the currently released versions of FreeType (from 1.0 to 1.3.1). Because of its huge success, FreeType has been succesfully used in a great variety of products like graphics libraries, font servers, printers, web browser plugins, server-side web plugins and more... It is also heavily distributed through the Internet, and the library comes on the latest RedHat and Caldera CDs for example.

We do not reference all the projects that use our library, simply because there are too much and too changing. Many of them are open source and freely distributed, updated and integrated into other products. Clearly, a patent violation would have more than hairy consequences.

Strictly speaking, when a patent is granted, it permits its owner to excludemembers of the public (those members can be real people or simply companies) from making, using or selling the claimed invention.

Note that a common misconception is that the patent gives its owner the right the make, use or sell its invention. It only gives the owner the ability to exclude others, though he may himself/herself be forbidden from using the invention due to the existence of another patent or other legal restrictions. For example, person A is allowed to patent an improvement over an invention patented by person B. In order to use his/her invention, person A will need the permission from person B. If person C wants to use the improved invention, he/she will need permission from both person A and B !

In practice, a patent owner usually sells limited rights to the invention to customers who want to use its invention. The amount of "permission", i.e. the licensing fees determined by the vendor and customer and can vary enormously. However, nothing prevents a patent owner from excluding any use of its invention, wathever the amount of money proposed by the customer.

On the other hand, patents cover implementations, and not ideas. If someone comes with a different "apparatus" that produces the same results than a patented invention, he/she shall not fall under the patent protection and ask for "permission".

Patents were introduce to encourage inventors to publish their work, in exchange of increased intellectual property protection. A US patent runs for 20 years from the date it is filed to the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). A US Patent only applies to making, using and selling the invention in the US .

Finally, here is an extract from the US PTO brochure on patentability :

• In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: ?(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,? or ?(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .?

  If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it has been in public use or on sale in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost.

  Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one material for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

Note that the second paragraph makes it hard to understand why patent #3 was granted, given that the TrueType specification was fully published by Apple in 1990, two years before the patent was filed.

In the US, software patents are considered as normal patents. Moreover, it is possible, through careful use of legal language in the patent application, to patent software algorithms. This is well known from the infamous LZW compression algorithm used for the GIF graphics file format. Another case is the RSA algorithm for prime computations used in many security products.

In Europe, software and algorithms _cannot_ be patented, which means that a european developer is free to develop, use, distribute and market in Europe any software he/she wants, even if it uses algorithms patented under US laws. However, the US patent will apply as soon as he/she wants to distribute, sell or use its software in the US. Moreover, any other person who wants to use, distribute or sell its software in the US will fall under the patent "protection". It is clear that a US patent is also much an issue for any european developer.

The same applies to other countries where the US patent doesn't apply, and where the invention wasn't protected under the local patent office administration, when there is one.

Note that some countries have some aggreements with the US that make any US patent localy effective. Details of such countries are welcomed for updates on this page

FreePatents.org

IBM's Intellectual Property Network

US Patent and Trademark Office Brochure on Patents

Actually, the greatest dangers, in order of dangerosity are:

1. Caffeine induced heart attacks.
2. Declines in geek birthrates due to cheap, industrial grade porn and radiation from cheap laptops.
3. Ziff-Davis
4. Crack-addict Tickle Me Elmo(tm)
5. The USPTO.

Even more Ebay patents...

1 6,167,386 Method for conducting an on-line bidding session with bid pooling
2 6,073,117 Mutual credit server apparatus and a distributed mutual credit system
3 6,058,417 Information presentation and management in an online trading environment
4 6,058,379 Real-time network exchange with seller specified exchange parameters and interactive seller participation
5 6,044,363 Automatic auction method
6 6,012,045 Computer-based electronic bid, auction and sale system, and a system to teach new/non-registered customers how bidding, auction purchasing works

You can find them here.

Got this from the United States Patent and Trademark Office

cheers
mike

Abstract: A method and apparatus for information presentation and management in an online trading environment are provided. According to one aspect of the present invention, person-to-person commerce over the Internet is facilitated by providing prospective buyers the ability to quickly preview items for sale. Images are harvested from a plurality of sites based upon user-supplied information. The user-supplied information includes descriptions of items for sale and locations from which images that are to be associated with the items can be retrieved. Thumbnail images are created corresponding to the harvested images and are aggregated onto a web page for presentation at a remote site. According to another aspect of the present invention, a user may submit a query to preview items for sale. After receiving the query, thumbnail images corresponding to items that satisfy the user query are displayed, each of the thumbnail images previously having been created based upon a user-specified image.

So, it sounds like it's specific to online auctions, so although this isn't any less stupid than it originally sounds, I wouldn't start to worry about your online gallery of cat photos too quickly.

I'm not sure if they're finished or not, but why isn't it helping us? THESE BASTARDS let them have a patent on the DNA that is in every single one of your cells (well, half in gametes, none in red blood cells..), so if I wanted to make a genetic therapy to say, fix colorblindedness, I would have to pay one of the Human Genome project's sponsors.

English(TM) is a registered trademark of Microdata Corporation. Please avoid using it outside proper context.

Maybe that is not true, even if someone said it. Go search the Trademark database for Mickey Mouse.

They are doing the legally required trademark protection so as not to lose it.

Maybe no one but me read through the entire article. There is this link on page three. According to the USPTO, Fandom.com's claim on the word Fandom as a trademark is "Abandoned: Applicant failed to respond to an Office action." It's a bit late now for them to be whining about it, don't you think?

2000-06-19 - Abandonment - Failure to respond
1999-10-29 - Non-final action mailed - 1st action
1999-10-15 - Case file assigned to examining attorney

ISTM that they they are crying foul (where a foul is said to be a breaking of the rules) when apparently they didn't want to play by those same rules themselves before now.

The Fandom.com web site (http://www.fandom.com)

Fandom.com's dead trademark on Fandom Note:Dead May 01, 2000

Fandom.TV's Trademark Status Note:Application Oct 31, 2000

Fandom.com's suprisingly new trademark on Fandom Note:Application Nov 14, 2000

Most interestingly though from Merriam-Webster the word

FANDOMMain Entry: fandom Pronunciation: 'fan-d&m Function: noun Date: 1903 : all the fans (as of a sport)

The word is in the dictionary and it appeared around 1903, why is this word even allowed to be trademarked???!!!

The Fandom.com web site (http://www.fandom.com)

Fandom.com's dead trademark on Fandom Note:Dead May 01, 2000

Fandom.TV's Trademark Status Note:Application Oct 31, 2000

Fandom.com's suprisingly new trademark on Fandom Note:Application Nov 14, 2000

Most interestingly though from Merriam-Webster the word

FANDOMMain Entry: fandom Pronunciation: 'fan-d&m Function: noun Date: 1903 : all the fans (as of a sport)

The word is in the dictionary and it appeared around 1903, why is this word even allowed to be trademarked???!!!

The Fandom.com web site (http://www.fandom.com)

Fandom.com's dead trademark on Fandom Note:Dead May 01, 2000

Fandom.TV's Trademark Status Note:Application Oct 31, 2000

Fandom.com's suprisingly new trademark on Fandom Note:Application Nov 14, 2000

Most interestingly though from Merriam-Webster the word

FANDOMMain Entry: fandom Pronunciation: 'fan-d&m Function: noun Date: 1903 : all the fans (as of a sport)

The word is in the dictionary and it appeared around 1903, why is this word even allowed to be trademarked???!!!

This is actually a misconception. "Microsoft" is a trade name, not a trademark (because it doesn't identify any specific physical commodity). Under U.S. law, trade names are not registerable.

Of course, Microsoft's lawyers would financially drain anybody who was foolish enough to think they could actually fight this and win. So it's just an academic exercise in the end.

For example, Apple has completely re-written Display Postscript and created Quartz to be Adobe-free(to avoid paying licencing fees) for Mac OS X. No patent infringement there. Furthermore, there have been third-party GPL'd Postscript interpreters for years; maybe a decade at this point. The other file format examples that you provide are equally impossible.

Sun doesn't have anything to do with JavaScript; you'd think that /.ers could figure that out after 5 years. Nothing in Java is patentable (it's a language and a spec for a class library), so submarine patents are unlikely. There are multiple sources for JVMs (both Sun and IBM make JVMs for Win32 and Linux), so if Sun starts to charge, people will stop using it.

HP charging for it's printer drivers (apart from the cost of the printer) is crazy. What would you do with a printer without a printer driver?

/. charging is, I would bet, quite likely within 5 years. As VC money dries up, companies are going to need to find some other way to pay for providing content (and such).

- subsolar

For example, Apple has completely re-written Display Postscript and created Quartz to be Adobe-free(to avoid paying licencing fees) for Mac OS X. No patent infringement there. Furthermore, there have been third-party GPL'd Postscript interpreters for years; maybe a decade at this point. The other file format examples that you provide are equally impossible.

Sun doesn't have anything to do with JavaScript; you'd think that /.ers could figure that out after 5 years. Nothing in Java is patentable (it's a language and a spec for a class library), so submarine patents are unlikely. There are multiple sources for JVMs (both Sun and IBM make JVMs for Win32 and Linux), so if Sun starts to charge, people will stop using it.

HP charging for it's printer drivers (apart from the cost of the printer) is crazy. What would you do with a printer without a printer driver?

/. charging is, I would bet, quite likely within 5 years. As VC money dries up, companies are going to need to find some other way to pay for providing content (and such).

- subsolar

For example, Apple has completely re-written Display Postscript and created Quartz to be Adobe-free(to avoid paying licencing fees) for Mac OS X. No patent infringement there. Furthermore, there have been third-party GPL'd Postscript interpreters for years; maybe a decade at this point. The other file format examples that you provide are equally impossible.

Sun doesn't have anything to do with JavaScript; you'd think that /.ers could figure that out after 5 years. Nothing in Java is patentable (it's a language and a spec for a class library), so submarine patents are unlikely. There are multiple sources for JVMs (both Sun and IBM make JVMs for Win32 and Linux), so if Sun starts to charge, people will stop using it.

HP charging for it's printer drivers (apart from the cost of the printer) is crazy. What would you do with a printer without a printer driver?

/. charging is, I would bet, quite likely within 5 years. As VC money dries up, companies are going to need to find some other way to pay for providing content (and such).

- subsolar

I've never seen a useful or user-friendly DMV, State Employment Division or almost any other governemnt owned website. In fact, it seems like most government sites are specifically designed to be as confusing and useless as possible by junior high school students with the specific intent to sink beneath mediocrity.
---
seumas.com

-- flossie
http telnet

Linux is a REGISTERED TRADEMARK. That is a word, now go ahead and use linux in a commercial application with out Linus Torvalds consent and see how far you get.

Sure, it isn't a problem as long as you use it in an application which isn't an operating system, such as, say, Linux Fire Extinguishers, or VA Linux Systems.

Again, having a trademark does NOT give you a monopoly over a word. The way trademarks got perverted was that people just started submitting what the USPTO calls "Typed Drawings" of words as the trademark being applied for. This was never intended to happen when the Trademark system was conceived. You can find the Linux trademark information here

In a way it does give you monopoly over a word.. It seems you really have no clue what you are talking about...

The only monopoly you get is in the scope of your product. In the case of Guinness no one else can make a beer and call it Guinness, but the Guinness Book of World Records is fine. In the case of Linux no one can make another operating system called Linux, but VA Linux Systems is fine.

Trademarks shouldn't have transversed to domain names, that is just wrong, and even if they have, this case is baseless and the domain names shouldn't have been taken away for several reasons:

1. He was not selling a product
2. There is no chance for confusion by a "reasonable person"

Either one of those is sufficient. I hope you finally understand trademarks now.

-- iCEBaLM

I'm not sure on the definition of `printed publication' (must it be `wide-spread' or `public'?), but there are time-limits on patent applications. They also need to update those rules (or at least that web page), as `printed publication' would not, as I read it (IANAL), include web pages or e-mail.

Abstract: System for making the web entertaining involving a large plastic tube, a small metal tube, a good amount of a common domestic plant, and a disposable lighter.

1. The user crumbles the plant flowers [aka buds] between thumb and forefinger, releasing unnecessary seeds and stems from the plant.
2. The user places the "de-seeded" (see #1) plant inside the end of the small metal tube.
3. The user places the large plastic tube in his/her mouth, applying suction pressure on the inside of the tube, while lighting the disposable lighter over the top of the small metal tube. At this point, the big plastic tube should begin to fill with smoke.
4. The user removes the small metal tube from its resting place in the large plastic tube, and increases suction pressure until all smoke is cleared from the big plastic tube.
5. The user exhales.
6. The user repeats steps 1-5 until no longer conscious.
7. The user then visits www.uspto.gov for a good laugh.

(I'm sure to get this one, as the USPTO has obviously never heard of it. Unconvinced? Download this file, unzip it, and skip to the description at the very end. (Warning: the file is approximately 2 megs.))

--

One Click Patent(TM)
A method and system for submitting a patent to the USPTO via the Internet. The patent is submitted by the submitter at a client system and received by a server system. The server system receives the patent submission information including the identification of the submitter from the client system. The server system then assigns a client identifier to the client system and associates the assigned client identifier with the received submitter information. The server system sends to the client system the assigned client identifier and an HTML document identifying the patent submission and including the submit patent button. The client system receives and stores the assigned client identifier and receives and displays the HTML document. In repsonse to the selection of the submit patent button, the client system sends to the server system a request to submit the patent. The server system receives the request and combines the patent submitter information associated with the client identifier of the client system to submit the patent submission whereby the patent submitter effects the submitting of the patent by the selection of the submit patent button.

Inventor: theFerret (Aurora, CO)
Assignee: theFerret Consulting (Aurora, CO)
Filed: 10 October 2000

Todd Dickinson was appointed by President Clinton as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 29, 2000. Dickinson had served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks since November 10, 1999, as Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks since January 1, 1999, and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Deputy Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks since June 18, 1998.

In addition to managing the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) operations, Dickinson serves as principal policy advisor to the Clinton Administration and Congress on all domestic and international intellectual property matters. He also serves as co-chair of the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council, which coordinates domestic and international intellectual property enforcement issues.

Under Dickinson's leadership, the USPTO is implementing the most sweeping reform in patent law in a half-century and is restructuring itself into a performance-based organization. Other initiatives he has undertaken include making more than two million patents and all registered trademarks and applications freely available on the Internet; implementation of the electronic filing of trademark and patent applications; creation of the Office of Independent Inventor Programs; and the establishment of the Office of Quality Management.

Previously with the Philadelphia-based law firm of Dechert, Price and Rhoads and having served as Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property and Technology at Sun Company, Inc., Dickinson has more than twenty years of experience in the private sector representing a wide-range of clients, from individual inventors to major corporations, on intellectual property protection matters.

A native of Pennsylvania, Director Dickinson earned a B.S. degree in Chemistry from Allegheny College in 1974 and a J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1977. He is a member of the bars of Pennsylvania, California and Illinois.

On Tuesday, October 10th, 2000, Mr Dickinson was patented by KPGServices. Unfortunately, Mr Dickenson, we now own you.

(All puns intended)

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com /ad min/

Okay, besides checking if the patent is legal, shouldn't they also check if it infringes on sombody else's patent?

They do roughly dick.

On their patents page they have some cute information. If you follow a couple links you can get to the patents FAQ which doesn't really say a damn thing about what they do.

Anyway, I poked around a little more, and found this very small (two paragraph) document entitled "Functions of the Patent and Trademark Office" which is more helpful. It relates the following:

In discharging its patent related duties, the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications and grants patents on inventions when applicants are entitled to them; it publishes and disseminates patent information, records assignments of patents, maintains search files of U.S. and foreign patents, and maintains a search room for public use in examining issued patents and records. It supplies copies of patents and official records to the public. Similar functions are performed relating to trademarks.

Also informative is the document on "What Can Be Patented", "Novelty and Other Conditions For Obtaining a Patent", and most important if you want to bitch out the patent office, "General Information and Correspondence".

So basically, all the patent office does is it decides who gets patents, keeps a room around for you to search for patents in, presumably filled with sheets of paper upon which patents are printed, and perhaps some sort of limited government-grade (IE, crappy) database which you can (sort of) search. They'll also photocopy their documents for you (for a fee, probably an excessive one) and then it does all this stuff for trademarks, as well.

Okay, besides checking if the patent is legal, shouldn't they also check if it infringes on sombody else's patent?

They do roughly dick.

On their patents page they have some cute information. If you follow a couple links you can get to the patents FAQ which doesn't really say a damn thing about what they do.

Anyway, I poked around a little more, and found this very small (two paragraph) document entitled "Functions of the Patent and Trademark Office" which is more helpful. It relates the following:

In discharging its patent related duties, the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications and grants patents on inventions when applicants are entitled to them; it publishes and disseminates patent information, records assignments of patents, maintains search files of U.S. and foreign patents, and maintains a search room for public use in examining issued patents and records. It supplies copies of patents and official records to the public. Similar functions are performed relating to trademarks.

Also informative is the document on "What Can Be Patented", "Novelty and Other Conditions For Obtaining a Patent", and most important if you want to bitch out the patent office, "General Information and Correspondence".

So basically, all the patent office does is it decides who gets patents, keeps a room around for you to search for patents in, presumably filled with sheets of paper upon which patents are printed, and perhaps some sort of limited government-grade (IE, crappy) database which you can (sort of) search. They'll also photocopy their documents for you (for a fee, probably an excessive one) and then it does all this stuff for trademarks, as well.

Okay, besides checking if the patent is legal, shouldn't they also check if it infringes on sombody else's patent?

They do roughly dick.

On their patents page they have some cute information. If you follow a couple links you can get to the patents FAQ which doesn't really say a damn thing about what they do.

Anyway, I poked around a little more, and found this very small (two paragraph) document entitled "Functions of the Patent and Trademark Office" which is more helpful. It relates the following:

In discharging its patent related duties, the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications and grants patents on inventions when applicants are entitled to them; it publishes and disseminates patent information, records assignments of patents, maintains search files of U.S. and foreign patents, and maintains a search room for public use in examining issued patents and records. It supplies copies of patents and official records to the public. Similar functions are performed relating to trademarks.

Also informative is the document on "What Can Be Patented", "Novelty and Other Conditions For Obtaining a Patent", and most important if you want to bitch out the patent office, "General Information and Correspondence".

So basically, all the patent office does is it decides who gets patents, keeps a room around for you to search for patents in, presumably filled with sheets of paper upon which patents are printed, and perhaps some sort of limited government-grade (IE, crappy) database which you can (sort of) search. They'll also photocopy their documents for you (for a fee, probably an excessive one) and then it does all this stuff for trademarks, as well.

Okay, besides checking if the patent is legal, shouldn't they also check if it infringes on sombody else's patent?

They do roughly dick.

On their patents page they have some cute information. If you follow a couple links you can get to the patents FAQ which doesn't really say a damn thing about what they do.

Anyway, I poked around a little more, and found this very small (two paragraph) document entitled "Functions of the Patent and Trademark Office" which is more helpful. It relates the following:

In discharging its patent related duties, the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications and grants patents on inventions when applicants are entitled to them; it publishes and disseminates patent information, records assignments of patents, maintains search files of U.S. and foreign patents, and maintains a search room for public use in examining issued patents and records. It supplies copies of patents and official records to the public. Similar functions are performed relating to trademarks.

Also informative is the document on "What Can Be Patented", "Novelty and Other Conditions For Obtaining a Patent", and most important if you want to bitch out the patent office, "General Information and Correspondence".

So basically, all the patent office does is it decides who gets patents, keeps a room around for you to search for patents in, presumably filled with sheets of paper upon which patents are printed, and perhaps some sort of limited government-grade (IE, crappy) database which you can (sort of) search. They'll also photocopy their documents for you (for a fee, probably an excessive one) and then it does all this stuff for trademarks, as well.

Okay, besides checking if the patent is legal, shouldn't they also check if it infringes on sombody else's patent?

They do roughly dick.

On their patents page they have some cute information. If you follow a couple links you can get to the patents FAQ which doesn't really say a damn thing about what they do.

Anyway, I poked around a little more, and found this very small (two paragraph) document entitled "Functions of the Patent and Trademark Office" which is more helpful. It relates the following:

In discharging its patent related duties, the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications and grants patents on inventions when applicants are entitled to them; it publishes and disseminates patent information, records assignments of patents, maintains search files of U.S. and foreign patents, and maintains a search room for public use in examining issued patents and records. It supplies copies of patents and official records to the public. Similar functions are performed relating to trademarks.

Also informative is the document on "What Can Be Patented", "Novelty and Other Conditions For Obtaining a Patent", and most important if you want to bitch out the patent office, "General Information and Correspondence".

So basically, all the patent office does is it decides who gets patents, keeps a room around for you to search for patents in, presumably filled with sheets of paper upon which patents are printed, and perhaps some sort of limited government-grade (IE, crappy) database which you can (sort of) search. They'll also photocopy their documents for you (for a fee, probably an excessive one) and then it does all this stuff for trademarks, as well.

Okay, besides checking if the patent is legal, shouldn't they also check if it infringes on sombody else's patent?

They do roughly dick.

On their patents page they have some cute information. If you follow a couple links you can get to the patents FAQ which doesn't really say a damn thing about what they do.

Anyway, I poked around a little more, and found this very small (two paragraph) document entitled "Functions of the Patent and Trademark Office" which is more helpful. It relates the following:

In discharging its patent related duties, the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications and grants patents on inventions when applicants are entitled to them; it publishes and disseminates patent information, records assignments of patents, maintains search files of U.S. and foreign patents, and maintains a search room for public use in examining issued patents and records. It supplies copies of patents and official records to the public. Similar functions are performed relating to trademarks.

Also informative is the document on "What Can Be Patented", "Novelty and Other Conditions For Obtaining a Patent", and most important if you want to bitch out the patent office, "General Information and Correspondence".

So basically, all the patent office does is it decides who gets patents, keeps a room around for you to search for patents in, presumably filled with sheets of paper upon which patents are printed, and perhaps some sort of limited government-grade (IE, crappy) database which you can (sort of) search. They'll also photocopy their documents for you (for a fee, probably an excessive one) and then it does all this stuff for trademarks, as well.

--

Found it. Search for "group publishing system". Here's the link. US Patent #6,088,702.

"Following publication, submission of a limited number of printed patents or publications [as prior art] is proposed for a two-month period."

Implementing the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999 (Page 6, third paragraph)

eMedicine: 0 occurrences in 0 patents.

You can find it by going to the USPTO search by patent number, selecting patent number search and entering 5,443,036.

As I was rummaging around the patent database, I couldn't help but repeatedly soil my pants as I beheld the depths of Amazon's patent depravity.

As I continued rummaging, I realized that software patents are taking around 1.4 years to clear during which time only the applicant and the PTO have awareness of the claim. Is it just me or would disclosing the details of patents before they're granted revoluti*nize the discovery process for prior art?

By disclosing pending patents, they could immediately offload the tedium to those organizations most desperate (and knowledgable) to stop ill-bred patents... those same organizations would be beaten into licensing submission by legal henchmen weilding ill-gotten patents on loan from the PTO.

Yeah, it would be much harder to get a patent when your competition is digging up examples of why your idea is non-obvious. But isn't that the whole point?

Stack the deck with a bunch of anti-patent software engineers, and plug all the holes from the inside.

You know you want to use the "Denied" stamp on anything requesting a software patent.

- daniel

The public has access to issued patent applications and the file associated with the interference (the pleadings, judgement and such) if the interference involves at least one issued patent once the interference is over . Note that interferences are neither short nor fast. Access to pending patent applications involved in the interference is still restricted.

Transalation: Unless Digital Island releases their patent application publically somehow (or the application issues as a patent), there will be no public access to it. At some point the interference proceedings may make it out to the public however since Akami's patent has issued.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Seek competent legal advice. I don't represent you. The opinions herein are my own and not those of my employer or anyone else.

Your former company, because they have a proprietary interest in the invention, can then just file the application anyhow. They need to add some things to the application outlining why the inventor will not sign the oath. See MPEP 409.03(b), 409.03(d).

As another poster pointed out, not having the inventor on board makes it very difficult to assert a patent in litigation. When an inventor testifies for an accused infringer....watch out. There is a much higher chance that the accused infringer will be able to get the patent invalidated. However, if all your former company wants is a nice looking piece of paper to show investors, they should be happy to just name you as the inventor and go on with the application.

As a non-signing inventor, you have rights. See MPEP 409.03(i).

For those of you not familiar with patent prosecution, the "MPEP" is the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, available online.

I am not familiar with the "new regulations" that open all patent applications 18 months after filing. My understanding, per 37 CFR 1.14, is that applications are generally preserved in confidence.

Also, " The specification must include a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. " So it's up to someone skilled in the technology to make the proper specification.

As the claims are the last part of the specification, they are required to be in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms".

So if the Oath applies to the specification, you are required to make a truthful specification and claims. If the lawyer doesn't like your truth, let the former employer send you to the proper school at his expense to educate you to the part of the truth which you are missing. It's up to you to make truthful statements.

Also, " The specification must include a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. " So it's up to someone skilled in the technology to make the proper specification.

As the claims are the last part of the specification, they are required to be in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms".

So if the Oath applies to the specification, you are required to make a truthful specification and claims. If the lawyer doesn't like your truth, let the former employer send you to the proper school at his expense to educate you to the part of the truth which you are missing. It's up to you to make truthful statements.

It states you must take an oath that you believe to be the first inventor of the subject matter.

I don't think quitting would get you out of trouble, most IP contracts I've seen have a "as long as you live" type of deal when it comes to trying to obtain/defend patents etc... However, I also think the contract would become void or there is usually some clause in the contract saying that they can't force you to do something illegal. (which IMO this is).

Even more troubling, would be for you to sign the document and have the USPTO come after you with your Ask Slashdot post in hand to take you to jail or something.

Of course, IANAL and so and and so forth...

Also from USPTO.GOV
Searching 1976-2000...


Results of Search in 1976-2000 db for:
cuecat: 0 patents.

No patents have matched your query

Well would you look at that!

Searching the USPTO.GOV Site I have found the following information. Perhaps this can spread more fuel on the burning cat?

Trademarks:

1. Word Mark CUE CAT
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: COMPUTER SOFTWARE, HARDWARE AND PERIPHERALS, INCLUDING - HAND HELD INPUT DEVICES, BAR CODE READERS AND SCANNERS, INCLUDING - HAND HELD INPUT DEVICES FOR ALLOWING INPUT OF INFORMATION TO A COMPUTER; BAR CODE READER FOR ALLOWING INPUT OF INFORMATION TO A COMPUTER AND RELATED APPLICATIONS; SCANNER FOR READING CODED IMAGES ON AN ASSOCIATED PICKUP FOR RECEIVING CODED AUDIO FOR CONTROLLING A COMPUTER REMOTELY TO CONNECT TO THE GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK; SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE FOR INTERFACING BETWEEN A GLOBAL COMMUNICATION NETWORK AND RADIO, TELEVISION AND PRINT MEDIA
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 76020649
Filing Date April 7, 2000
Files ITU FILED AS ITU
Owner (APPLICANT) DigitalConvergence.com, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 9101 N. Central Expwy., 6th Floor Dallas TEXAS 75231
Attorney of Record Lawrence E. Abelman Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney

2. Word Mark :CUE:CAT
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: COMPUTER SOFTWARE, HARDWARE AND PERIPHERALS, INCLUDING - HAND HELD INPUT DEVICES, BAR CODE READERS AND SCANNERS, INCLUDING - HAND HELD INPUT DEVICES FOR ALLOWING INPUT OF INFORMATION TO A COMPUTER; BAR CODE READER FOR ALLOWING INPUT OF INFORMATION TO A COMPUTER AND RELATED APPLICATIONS; SCANNER FOR READING CODED IMAGES ON AN ASSOCIATED PICKUP FOR RECEIVING CODED AUDIO FOR CONTROLLING A COMPUTER REMOTELY TO CONNECT TO THE GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK; SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE FOR INTERFACING BETWEEN A GLOBAL COMMUNICATION NETWORK AND RADIO, TELEVISION AND PRINT MEDIA
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 76020648
Filing Date April 7, 2000
Files ITU FILED AS ITU
Owner (APPLICANT) DigitalConvergence.com, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 9101 N. Central Expwy., 6th Floor Dallas TEXAS 75231
Attorney of Record Lawrence E. Abelman
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.

3. Word Mark :CUECAT
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Hand-held optical reader apparatus that reads machine readable codes on magazines newspapers, and other publications and products, for converting the machine readable codes to specific instructions to interface with a computer program for the purpose of, in combination with the computer program, connecting a user's computer to a web site on the global computer network
Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Design Search Code 030104 241714 261709
Serial Number 76094794
Filing Date July 24, 2000
Files ITU FILED AS ITU
Owner (APPLICANT) DigitalConvergence.:Com Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 9101 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600 Dallas TEXAS 75231
Attorney of Record Sharon McClinton
Description of Mark The mark is described as: The colon and first "C: are colored for red, and the following letters are in stylized form with the second C being part of a design.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.


Also wanted to point out that barcode produced 254 records so I don't think the invented that. Actually this dude invented the bar code!.
I will also run a patent search tommorow at work!

If you wish to check out the patent, you can find it here. They make reference to another application filed at the same time, but I can't seem to find it online.