Slashdot Mirror

1. A hand-held game accessory to physically receive a portable electronic device to enhance the playing of games, the game accessory comprising:a recess to physically receive at least a substantial portion of the portable electronic device;a plurality of input controls that may be actuated by a user while playing a game;first circuitry to communicate with the portable electronic device, the communication relating to the actuation of a plurality of input controls; andsecond circuitry to retain information about a game after the portable electronic device is removed.

The thing retains information about the game, like a memory card or something.

4. The game accessory of claim 1 further comprising a connector insert for mating with a connector receptacle located on the portable media player to form a path for the communication, wherein the connector insert rotates to allow the game accessory to physically receive the portable electronic device.

So the connector has to rotate. So to find a prior art, you have to find a controler with a rotating connector that has embedded memory to store score. Here's the link to the patent if you care

Apple hasn't received a patent on this yet. TFA refers to U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0081505, which was published Thursday and isn't a patent. It's just an application for a patent. In fact, the application hasn't been examined yet, as viewable in Public PAIR.

US Patent 7,689,524 was awarded on March 30. Don't believe me? Here, I'll make it easy for you: Go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm and enter 7689524 in the search field.

Mod the parent insightful; Given that the 2006 Patent is real, the question is how could it have possibly been granted given that the Guardian Angel came from the movie Disclosure, released in 1994 !?

I don't think Microsoft goes so far with its April Fool's jokes as to file an actual patent application.

Apparently the patent in question, 5,825,352, has expired due to failure to pay maintenance fees as of Oct 20, 2006.

So if the patent is expired, what basis are they suing on?

"Apple was granted an extension to respond to it."

Which I don't understand, because Apple already owns a patent on multi-touch, how can you sue the patent holder for infringement of their own patent?

Apple's patent:
"A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items."

If they don't like it they can complain to the USPTO like everyone else.

Even if they didn't multi-touch and "pinching" was demonstrated way back in 1991, long before anyone filed a patent

A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/index.jsp

If you're going to refute something that is over your own head, a citation of some sort helps. "Making" is the first word in the list of forbidden things. That's the patent office website. Go find the actual law and see if it supports your comment.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

35 U.S.C. 154Contents and term of patent; provisional
rights.

(d)PROVISIONAL RIGHTS.—
(1)IN GENERAL.— In addition to other rights provided by this section, a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent under section 122(b), or in the case of an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a)designating the United States under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty, the date of publication of the application, and ending on the date the patent is issued—
(A)(i) makes, uses, offers for sale, or sells in the United States the invention as claimed in the published patent application or imports such an invention into the United States;

35 U.S.C. 163Grant.
In the case of a plant patent, the grant shall include the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant, and from using, offering for sale, or selling the plant so reproduced, or any of its parts, throughout the United States, or from importing the plant so reproduced, or any parts thereof, into the United States.

A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/index.jsp

If you're going to refute something that is over your own head, a citation of some sort helps. "Making" is the first word in the list of forbidden things. That's the patent office website. Go find the actual law and see if it supports your comment.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

35 U.S.C. 154Contents and term of patent; provisional
rights.

(d)PROVISIONAL RIGHTS.—
(1)IN GENERAL.— In addition to other rights provided by this section, a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent under section 122(b), or in the case of an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a)designating the United States under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty, the date of publication of the application, and ending on the date the patent is issued—
(A)(i) makes, uses, offers for sale, or sells in the United States the invention as claimed in the published patent application or imports such an invention into the United States;

35 U.S.C. 163Grant.
In the case of a plant patent, the grant shall include the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant, and from using, offering for sale, or selling the plant so reproduced, or any of its parts, throughout the United States, or from importing the plant so reproduced, or any parts thereof, into the United States.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060007222%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060007222&RS=DN/20060007222 They have a patent for cameras hidden in between pixels.

Actually, the USPTO no longer lets you patent perpetual motion machines.

You are out of date on this subject, I'd take the time to catch up if I were you...

So the USPTO was wrong about perpetual motion, but not about Math - which would have proven perpetual motion wrong. Gee, I wonder if that was my point.

September 22, 1998.
Single instance storage of information

Actually, the USPTO no longer lets you patent perpetual motion machines.

You are out of date on this subject, I'd take the time to catch up if I were you...

Furthermore, Mathematics is not universally considered a science. and "being real science" is not the one and only test of patentability.

Yes, baseless. Or, perhaps *you've* managed to find these mythical patents MS has on .NET that it will supposedly use to blugeon the entire OSS community to death with?

You mean the nonexistent ones that Miguel's company didn't sign a contract with Microsoft not indemnifying their customers from? Or did you mean ones that Microsoft would have filed if they were into such things?

You're confused and thinking of the patents that Ballmer claimed that Linux violated but has never produced. No one has ever seriously disputed that parts of .NET are patented, least of all Microsoft (who filed them) and Novell (who signed an indemnification contract covering them).

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you only just hearing about Mono today? Is everyone you know equally clueless, or did you just never think to try maybe checking the Mono website itself which informs you that it implements patented technology.

Uhuh.

Where are the patents? They have to be published somewhere, so... where are they? The only one I can find is this one which is incredibly narrow, as it only covers the construction of web-based applications.

And no, I don't give a crap what the Mono website says, as I have no reason to believe they've done their diligence any more than you have. AFAICT, all this talk about patents on .NET is hot air, blown by a company prone to bluster.

At http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asned=DURHAM%20LOGISTICS,%20LLC we find that all twelve of Durham Logistics' patent assignments were from smart antenna maker ArrayComm (remember Martin Cooper)? Further, they were all assigned on the same day. I haven't checked them all yet, but one of the assignment applications was on August 31, 2006. Wonder what was happening around then? Oh yeah, ArrayComm was teaming with KT for a Korean WiBro network.http://www.mobilehandsetdesignline.com/192200181;jsessionid=PVVYX1VQ5EXXGQSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN?printableArticle=true Think those patents might be under Samsung's control now? Anyhow, they were clearly intended for applications in signalling, not user interface.

US patent 6,542,270 ("Interference-robust coded-modulation scheme for optical communications and method for modulating illumination for optical communications"), issued April 1, 2003, assigns direct sequence spread spectrum-type codes to each overhead fluorescent light, so that communication and location-determination can be performed. The chip frequency of the coding scheme is fast enough that there is no human-audible or -visual effect, and supportable by electronic ballasts.

Text in the patent number 5,676,977 reads:

"The diamagnetic semiconducting molecular crystal tetrasilver tetroxide (Ag.sub.4 O.sub.4) is utilized for destroying the AIDS virus, destroying AIDS synergistic pathogens and immunity suppressing moieties (ISM) in humans. A single intravenous injection of the devices is all that is required for efficacy at levels of about 40 PPM of human blood."

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

Typographical errors occur more often than one would think in patent applications. Often they're because the typist is unfamiliar with technical terms or can't read the inventor's handwriting. Or, maybe, the typist is daydreaming about a lobster dinner:

The same day the kinetic energy patent application was published, the USPTO published this one: SOFT BUTTER MEMORY CONFIGURATION IN A COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.

It, of course, refers to a "soft buffer" memory configuration, but which patent is likely to have less prior art?

The independent claims in the application (20100045241, filed August 20, 2008) center on the use of the battery's mass to generate electricity via one or more piezoelectric elements. It's always nice to see a liability turned into an asset. While this is just an application, and the claims may differ substantially in the issued patent (should one issue at all), here is the first independent claim:

1. An apparatus comprising:
          a device housing;
          a holder configured to retain a battery;
          a first piezoelectric element coupling the holder to the device housing and configured to receive, as a result of acceleration of the device housing and along a first axis, a first portion of a force of imposed by a mass of a battery retained in the holder;
          a second piezoelectric element coupling the holder to the device housing and configured to receive, as a result of the device housing acceleration and along a second axis that is non-parallel to the first axis, a second portion of the force imposed by the mass of the battery retained in the holder; and
          a controller configured to receive electrical energy output by the first and second piezoelectric elements in response to the first and second force portions and to make the received electrical energy available for at least one of:
                    satisfying at least part of an electrical load satisfiable by the battery retained in the holder, and
                    recharging the battery retained in the holder.

So it's key to (a) use the battery as the mass, and (b) generate electrical energy from two nonparallel piezoelectric elements. Note that nowhere does the claim mention a phone, just "a device," so this could have relatively wide applicability -- should it issue as written.

The Patent Office does not do that and hasn't for years, except of course for papers that are mailed or faxed in. The Patent Office's Electronic Filing System is an end-to-end electronic system for the most part.

Now, the EFS system does convert searchable PDFs to bitmap PDFs, which causes them to lose their searchability and greatly increases the file size, which is still incredibly backwards, but not quite as bad as printing things out and scanning them back in.

The correct patent is patent 7,668,832 granted Feb 23, 2010 as listed http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7668832.PN.&OS=pn/7668832&RS=PN/7668832 Thanks ButlerM

Location based advertising - Isnt that called billboards?

Or store signs or product displays?

To say you want to claim the right that at X and Y coordinates you control the method of putting up product advertising with *gasp* price information is all silly - they are called signs. Stores use them all the time.

And yes IP specific advertisement has been around before the 2003-2004 patent. Now the IPs move and become mobile shouldnt
make a difference.

After a little more checking: The correct patent is patent 7,668,832 granted Feb 23, 2010 as listed here

Note to web log authors: You can't use just any old URL. Some URLs have content that changes over time. The PTO web site may return a different patent every day if you don't actually query (and thus generate a URL based on) patent number.

The link both in the original post and in the cited article (to say nothing of dozens of other articles) cites the wrong patent.

The correct one is patent application 20050050027, but the patent number seems to be harder to track down. In fact I am not sure it has been granted at all.

The incorrectly linked patent is about remote ad selection for broadcast radio stations, which is not particularly relevant here.

I took a look at the aggregated US Government idea site, but didn't see the
USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office).

The USPTO needs a lot of help as far as I'm concerned; too bad they aren't
accepting ideas. They do have a "feedback channel" http://www.uspto.gov/blog/feedback
but it seems pretty limited.

Here's the patent info.

There are existing mechanisms that allow a user to display information about other users. Some mechanisms may allow the user to select particular news items for immediate viewing. Typically, however, these news items are disparate and disorganized. In other words, the user must spend time researching a news topic by searching for, identifying, and reading individual news items that are not presented in a coherent, consolidated manner. Often, many of the news are not relevant to the user. Just as often, the user remains unaware of the existence of some news items that were not captured in the user's research. What is needed is an automatically generated display that contains information relevant to a user about another user of a social network.

So what they invented is a couple of WHERE and ORDER BY clauses in a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user?

Sounds like this is the second coming of Einstein.

System for automatically generating queries http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979

Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979

You posted the same URL twice.

System for automatically generating queries http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979

Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979

You posted the same URL twice.

Suit:

here

Possible patents:

System for automatically generating queries
Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge


Lifted from the register

Suit:

here

Possible patents:

System for automatically generating queries
Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge


Lifted from the register

System for automatically generating queries
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979

Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979

System for automatically generating queries
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979

Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979

Your heart is in the right place, but you are very misinformed.

The "pending patents" aren't identified at all - only the issued patents are marked on the boxes, along with a generic additional "and patent applications pending." The case is based on that the patents that are marked do not apply to the products in the box. I won't go into the actual merits of the claims.

With respect to how to find patents, to look up any patent since 1976 or any published pending application since 2000, go to http://patft.uspto.gov/

You can search by number, or keyword, or assignee, or a whole host of other terms.

Also, there is no requirement to mark your products - if you don't mark, it can limit your damages received to the time the infringer actually knew of your patents, but there is no requirement to mark your products. Doing so satisfies the notice requirement by serving as constructive notice of your patent so you can get damages back to when you marked not just when they knew about it, but again, there's no requirement.

Lastly, for pending patent applications, you have very limited rights - mainly you can recover damages for the period between publication and issuance of the patent IF the patent issue with claims that are very similar to those of the published application. Otherwise, you have no rights at all until the patent issues.

The laws actually do make sense - the patentee (or applicant) is in the best position to determine if their product is covered by a patent or an application. The government imposes this burden on them so that they are careful when they mark. If they mark with the intent to deceive the public, they are liable - half to the government and half to the entity "protecting" the public by bringing the lawsuit. Of course this particular case and those like it are money grabs, but that is the intent behind the statute. The hard part, thankfully, is proving that the patentee had to intend to decieve the public, which is pretty difficult absent a smoking gun email or an extended period of false marking. "Oops, we screwed up, but did it in good faith" can be a defense if it is bolstered by actual good faith efforts.

For example, if the content of the advertisement includes "Buy honda cars at the lowest prices of the year!", the terms "honda" or "honda cars" may be extracted from that content. The targeting information may also include other demographic information, such as geographic location, affluence, etc. Thus, the targeting information is simply some information from which a topic may be derived.

. . .

Among the other things that could be provided by an advertiser through ad entry and management component 210 are the following: one or more advertising creatives (simply referred to as "ads" or "advertisements"), one or more set of keywords or topics associated with those creatives (which may be used as targeting information for the ads), geographic targeting information, a value indication for the advertisement, start date, end date, etc.

Why are you telling me that my document is "upside down"? In a routine fax transmission, page orientation (top of the page first into the machine or bottom of the page first) is not critical because the reader can easily flip and arrange the pages to read them top to bottom. However, it is critical to our process that each page is faxed top to bottom with the top margin being fed first into the machine. Once they have been received in PTAS, fax transmitted assignments are processed strictly by electronic means. Although the PTAS software can rotate a document 180 degrees for viewing purposes, when the electronic document is extracted to generate the archival microfilm record, each page is extracted exactly as it was first received. Accordingly, a document sent "upside down" would be microfilmed upside down. To further complicate matters, because the system generated recordation and reel and frame markings on the pages would be in the opposite orientation, the resulting document would be difficult to read.

Since the submission consist of multiple pages (oath, spec, drawings, claims, etc.), the explanation that "upside down" means that some of the pages were faxed so that the back of the page was transmitted is most likely. If the transmission was missing essential information to receive a filing date, then it makes sense that the USPTO would be unable to continue processing the application. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_601_01_d.htm

"In some embodiments, a multi-finger de-pinching gesture magnifies the image 1606 by a variable amount in accordance with the position of the multi-finger de-pinching gesture and the amount of finger movement in the multi-finger de-pinching gesture. In some embodiments, a multi-finger pinching gesture demagnifies the image 1606 by a variable amount in accordance with the position of the multi-finger pinching gesture and the amount of finger movement in the multi-finger pinching gesture."

IANAL, but almost certainly prior art was considered at every stage of the drafting and granting of this patent. IMO those who cavalierly invoke early versions of multitouch technology as inherently rendering such a patent invalid have the burden of proof to demonstrate their case.

That's because they know they'll lose.

Here's Apple's "multi-touch" patent.
Date filed: July 3, 2006

Here's Jeff Han demonstrating multi-touch interface in Feb. 2006 that he had been working on. Pinch and zoom? Gestures? Multiple fingers/hands? It's all there. You can tell he didn't come up with that overnight.

Looks like someone at Apple noticed his or similar technology/research and said - hey, this hasn't been patented yet!

Give props to the USPTO and the patent system, as usual.

Well, you can't 'steal' what another guy can't patent.

Generally, The USPO won't issue a patent on something that does not have a working model:
"...II. UTILITY
A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion..."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm

So without holding a patent - anyone could copy what they like from it. (legally, if not morally)
Of course, if you base your invention on non-working technology.... :)

how come patent trolls are awarded patents in the first place? Would it be possible to make an applicant show proof that they are in the planning stages or are currently using what they are trying to patent?

That's called a 'working requirement' or a requirement to practice the invention. A few countries have such a requirement (Turkey, for example), but the requirement is usually riddled with exceptions that make it essentially toothless. There are several reasons why a strong working requirement is a bad idea, as I explained in a comment on a recent Slashdot story that suggested forbidding patent ownership by or assignment to non-practicing entities.

In the US patents are personal property--and thus freely assignable--by statute. 35 U.S.C. 261. Assignability is also guaranteed by Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, which is a treaty that the US is party to. So changing the assignability of patents would require amending the law and withdrawing from or amending a very important international treaty.

And even if the law were changed, it would mean that hundreds of patent holding companies would suddenly lose their patent rights because of an action by the government. That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders would be able to sue the government for the value of the patents. It would be a massive litigation and cost the tax payer an enormous amount of money.

But anyway, how would we implement such a requirement? We could require that patents only be assigned to an entity that intended to practice the invention. Sounds great, right? No more patent holding companies, therefore no more trolls. There are at least five big problems with that:

1. Not all patents can be freely practiced because of other patents surrounding the technology. Imagine I own a startup company. If I invent a new transistor design I can't be expected to practice it myself: other companies have patents on things like manufacturing processes, bus designs, chip packaging, etc. I would have to license dozens of other patents in order to sell chips with my new transistor design. But that's backwards. Instead, I should license my one patent to companies like Intel and AMD and let them do the manufacturing and sales. But a requirement to practice means I couldn't do that; I'd have to practice it myself.

2. And what about pure research institutions like universities? They can't be expected to also become manufacturers.

3. But suppose we say it's worth making universities sell their patents. So now the patent will be owned by a single practicing entity. The patent can no longer stay with the university and be licensed to whoever will pay the fee. The end result is less competition in the market place for the finished product.

4. Okay, suppose we say that it's sufficient that the patent owner license the patent to at least one entity that is going to practice it. But then the law is too narrow. Almost no patent trolls actually rely on litigation damages for income; it's too uncertain and the margins are too narrow--and often negative. Litigation is just a tool to extract a licensing fee. So the end result is that the trolls can point to a manufacturer who licenses the patent and nothing changes.

5. What about patents on technologies that are ahead of their time? For example, suppose I invented an amazing new transistor design. It will make computers much faster but it requires X-ray lithography in order to work. Well, X-ray lithography is not cost-effective yet, so I can't really practice my invention. Does my patent just evaporate? How does that spur innovation?

As you can see, there are a lot of problems with such a proposal.

Bullshit! MagTek has an IPAD product, and has filed the trademark in 2000 which was later granted and then extended several times. Even Fujitus was and is after the name for their product much longer than Apple.

knowing full well that Apple prefixes all their products with an i

Apple doesn't own "iX" and it shouldn't get any special treatment. If it wants a trademark then should apply for it like everyone else. In this case it's late to the game, in fact too late.

The article was written in a very superficial way. The author avoids going into detail on how her proposed solution would be implemented and why it would not have negative side effects. I suspect she has not actually thought very deeply about the problem or her solution.

But do patents have to be freely assignable?

Patents are personal property--and thus freely assignable--by statute. 35 U.S.C. 261. Assignability is also guaranteed by Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, which is a treaty that the US is party to. So changing the assignability of patents would require amending the law and withdrawing from or amending a very important international treaty.

And even if it were changed, it would mean that hundreds of patent holding companies would suddenly lose their patent rights because of an action by the government. Other patent holders would lose their right to freely assign their patents. That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders and patent holders whose patents lost value because of the restriction would be able to sue the government for the value of the patents. It would be a massive litigation and cost the tax payer an enormous amount of money.

But anyway, how does she suggest we restrict the assignability of patents? We could require that they only be assigned to an entity that intended to practice the invention. Sounds great, right? No more patent holding companies, therefore no more trolls. There are at least five big problems with that:

1. Not all patents can be freely practiced because of other patents surrounding the technology. Imagine I own a startup company. If I invent a new transistor design I can't be expected to practice it myself: other companies have patents on things like manufacturing processes, bus designs, chip packaging, etc. I would have to license dozens of other patents in order to sell chips with my new transistor design. But that's backwards. Instead, I should license my one patent to companies like Intel and AMD and let them do the manufacturing and sales. But a requirement to practice means I couldn't do that; I'd have to practice it myself.

2. And what about pure research institutions like universities? They can't be expected to also become manufacturers.

3. But suppose we say it's worth making universities sell their patents. Well, now since they have to sell the patent only a single entity will get the rights. It can no longer stay with the university and be licensed to whoever will pay the fee. The end result is less competition in the market place for the finished product.

4. Okay, suppose we say that it's sufficient that the patent owner license the patent to at least one entity that is going to practice it. But then the law is too narrow. Almost no patent trolls actually rely on litigation damages for income; it's too uncertain and the margins are too narrow and often negative. Litigation is just a tool to extract a licensing fee. So the end result is that the trolls can point to a manufacturer who licenses the patent and nothing changes.

5. What about patents on technologies that are ahead of their time? For example, suppose I invented an amazing new transistor design. It will make computers much faster but it requires X-ray lithography in order to work. Well, X-ray lithography is not cost-effective yet, so I can't really practice my invention. Does my patent just evaporate? How does that spur innovation?

So the author has carefully avoided actually explaining how her solution would be implemented and how it would be narrow enough not to have side effects yet broad enough to be effective yet not invite more litigation or government regulation.

Trademark law dealt with a similar problem, a worry about trafficking in intent-to-use trademark applications, and solved it by forbidding the assignment of them "e

I'm a pornographic film maker and I have just registered a screen-play with the USPTO and the US Copyright office for a creative work titled "The Large hardon Collider"depicting two white nude male actors running around a ring for the purpose of jousting with their abnormally large, erect penises. When the actor collides his penis with the opposing actor he is assigned a point for the collision, the first actor to achieve 5 points wins the privilege of engaging in the sex scene with a black actress. Any talk or writings involving "large hardon collider" or "large hardon collisions" with or without blackholes is a serious violation of my IP rights. My legal team is at this moment is preparing litigation against the more grievous violater one "Anonymous Coward".

Seriously if newstechnica.com habitually misspells the word hadron, which is so fundemental to the topic of the article, how can anybody give them any credibility?

Fundamental.

I'm a pornographic film maker and I have just registered a screen-play with the USPTO and the US Copyright office for a creative work titled "The Large hardon Collider"depicting two white nude male actors running around a ring for the purpose of jousting with their abnormally large, erect penises. When the actor collides his penis with the opposing actor he is assigned a point for the collision, the first actor to achieve 5 points wins the privilege of engaging in the sex scene with a black actress. Any talk or writings involving "large hardon collider" or "large hardon collisions" with or without blackholes is a serious violation of my IP rights. My legal team is at this moment is preparing litigation against the more grievous violater one "Anonymous Coward".

Seriously if newstechnica.com habitually misspells the word hadron, which is so fundemental to the topic of the article, how can anybody give them any credibility?

If the Google patent is truly for something that is already known then it should not have been issued.

Yeah, but how does that address your claim that nobody else would patent it? It's completely irrelevant.

Patents always have to be for something new that is not yet known by others: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics.jsp#novelty.

And yet (as I said) - GOOGLE MANAGED TO GET A PATENT ON IT. And if Google could, then a patent troll could too. (Again, as I said before.)

If what Google patent was already known (and I'm not saying that it is because I didn't read the whole thing) then it can be challenged and overturned in court. It can be challenged in federal district court, appealed to the Federal Circuit, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

And what do you suppose that would cost? I can guarantee you it would be *significantly* higher than the $1300 Google spent at the USPTO.

If you click on the "patent applications" side it goes to http://appft.uspto.gov/ instead.

A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.. Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

From TFA: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,650,331.PN.&OS=PN/7,650,331&RS=PN/7,650,331

If the Google patent is truly for something that is already known then it should not have been issued. I did not read the whole patent. Patents always have to be for something new that is not yet known by others: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics.jsp#novelty. If what Google patent was already known (and I'm not saying that it is because I didn't read the whole thing) then it can be challenged and overturned in court. It can be challenged in federal district court, appealed to the Federal Circuit, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics.jsp#novelty

All documents at http://patft.uspto.gov/ are issued patents.