Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps the Patent & Trade Office comittee / reviewers treat "prior art" from different contexts (i.e. public road industry, vs. "hyped up" internet "information highway" -- hackneyed terms used to promote thought as to how they [the P&T Office] may think?) I would find this hard to imagine, as both are really the same thing, except "order processing system" is farther from you during the time of sale... Perhaps they actually make this distinction since patents are not supposed to be abstract?? I wonder if the people granting these patents actually think they are doing a service to the public. Perhaps we have not let them know and they are going on the feel of how the public views the internet (something new, cool, cutting edge, ... leads them to think helping companies out with patents with further the economy and/or their favor with the people)??

Lets exercise our right (and duty!) as citizens and write not only to our Congressmen but to the people at the P&T Office. In fact, they have a public affairs office -- the phone number they give is (703) 305-8341 They also give a general info line number at 1-800-PTO-9199. Perhaps we should call and give them some intelligent and well thought out reasons and proof as to why these broader patents are severly harming the industry (granted that the judges enforce them... thank goodness for seperation of powers!). I would also try their more specific departments related to our technology at this office as well as this office. Like that posting about the political power of us geeks -- lets flex some politcal muscle!

--Kevin

Perhaps the Patent & Trade Office comittee / reviewers treat "prior art" from different contexts (i.e. public road industry, vs. "hyped up" internet "information highway" -- hackneyed terms used to promote thought as to how they [the P&T Office] may think?) I would find this hard to imagine, as both are really the same thing, except "order processing system" is farther from you during the time of sale... Perhaps they actually make this distinction since patents are not supposed to be abstract?? I wonder if the people granting these patents actually think they are doing a service to the public. Perhaps we have not let them know and they are going on the feel of how the public views the internet (something new, cool, cutting edge, ... leads them to think helping companies out with patents with further the economy and/or their favor with the people)??

Lets exercise our right (and duty!) as citizens and write not only to our Congressmen but to the people at the P&T Office. In fact, they have a public affairs office -- the phone number they give is (703) 305-8341 They also give a general info line number at 1-800-PTO-9199. Perhaps we should call and give them some intelligent and well thought out reasons and proof as to why these broader patents are severly harming the industry (granted that the judges enforce them... thank goodness for seperation of powers!). I would also try their more specific departments related to our technology at this office as well as this office. Like that posting about the political power of us geeks -- lets flex some politcal muscle!

--Kevin

The patent you are referring to was not assigned to Bruce Dickens by McDonnell Douglas. The correct patent is 5,806,063

--GnrcMan--

Since submitting the article, I've found the patent in question. Here is a link to the abstract. The patent number is 5,806,063, and application was filed on 10/3/96. There's gotta be prior art.

Oh, and by way of correction. McDonnell Douglas assigned the patent to the inventor, Bruce Dickens. Mr. Dicken's (and his attorneys) are the ones running around threatening everyone.



--GnrcMan--

I wrote this a while ago about the Amazon patent. I have inserted new comments regarding this even more obvious patent...

I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.

In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.

In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.

So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?

From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas (read: windowing for the Y2K problem) are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general. How is the idea of "windowing" not abstract and how can the person even prove he thought of the idea. I was reading through an IBM pamphlet on Y2k and it stated that they had been doing research about Y2K for years, including the windowing technique...

From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "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." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system. What about the windowing system?? I'm sure any decent programmer could have thought of that one... perhaps we need a few programmers in higher political places (alas, programming and politics don't mix well -- and I rather like it that way).

Notice also that the [Amazon] patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!

On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?

The economy has already been hurt by people afraid of Y2K (although arguably it has created more jobs temporarily etc), so why must someone come and try to create damage after the fact? Has anyone actually found the patent online? It would make for very interesting reading. Perhaps we should start writing Congress about these patents, eh?

The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?

-Kevin

I wrote this a while ago about the Amazon patent. I have inserted new comments regarding this even more obvious patent...

I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.

In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.

In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.

So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?

From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas (read: windowing for the Y2K problem) are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general. How is the idea of "windowing" not abstract and how can the person even prove he thought of the idea. I was reading through an IBM pamphlet on Y2k and it stated that they had been doing research about Y2K for years, including the windowing technique...

From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "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." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system. What about the windowing system?? I'm sure any decent programmer could have thought of that one... perhaps we need a few programmers in higher political places (alas, programming and politics don't mix well -- and I rather like it that way).

Notice also that the [Amazon] patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!

On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?

The economy has already been hurt by people afraid of Y2K (although arguably it has created more jobs temporarily etc), so why must someone come and try to create damage after the fact? Has anyone actually found the patent online? It would make for very interesting reading. Perhaps we should start writing Congress about these patents, eh?

The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?

-Kevin

I wrote this a while ago about the Amazon patent. I have inserted new comments regarding this even more obvious patent...

I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.

In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.

In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.

So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?

From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas (read: windowing for the Y2K problem) are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general. How is the idea of "windowing" not abstract and how can the person even prove he thought of the idea. I was reading through an IBM pamphlet on Y2k and it stated that they had been doing research about Y2K for years, including the windowing technique...

From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "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." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system. What about the windowing system?? I'm sure any decent programmer could have thought of that one... perhaps we need a few programmers in higher political places (alas, programming and politics don't mix well -- and I rather like it that way).

Notice also that the [Amazon] patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!

On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?

The economy has already been hurt by people afraid of Y2K (although arguably it has created more jobs temporarily etc), so why must someone come and try to create damage after the fact? Has anyone actually found the patent online? It would make for very interesting reading. Perhaps we should start writing Congress about these patents, eh?

The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?

-Kevin

I wrote this a while ago about the Amazon patent. I have inserted new comments regarding this even more obvious patent...

I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.

In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.

In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.

So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?

From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas (read: windowing for the Y2K problem) are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general. How is the idea of "windowing" not abstract and how can the person even prove he thought of the idea. I was reading through an IBM pamphlet on Y2k and it stated that they had been doing research about Y2K for years, including the windowing technique...

From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "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." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system. What about the windowing system?? I'm sure any decent programmer could have thought of that one... perhaps we need a few programmers in higher political places (alas, programming and politics don't mix well -- and I rather like it that way).

Notice also that the [Amazon] patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!

On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?

The economy has already been hurt by people afraid of Y2K (although arguably it has created more jobs temporarily etc), so why must someone come and try to create damage after the fact? Has anyone actually found the patent online? It would make for very interesting reading. Perhaps we should start writing Congress about these patents, eh?

The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?

-Kevin

I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.

In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.

In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.

So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?

From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general.

From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "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." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system.

Notice also that the patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!

On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?

The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?

-Kevin

I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.

In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.

In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.

So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?

From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general.

From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "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." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system.

Notice also that the patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!

On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?

The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?

-Kevin

I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.

In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.

In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.

So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?

From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general.

From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "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." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system.

Notice also that the patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!

On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?

The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?

-Kevin

I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.

In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.

In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.

So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?

From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general.

From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "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." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system.

Notice also that the patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!

On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?

The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?

-Kevin

I was on GEine years ago, and I could order stuff with one keyboard click (once I had found something worth ordering, which was rare). Let loose the lawyers of war!

Please, read the Constitution. Or, if that does not convince you, head on over to the United States Patent and Trademark Office here. I am interested in what the source of your information is.

According to the PTO,

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States.

This is why they can go after users as well as authors.

• USPTO Patent FAQ
  
• EFF's IP page
  
• Oracle's testimony
  
• An overview of software patent opposition
  
• The League for Programming Freedom's Software Patent page
  

There is a new online database here: http://www.uspto.gov/tmdb/index.html. USPTO says there are "limitations" to it, but it's better than nothing.

There are also 70 trademark libraries around the U.S. Here's a list: http://www.uspto.gov/web/of fices/ac/ido/ptdl/index.html.

You'll miss out on the ambiance of Crystal City's concrete canyons, but then maybe that's a benefit.

There is a new online database here: http://www.uspto.gov/tmdb/index.html. USPTO says there are "limitations" to it, but it's better than nothing.

There are also 70 trademark libraries around the U.S. Here's a list: http://www.uspto.gov/web/of fices/ac/ido/ptdl/index.html.

You'll miss out on the ambiance of Crystal City's concrete canyons, but then maybe that's a benefit.

The Hearst Corporation has a registered trademark for What's Happening , "providing a monthly calendar of community events".

Whatshappenin.com also owns the domain whatshappening.com... and they don't seem to have US registered trademarks for either one.

Far be it from me to suggest that someone should call up Hearst (a rather large media company) and whisper a few words to their counsel.

The Hearst Corporation (HEARSTCORP-DOM)
959 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019

Domain Name: HEARSTCORP.COM

The US Trademark and Patent Office has a document that discusses trademark and domain names. From it I conclude that if the translated name is not what the company is identified with, it cannot be a trademark for the company. Thus, if their web page and products do not have the translated name all over them like their "regular" trademark, they have no case.

USPTO Documentation about Trilateral cooperation between JPO/EPO & USPTO

Cooperation between the three major patent offices is increasing every day. I can't count the number of times i've seen JPO Officials walking around the datacenter in the past few years...

-stax
/. poster #104543567

USPTO Documentation about Trilateral cooperation between JPO/EPO & USPTO

Cooperation between the three major patent offices is increasing every day. I can't count the number of times i've seen JPO Officials walking around the datacenter in the past few years...

-stax
/. poster #104543567

In any case, NCR is a huge company with a legacy name. It shouldn't be surprising that NCR has patents that have bearing on Netscape. They obviously don't "just make cash registers".

Frankly, I'm not sure how yahoo!(TM) is getting away with "Do You Yahoo!?", but don't really feel up to slapping them with a lawsuit.

Yahoo! is able to use "Do You Yahoo!?" without problems because they also trademarked that phrase -- see the trademark filing on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database.

I don't think Slashdot is in much danger of trademark dilution at this point, though Andover employees and contributors probably should catch up on trademark guidelines so they don't use the name improperly.

Uncanny.

No, this is not what happened. Someone tried to trademark Linux as a "computer operating system software" and then sue for infringement.

Here is the record from the US Patent & Trademark office. For more information on the whole episode, check out this press release from the law firm that handled the case for Linus.

Word Mark LINUX
Owner Name (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr.
Owner Address 33 Snow Hill St. Boston MASSACHUSETTS 02113 INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES
Owner Name (LAST LISTED OWNER) TORVALDS, LINUS
Owner Address 3665 BENTON STREET APT. 36 SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA 95051 INDIVIDUAL FINLAND
Attorney of Record CATHERINE MCCAULEY-LIBERT
Serial Number 74-560867
Registration Number 1916230
Filing Date 08/15/1994
Registration Date 09/05/1995
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Register PRINCIPAL
Published for pposition 06/13/1995
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
International Class 009
Goods and Services computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1994.08.02; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1994.08.02

Hi,

I guess most of you know this, Linux was trademarked in the US in 1995 and is now owned by Linus Torvalds.

The 'DATE OF FIRST USE' was set to somewhere around 1994. Now, what this basically means is that they can prove that they used the word in conjunction with the explained context (basically software) around 1994 the first time. Now, if anyone would come and prove that they used the word before that date, then the trademark would have to be moved to the other person. At least that is how I understand trademark law. It will be more difficult to challenge the trademark now that it is fully registered, but it could still be done.

The thing that would interest me the most right now is, what is the date the german company said was their First Use?

Also, what would interest me is, does Linus not have to make sure that it is actually shown that he owns the trademark for Linux to make sure it is not voided? I always thought as soon as you have a trademark you have to actively go against people that use it other than yourself, even if you just tell them to add a notice. I for one have never seen an (r) behind 'Linux' anywhere..

BTW, here is the trademark info on Linux in the US.

Fabian Thylmann

Obviously algorithms are subject to patents.

This was not obvious, as a previous poster noted, until court decisions in the past few decades ruled that it was.

In any case, I am perfectly aware that patents have been awarded on purely mathematical processes. My assertion was that this should never have been possible, and constitutes a betrayal of the original intent (as well as court precedent) regarding patents. Which would have been clear had you thought for half a second before replying.

It's true that my opinion doesn't matter, mostly because I don't have a lot of money with which to influence the government. But I'm still entitled to my opinion.

It's not the math - it's not the process that's patented - it's the utility arising from the math and process that's patented.

This is one of the silliest things I have ever read. "Utility" is a vague, abstract economic quantity and cannot be patented. Specific inventions are patented. Utility is what people gain from these inventions, and the idea is that some of this utility should funnel back, in the from of money, to those inventors. But it is not utility that is patented. Lots of people generate nonpatentable utility all day long by, for example, cutting up meat.

BTW: I was mistaken about the processes thing. This link explains the different kinds of patents. Processes can be patented. Oops.

However, the original intention was to allow inventors to patent specifically mechanical (i.e., physical) processes. The US patent office site writes:

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.

-- http://www.uspto.gov/web/ offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm

Many people, myself included, assert that an algorithm, as an abstract mathematical process, is much more like an idea than a machine or a technique for manufacturing doughnuts. A closer software analogue of a patentable "mechanical process" is an implementation of an algorithm in software. That is, RSA should have been awarded a patent, not on an algorithm for public key encryption, but on the piece of software that they wrote.

The patenting of algorithms veers very close to the patenting of ideas or laws of nature. The quicksort algorithm (to take a bland example) is no less a pure idea than Pythagoras's theorem or Newton's axioms of motion. That this is not clear to you and every programmer in the nation is a testament to the sorry state of CS education in America.

~k.lee

Patents are to encourage publication, yes, but in the modern age, the patent period is far too long. It should be no more than five years from the patent application (not grant) date. How long have we all been waiting for the RSA patent to expire?

To make matters worse, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) keeps issuing completely isane software patents. I think the PTO patent examiners are completely incompetent to rule on anything related to software, and the PTO should either hire competent examiners, or stop accepting software patent applications.

In addition, just because the content of a patent is public doesn't mean you can just use it! You must get a license from the patent holder, and he can charge you whatever he likes as a license fee. The comparion to Open Source is wrong.

As for "trade secret" - those are easily broken by reverse engineering. A "trade secret" is established by a contract between two parties, the holder of the secret, and someone to whom the holder discloses the secret under the condition that the secret not be further disclosed to anyone not already under contract not to disclose. When a trade secret is disclosed beyond the parties to the non-disclosure agreement, there are no criminal penalties if there was no crime committed to come into possession of the secret (i.e. you didn't break into a lab and steal it in order to publish it), there is only a "tort" (a civil cause of action) potentially against the publisher, if and only if the publisher was party to the non-disclosure agreement!

To put it another way, "trade secret" is easily broken with no recourse for the holder of the secret if they didn't protect it well enough. Exactly like National Security Top Secret stuff: it does no good to sue China after they've stolen your plans for the W88 nuclear warhead...

Lame reply to my own comment but...

See www.uspto.gov/web/info/addrboxs.htm for address and box numbers.

I don't know what happened to the last link.
But here is the front page for the USPTO's full text database. I'm sure y'all can find U.S. Patent No. 5,914,941 from there. If you can't then I can't help you.

Have a look over the body of the text at the USPTO Database.

My faith in the US Patent office, already quite low, is now unrecoverable.

Don't domplain here. That's a waste of time. The US Patent Office has web email, phone numbers and address. Send them paper mail. They've got some nonsense at the web site how they're not equipped to handle email. Talk here is cheap. I've seen it way too many times as each submarine patent surfaces. Make the Patent Office aware that they can't live in their cozy protected little world anymore. They are the real culprits here. Even by their own poor standards this patent stinks.

Patent offices the world over have become increasingly undemocratic, granting commercial monopolies in some cases worth millions of dollars without public scrutiny. STOP TALKING, ACT! We might not be able to stop them but we can, with social censure, at least make them uncomfortable doing it. A large part of the problem is the culture at the USPTO and elsewhere. Let's change that culture. Nothing you can do? Wrong! You can:

• Contact the Patent Office directly. Don't complain about a patent (except as an example). Complain about the process.
• Contact the news media. Write letters to the editor, write articles. Challenge any unjustified statement in favour of current patent law. Make sure they know both the patent office and the company concerned are to blame.
• Write to your congressional representatives. They are the USPTO's bosses. Make sure they know it's costing them votes to allow the USPTO to continue on it's merry way.
• Continue to research prior art, to show how blinkered the worldview of the PTO is.
• A common argument is that even bad patents don't do any harm and good patents do good. Wrong. Every patent is a $10000 tax on a good idea. The PTO costs the community millions of dollars.

It's up to you. Nobody else but you.

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
- Kierkegaard

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offi ces/pac/design/laws.html

Currency of the Web Database

• The PTO?s trademark data on the Web is updated on a two-month cycle. Coupled with the time required for data production, this means that particular trademarks could be as much as four months out of sequence with the PTO?s internal trademark database.
• The Web database does not include new applications that were filed and entered into the PTO?s internal trademark database during the last two to four months.
• The Web database does not reflect changes made to the PTO?s internal trademark database during the last two to four months.
• The Web database will show applications that registered after its last update as pending applications rather than registrations.
• The Web database will not include edits made to individual records after its last update.

The listing that you checked may only have been updated to May 1, 1999. In fact "Open Source" WAS abandoned on May 24, 1999. The application data stays on record in perpetuity: see the application data. But, the updated status info can be found here. Bummer. Someone, move quickly please.

The listing that you checked may only have been updated to May 1, 1999. In fact "Open Source" WAS abandoned on May 24, 1999. The application data stays on record in perpetuity: see the application data. But, the updated status info can be found here. Bummer. Someone, move quickly please.

From Claim 1:
a reference system different than the test system;

Have a look through the Background of the Invention and Summary of the Invention for a more verbose description of differences between what's been patented and prior-art. USPTO has full-text available.

You can see images including drawings at the IBM Patent Search Engine

For the same reason that someone practicing TCP/IP, without more, clearly wouldn't infringe the claims of this patent, TCP/IP would not stand, by itself, as invalidating prior art.

In answer to the qustion, the meaning of a phrase in a patent claim is determined first by the plain language of the claim itself AND by the definition given to that term in the specification. If the plain meaning is not clear and there is no express definition in the spec, the spec is used as a reference to help to understand (construe) the claims.

The meaning of the patent and its claims simply cannot be understood without first studying the specification. You can find the specification for any modern patent at this page of the USPTO web site. There you can also get free printable tiff images of the patent.

So much of this patent's claim langauge cannot be understood merely by examining the claim -- you must also read, at least, the specification. For many claim elements, particularly those written in the form of "means plus function" or "function means" language, the meaning of the claim element is DEFINED by the corresponding portions of the specification.

But this doesn't end the inquiry. Taking a single element out of context, say, the "control object," and noting that there existed a control object in another program or protocol isn't enough. The referenced control object must also meet each and every other limitation set forth in the claim and be used in the context described in the claim.

We nerds are notorious for being way too informal and uninformed about asserting the invalidity of patents. Accordingly, our whinings about the system are generally ignored by the mainstream patent community. It is critical that before we begin to flame on about a particular patent, that we make sure we really have the goods. To do that, we need to read the claims and the specification, and then, and only then, if we really have it licked, use the example to slam the patent and the system.

This patent may be valid, or it may not be valid. If it is valid, live with it and move on to another. If not, slam the sucker and use it to point out weaknesses in the system. Meanwhile, as a community we can help enormously by assisting in these prior art searches.

But we do ourselves no good at all, and a fair amount of harm, merely by waving our hands. It is not enough merely to belittle the claimed invention. The question was asked: "Perhaps some intellectual property lawyer can explain to me what make's Intermind's stuff so new and unique."

But AC's question merely begs the question: No patentable invention needs to be "so new and unique," but merely new, useful and unobvious. No spark of genius is necessary. No fundamental contribution.

Mere novelty suffices -- and that can be done merely by distinguishing the prior art with subtle limitations. If no reference contains the limitations, the device is novel for patent purposes -- that's all that is required. If the prior art is a chair, a claim directed to a chair with arcuate rockers attached to the bottom distinguishes the art, even though a rocking chair is still a chair. Indeed, the vast majority of patent claims begin by reciting prior art structure, adding specialized limitations as improvements.

Obviousness simply refers to a "backstop" to avoid granting patents for minor or trivial new limitations, and applies mostly where the differences between the old art and the new combination are such that those differences could be reconstructed from the prior art by a person of ordinary skill in the art. In the rocking chair example, a rocking stool might well be invalidating prior art under the obviousness standard, even though the refernence does not disclose the structure that distinguishes a stool from a chair (probably just the back), provided that the reference is taken together with a reference describing the structure of a chair and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to combine the references.

• Bayer Co. v United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) -- the "Aspirin" case and;
  
• DuPont Cellophane Co. v Waxed Products Co., 85 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1936) -- the "Cellophane" case.
  

• Link 1
  
• Link 2
  

I don't understand your last paragraph: is not Brookfield limited to using "MOVIEBUFF" in "computer software providing data and information in the field of the motion picture and television industries" like the registration statements linked above say? How is this decision expanding anything? I read it and it didn't expand anything absurdedly, IMO. It just clarified the enforceability of registered trademarks as against domain names and meta tags -- logical expansions of traditional trademark theory into a new medium.

• Bayer Co. v United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) -- the "Aspirin" case and;
  
• DuPont Cellophane Co. v Waxed Products Co., 85 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1936) -- the "Cellophane" case.
  

• Link 1
  
• Link 2
  

I don't understand your last paragraph: is not Brookfield limited to using "MOVIEBUFF" in "computer software providing data and information in the field of the motion picture and television industries" like the registration statements linked above say? How is this decision expanding anything? I read it and it didn't expand anything absurdedly, IMO. It just clarified the enforceability of registered trademarks as against domain names and meta tags -- logical expansions of traditional trademark theory into a new medium.

of Microsoft using the term "Open Source" (GASP) out of context, the great CmdrTaco might wish to watch his words when using a trademarked term such as "WebTV" to describe a device which is CLEARLY not a true WebTV device.

WebTV TM at USPTO

(Random aside: This seems similar to "The American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation" changing their name to "AT&T" about 10 years ago. Maybe SGI felt that "Silicon" was going the same way as "Telegraph".)

A search at the US Patent & Trademark Office ( www.uspto.gov) confirms that the certification mark application is pending. See the search results. However, even with an application pending, they have to defend it as they are doing.

A search at the US Patent & Trademark Office ( www.uspto.gov) confirms that the certification mark application is pending. See the search results. However, even with an application pending, they have to defend it as they are doing.

If you do a search "open source" only turns up only when you do a search that shows pending marks.

If you do a search "open source" only turns up only when you do a search that shows pending marks.

If you do a search "open source" only turns up only when you do a search that shows pending marks.