Slashdot Mirror

if you allow anyone to use a trademark for any reason you risk loosing the trademark because it can become a generic term

Not true. There has to be a likelihood of confusion or deception. But your reason number 2 may be valid. It's a grey area though -- whether just because it's a gene associated with cancer is enough to turn the case in Nintendo's favor is questionable. The added "fame" of the Pokemon trademark might be enough to throw the case into their favor though.

Quick! To the patent office!

I hear you can patent ANYTHING (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.ht m&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,022,227.WKU.&OS=PN/4,022,227&R S=PN/4,022,227) nowadays.

What, you're referring to Diamond v. Diehr? I think your problem here is that I'm pretty well versed in this issue.

Diamond v. Diehr establishes the concept that "transformation of a tangible object to another state" is evidence that a process complies with 35 USC 101. That's fantastic. What Diamond v. Diehr doesn't address are the variety of ways to achieve that. Sarkar shows ways to fail that test, Alappat shows additional ways to achieve it.

The previous quote I gave directly addresses what I would characterize as the fanatical perspective that computers only perform mathematic operations, therefore anything a computer does is outside of patent protection. I say fanatical because it flies in the face of 10+ years of patent examination, litigation, case law, and a distinct lack of appeals being heard by the Supreme Court. I say fanatical because it would take nothing short of an epic Supreme Court decision that would rock the foundations of the entire technology sector economy in the US to change. But hey - maybe it'll happen. To say the VERY least, I'm extremely skeptical. To be flat honest, I think your analysis is simply wrong and the Supreme Court is not going to see the ruling your way.

And since we've had such a FUN time conversating, I am and always have been addressing a topic of conversation known as "what's actually going on in the world right now." I don't gamble on football and I'm not interested in speculating what would happen if you managed to appeal one of these patents to the Supreme Court - I'm just not interested in that conversation and never was. If that's what you do professionally, then best of luck to you. Why, maybe you should start here!

Patent issued in October 2005 for image compression

Have you even bothered to look at any of Andreas Pavel's patents?

I've read this one received in 1983 and filed in 1981 (as a continuation of an original June 12, 1979 application) as well as his later one, incorrectly referenced in my comment above.

If you did you would see the great similarity between Pavel's device and the Sony Walkman.

They are both stereo recording/listening devices in a form factor meant to be convenient for personal use, although they suggest very different form factors to make this so. Pavel's arranges all of the elements into a relatively bulky belt design, while Sony miniaturized the components into the more compact "Walkman" form. In Pavel's text he recognizes prior art portable stereo devices but discounts them as either i) awkward for personal use due to bulk or form factor, and/or ii) low-fidelity as the headphones were an afterthought and used the same amplifier as the main loudspeakers. While it seem clear that Pavel was ahead of his time in recognizing the opportunity for personal stereo devices, because his US patent wasn't filed until in 1981 it's hard to say how much of the final text was influenced by the already successful Walkman and its various competitors (I haven't read his German patent). What does seem apparent is that his patent claims are relatively narrow and could be easily worked around (for instance, I don't think a Walkman without a microphone would be covered by his patent). These narrow claims might be the reason the patent was allowed in the first place amid plenty of similar devices already on the market (by the 1981 filing) as well as the reason that his first settlement was limited to Germany.

Remember Sony's forte is mass manufacturing and marketing. Not everything they sell is invented by them or even has basic research and development doen by them.

I don't disagree, although in this case, from an R&D perspective the Walkman was clearly more technically innovative (in terms of reduction to practice, miniaturization etc.) and had a clearly superior form factor to the Stereobelt. Both Pavel and Morita were ahead of their time and share a claim as the fathers of personal stereo systems not because of their technical contibutions (which were minor in comparison to many others) but because of their foresight in recognizing the potential for millions to enjoy their own "personal soundtrack". As the founder and chair of Sony, Morita put the marketing machine in motion behind his insight, while the smaller inventor invested in several profitable patents to stake his claim to a good idea but without any real traction. I mostly take issue with referring to Pavel as the father of the *Walkman* when it appears the two developed in parallel and it was the much different Walkman form factor that launched the category that contines to this day with the iPod and many others -- I doubt that the Stereobelt would have had such impact, even if it was developed and sold.

I also find it strange that Pavel was able to get his patents in '77 and '83, despite his claims of invention dating back to 1972 and his subsequent attempts to sell or license his product without protection -- activities that would normally invalidate his claims (at least under today's laws). Perhaps this further weakened his patent case. Any thoughts?

You're either expressing paranoid schizophrenia or are unfamiliar with the US Patent system.

Trusting that you're merely uninformed, see MPEP 2143.

I suggest you read Pavel's earliest patent filed in 1981 concerning his "invention".

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =29&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=pavel&s2=stereo&OS= pavel+AND+stereo&RS=pavel+AND+stereo

The patent goes over a significant amount of prior art. Perhaps this guy truly thinks he invented something but in reality all he did was see the obvious progression of technology.

Something that you can define in a single sentence (a claim) that cannot reasonably be found in the prior art (as defined primarily by 35 USC 102 paragraphs a, b, and e) may very well constitute an "invention". A little known fact is that a rejection based on "obviousness" requires every piece of the invention to be present in the prior art. Source: MPEP 2143.03.

While "the Playstation" may not have defined something you cannot find in the prior art, I believe that "a video game console that uses CDs and nothing but CDs for game program storage and has a primary input device including a D-pad and 10 buttons" would define "the Playstation" in a way that doesn't exist as a whole in the prior art. Finding the pieces and declaring it "obvious" would be a plausible, but much weaker argument. The first rebuttal would be, "If it's so obvious, why can't you find the entire thing in the prior art? Clearly the idea of combining those pieces constitutes an 'invention'."

This is technically not true. See MPEP 2164.07 which states:

If a claim fails to meet the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is shown to be nonuseful or inoperative, then it necessarily fails to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

However, in practice, I think that some patents have been issued to clearly inoperative inventions because there is no harm to the public in doing so. The inventor gets his patent that cannot possibly be infringed. Inventor is happy and nobody is prohibited from doing anything.

So, like I said, technically your statement is not true. In practice it would appear that the issue of "operativeness" is a little flexible, depending on the circumstances.

And naturally anybody makes mistakes once in awhile.

Yes, it was for a headphone real, but he starts out by describing a personal stereo in his claims. Which is where his claim to inventing the Walkman comes from.

Check out the pictures of his invention.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netah tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5201003.WKU.&OS=PN/5201003&RS=PN/ 5201003
http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US005201003&Pa geNum=2&IDKey=31D572A631C0&HomeUrl=http://patft.us pto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm %2526Sect1=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526r=1%2 526l=50%2526f=G%2526d=PALL%2526s1=5201003.WKU.%252 6OS=PN/5201003%2526RS=PN/5201003

Yes, it was for a headphone real, but he starts out by describing a personal stereo in his claims. Which is where his claim to inventing the Walkman comes from.

Check out the pictures of his invention.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netah tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5201003.WKU.&OS=PN/5201003&RS=PN/ 5201003
http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US005201003&Pa geNum=2&IDKey=31D572A631C0&HomeUrl=http://patft.us pto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm %2526Sect1=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526r=1%2 526l=50%2526f=G%2526d=PALL%2526s1=5201003.WKU.%252 6OS=PN/5201003%2526RS=PN/5201003

There is such a thing as licensing you know.

Problem is that current patent law sees no problem with sitting on a patent and refusing to entertain offers to license. Title 35, United States Code, section 271(d). Though laches is potentially an effective defense against patent trolls, it has become much too hard to prove laches nowadays.

If you are correct, then everything in the patent claims can be found in the prior art. Since we're all qualified to publicly air our expertise about the patent system, we both know that something is not obvious if it cannot be found in the prior art. I'm only including this link for those readers who, unlike you and me, don't know about the patent system.

And if you're right, Microsoft has more than enough financial resources to invalidate those patents during litigation. There doesn't seem much of a story here, but I'm merely speaking from the point of view of a person who understands what's going on.

MPEP 2143

Check this patent out for a good idea of what I'm trying to get at: Patent 6,199,519 - FREE-PISTON ENGINE.

Now you too can deal with the horrible USPTO PAIR website.

My dad worked on this kind of thing for automobiles a few decades ago; see US4300353 for example. There's definately efficiency and pollution control gains to be made from waste heat and fuel in the exhaust stream.

"A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required."

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#whatpat

I guess you mean this secret:
http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US003167440&Pa geNum=2&IDKey=97FD77D33410&HomeUrl=http://patft.us pto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1%2526Sect2=HI TOFF%2526d=PALL%2526p=1%2526u=/netahtml/srchnum.ht m%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526s1=3167440.WKU.%252 6OS=PN/3167440%2526RS=PN/3167440

Actually, it is.. kind-of. The written version of the trademark is with an umlaut, not a macron (which is the name of a bar you put over a vowel, usually to denote a long vowel sound)

It'd still be interpreted as an umlaut by most in countries that use them though.

with law enforcement being likely buyers

Because when one of these comes crashing through the window, the bad guys are just going to say: "Huh, I wonder what that was. Oh well." And then leave it alone. Right.

I think a system like this one has a much better chance at successfully spying on the "bad guys."

Posting anonymously because I work at a place that manufactures these, and even though it's patented, they still like to think it's a secret. Also, clearly not everything in the patent is in the actual system. "Interpreter Software" and "Intoxication Meter" in particular are amusing bits of the patent that aren't even possible to implement as described.

Incorrect. The official Declaration form, has a space for "first inventor" and an additional form for joint inventors. The only thing a first inventor signifies is the name listed first on the patent application. And, as stated before, different companies have different criteria for order of listing inventors.

If Creative's actions surprise and dismay you, you'd be shocked to see the plethora of concepts patented by Apple that would make the average Slashdotter utter a hearty "well, duh." Representing a hard drive as an icon that looks like a hard drive? A patent for a heat sink? A patent for a single window interface? Oh, please. Actually, there's a reason why these sorts of obvious-to-Slashdotters concepts are patented, but this has got to be troubling for the "Creative shouldn't be allowed to patent this! Bork bork bork!" crowd.

I know Apple fanatacism is often quite a humorous thing, but "Apple should be able to get patents for obvious things, and other companies should not" is something I'd put beyond even the most obsessive fanboy.

Where? There is a field for "primary examiner" but there is no other use of the word "primary" on their advanced search page. Other times (for example, Office Actions), the PTO refers to the first named inventor. But, as I said above, the inventor being named first could be listed first for almost any reason (alphabetically, seniority, etc.)

In the databases themselves, which you can obtain from the PTO, if you wish. The price list is available here if you're interested.

According to the relevant law (35 USC 115):

The applicant shall make oath that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen.

Presumably, they normally list the person who signs this as the primary inventor (though there is a provision for somebody else to do this in the inventor's behalf, such as if the inventor has since died).

Patent #6,928,433 ,dubbed the "Zen Patent", basically covers any heirarchical category structure on a portable music player.

Until I find a better one, perhaps one of my favorite patents is #6,341,372, desribing a "Universal machine translator of arbitrary languages", able to make perfect translations in real time with zero knowledge of either language, like on Star Trek. It goes on to talk about such translaters being used by androids powered by perpetual motion. The rest is just chapters upon chapters full of philosophical ranting about existance, quantum physics, and the universe, maybe pasted from another source. Filed in 1997, granted in 2002. I came across this patent while searching to see how many "perpetual motion" patents the USPTO has granted so far.

This safe, naturally occurring, unmodified virus [...] an important discovery in the treatment of 2/3 of all human cancers [...] is patented [...]

Seems there's something very wrong about this...

Nope. The links spell it out clearly(well at least the uspto one). They patented a process not a virus.

Do some freaking research.

Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body shall not be regarded as inventions which are susceptible of industrial application [...]

This safe, naturally occurring, unmodified virus [...] an important discovery in the treatment of 2/3 of all human cancers [...] is patented [...]

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/appxl_35_U_S_C_101.htm

http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ ar52.html
http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ ar53.html

Here's a link to the patent application , and here's an overview from MacNN (note that the link posted by MacNN appears to be invalid).

MPEP 2163

I think you're also combining issues that fall under both 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101, which cover vastly different topics. Some of the issues under 101 are described in MPEP 2106.

To my knowledge, except for perpetual motion devices, patents have never required a prototype to be submitted

This isn't historically accurate. Prototypes of all inventions were required in the USPTO's "ancient" history. Don't quote me, but we're talking like pre-Civil War era.

I don't see any need for any prototype device to accompany the application.

Ah, I did misunderstand.

MPEP 2163

I think you're also combining issues that fall under both 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101, which cover vastly different topics. Some of the issues under 101 are described in MPEP 2106.

To my knowledge, except for perpetual motion devices, patents have never required a prototype to be submitted

This isn't historically accurate. Prototypes of all inventions were required in the USPTO's "ancient" history. Don't quote me, but we're talking like pre-Civil War era.

I don't see any need for any prototype device to accompany the application.

Ah, I did misunderstand.

How about a recent patent of antigravitation?

Yet there was no such requirement in the language of the Constitution.

Requiring a model favors corporations that can afford to throw money away on a prototype or mock-up and penalizes the garage inventor.

The USPTO receives 350,000 applications per year - requiring a model would quickly make it the largest museum on the planet. A museum with storage and operation costs. Large corporations would gladly pay higher fees to the USPTO if it would harm the garage inventor.

Rolling back the clock to require a description of a physical device would both make patents a lot less vague as well as making the obvious harder to obsfucate

Hm, like rolling it back to now? MPEP 2161 and do explore the subsequent sections.

I admit I'm a little confused. I see how your suggestion would be wildly beneficial to corporate inventors, but I wasn't of the opinion that this was your goal.

From MPEP 2106

The subject matter courts have found to be outside the four statutory categories of invention is limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena. While this is easily stated, determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon has proven to be challenging. These three exclusions recognize that subject matter that is not a practical application or use of an idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon is not patentable. See, e.g., Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498, 507 (1874) ("idea of itself is not patentable, but a new device by which it may be made practically useful is"); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 94, 40 USPQ 199, 202 (1939) ("While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be."); Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759 ("steps of 'locating' a medial axis, and 'creating' a bubble hierarchy . . . describe nothing more than the manipulation of basic mathematical constructs, the paradigmatic 'abstract idea'").

I would argue that compression is not a mathematical formula, but rather a practical application of mathematics to achieve a useful technological result. If precedent sets any.. precedent.. I would win that argument.

1. Create a dictionary of all words used in applying for a patent.

See MPEP 2111.01. In applying for a patent, you may define "giraffe" to mean "flashlight". There are at present few (if any) reasons for doing so, but if you're going to "computerize" the patent prior art search as you have described, there is suddenly an extremely good reason to say "giraffe" when you mean "flashlight".

2. A second dictionary of terms which are equal to each other.

See above. As an aside, maybe a better solution would be a classification system that categorizes patents and patent applications according to the technology involved, regardless of the vocabulary invoked? Such a classification could be performed by humans - maybe even get patent examiners involved. If a certain group gets too large, further subdivide it. Try to keep the groups to about 250 patents if possible. (I've described the system that's been in use for at least 100 years, but seriously, this super-thesaurus idea sounds promising. Except useless because of MPEP 2111.01.)

3b. All entries should be listed (just like with Google) in a descending order of revelance.

This has been available to examiners for years.

4. All applied for patents should be kept on file so they too can be checked against.

This was a great idea when Thomas Jefferson first thought of it.

People may say we can't do this.

Yes, but Thomas Jefferson was a great man, and when the computer technology of 1987 implemented the rest of what you're talking about, those people looked like idiots.

As for graphical pictures showing how something works - it depends.

The entire collection of patents (except the X series that burned) are available in image format to the examiners.

You need the bad patents in there as a way to say "Hey! Here are examples of why you can't have a patent!"

I'm not sure how you define a "bad patent" - that is not an invitation to explain - but regardless, this is an absurdly bad idea. As an alternative, investigate what an SIR is at MPEP 1111

Just my $0.02 worth.

Is there a rebate?

Other responses suggest your whole post is plagarized. If so, I imagine it was -extremely- relavant 15 years ago. I really wish Slashdot had a "What Made You Think You Were Qualified To Post?" moderation.

1. Create a dictionary of all words used in applying for a patent.

See MPEP 2111.01. In applying for a patent, you may define "giraffe" to mean "flashlight". There are at present few (if any) reasons for doing so, but if you're going to "computerize" the patent prior art search as you have described, there is suddenly an extremely good reason to say "giraffe" when you mean "flashlight".

2. A second dictionary of terms which are equal to each other.

See above. As an aside, maybe a better solution would be a classification system that categorizes patents and patent applications according to the technology involved, regardless of the vocabulary invoked? Such a classification could be performed by humans - maybe even get patent examiners involved. If a certain group gets too large, further subdivide it. Try to keep the groups to about 250 patents if possible. (I've described the system that's been in use for at least 100 years, but seriously, this super-thesaurus idea sounds promising. Except useless because of MPEP 2111.01.)

3b. All entries should be listed (just like with Google) in a descending order of revelance.

This has been available to examiners for years.

4. All applied for patents should be kept on file so they too can be checked against.

This was a great idea when Thomas Jefferson first thought of it.

People may say we can't do this.

Yes, but Thomas Jefferson was a great man, and when the computer technology of 1987 implemented the rest of what you're talking about, those people looked like idiots.

As for graphical pictures showing how something works - it depends.

The entire collection of patents (except the X series that burned) are available in image format to the examiners.

You need the bad patents in there as a way to say "Hey! Here are examples of why you can't have a patent!"

I'm not sure how you define a "bad patent" - that is not an invitation to explain - but regardless, this is an absurdly bad idea. As an alternative, investigate what an SIR is at MPEP 1111

Just my $0.02 worth.

Is there a rebate?

Other responses suggest your whole post is plagarized. If so, I imagine it was -extremely- relavant 15 years ago. I really wish Slashdot had a "What Made You Think You Were Qualified To Post?" moderation.

The parent post is probably correct in its description of the process, but there's reason to believe that this system is not "fundamentally and deeply flawed".

Consider that the patent office received 406,302 patent applications in FY2005 ( http://www.uspto.gov/ ). It would be horribly *inefficient* to evaluate each of those applications thoroughly, especially because the vast majority of those patents are without value and will never be heard of again. What you really need is a system that somehow *selects* valuable patents, and subjects *only those valuable patents* to scrutiny.

The process where the USPTO first rejects an application, then eventually accepts it if you spend the money and persist is one way for the system to select valuable patents: applicants will only spend time and money on multiple resubmissions in proportion to the value they place on the patent.

The fact that patents can be challenged in court is another way the system selects valuable patents: useless patents are never challenged, while those with value will be challenged and carefully scrutinized by a court.

The patent system isn't perfect, but all serious reform proposals, e.g. third party pre-grant challenges, take this selection idea into account.

Many of the problems with the current patent system go to the fact that you can now patent things that can't be represented as physical devices. Reinstating the requirement that all patents are accompanied by a detailed description of a physical device would remove all the absurd business concept patents, as well as many unreasonable types of software patents.

Before you scream that novel and non-trivial algorithms wouldn't be patenable (like, for example, a new algorithm for encoding images etc), all algorithms can be represented by specifically designed analog or digital electronics (example of a non-trivial algorithm that can also be represented by a physical device: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netah tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=4803736.WKU.&OS=PN/4803736&RS=PN/ 4803736).

Things that require code, like hyper-links, one click web ordering, and other patents that most people consider ridiculous would still be protected by copyright on the code... and last time I checked MS, Oracle, Sun, IBM, Apple etc.. didn't have all that much trouble protecting their intellectual property as start-ups without software patents.

Rolling back the clock to require a description of a physical device would both make patents a lot less vague as well as making the obvious harder to obsfucate, without requiring a massive paradigm change for what patents are supposed to protect (this isn't to say that I'm not in favor a more rational system for challenging a patent, especially for prior art issues, but reform tends to move in baby-steps)

• Method and apparatus for automatically exercising a curious animal
• Method of exercising a cat

• Method and apparatus for automatically exercising a curious animal
• Method of exercising a cat

I agree. It has becomming horrible... where I worked up until last summer, we were actually paid a bonus of approximately $1000 to file for obvious patents for the sole purpose of hoping that our competitors will accidentally use this idea in their products. Though those were stupid, I would have to say that the record goes to this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnu mber=4,022,227

On that basis alone, they have a descriptive, not suggestive, trademark. It describes the core feature of game play.

Interesting thing is, because Hasbro has acquired so many other brands (Parker Bros., Milton-Bradley, etc) they may now not be in an effective position, as a defacto quasi-monopoly, to use the same tactics to squash competitors that smaller companies can use.

A quick search of the Trademarks database reveals this: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=k f6uc6.1.1&p_search=searchstr&BackReference=&p_L=10 0&p_plural=no&p_s_PARA1=risk&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%2 4FM&expr=PARA1+or+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=&p_tagrepl~%3A=P ARA2%24ALL&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query

The first use for the game is http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=k f6uc6.2.4 in 1958, for a Word Mark in connection with a board game.

Of course, this conflicts with http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m016.htmthis.

And it conflicts with the Judge's statements in the Windows vs Lindows case.

Upshot (taking into account the judge's words) - they have an unenforceable, generic or descriptive word mark. Others can use it, and they can't stop them.

On that basis alone, they have a descriptive, not suggestive, trademark. It describes the core feature of game play.

Interesting thing is, because Hasbro has acquired so many other brands (Parker Bros., Milton-Bradley, etc) they may now not be in an effective position, as a defacto quasi-monopoly, to use the same tactics to squash competitors that smaller companies can use.

A quick search of the Trademarks database reveals this: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=k f6uc6.1.1&p_search=searchstr&BackReference=&p_L=10 0&p_plural=no&p_s_PARA1=risk&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%2 4FM&expr=PARA1+or+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=&p_tagrepl~%3A=P ARA2%24ALL&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query

The first use for the game is http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=k f6uc6.2.4 in 1958, for a Word Mark in connection with a board game.

Of course, this conflicts with http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m016.htmthis.

And it conflicts with the Judge's statements in the Windows vs Lindows case.

Upshot (taking into account the judge's words) - they have an unenforceable, generic or descriptive word mark. Others can use it, and they can't stop them.

Quote from http://www.gordonrees.com/pubs/pdf/ipnl031502.pdf

(b) Suggestive Trademarks
Suggestive marks, on the other hand, require the
consumer to use his or her
imagination in order to
create an association
between the trademark and
the associated product.
While suggestive
trademarks may suggest a
quality or feature of the
product related to the mark,
the suggestion is not one
that is so obvious that the mark is merely
descriptive of the product. Thus, suggestive
trademarks may be granted trademark protection.
The demarcation between what is a protected
suggestive trademark and an unprotected
descriptive term is often encountered by new
businesses that wish for their trademark to at
least partially identify the product the mark is
associated with. The desire to adopt a brand
name that identifies the associated product must
be balanced against the need to create a strong
trademark that the trademark owner can use to
the exclusion of its competitors. The difference
between "suggestive" and "descriptive" for a
particular trademark is primarily relevant when
the trademark is the subject of a federal
trademark application.

They go on to descibe an application for a resturant called Golden Gourmet which gets denied and Golden Wok which gets approved. Because Gourmet is too descriptive. So I don't know there is a line there somewhere. But you also have to consider the common perception to a product name. When you talk about Windows many computer users associate it with MS Windows, but many computer professionals may also associate it with the physical windows of which MS wasn't the originator of. Of the list Taboo is probably the only one too descriptive to receive trademark protection..

Quick lookup at http://www.uspto.gov/ reveals Taboo to be a several trademarks but I don't see the game, while it appears as if Hasbroo has a trademark on Monopoly for everything from casino games to resturant services.

I thought I wouldn't have to explain it on slashdot, but, well, here it goes.

If you click on the "Images" red rounded-corner imagebutton on the top of the page linked in my parent comment you will go to a page that uses exactly the <EMBED> tag described in the patent application. Being more accurate, if you look at the HTML source of that page, you will see:

  <embed src="/.DImg?Docid=US005838906&PageNum=1&IDKey=4EE2 41B610AE&ImgFormat=tif" width="570" height="840" type=image/tiff></embed>

That's exactly what it's under discussion: The EMBED tag tells the browser to find whatever it has to handle that document. If you have an ActiveX object that handles that tiff it could rotate, flip, blur, whateveryouwant it (And that's interaction). It's counterpart is to use a IMG tag, that tells the browser to just display the image (if it can)

Oh, btw, it's a tiff file, not a GIF.

Has anybody noticed that for seeing the patent's application images you have to use a plugin? Will be the patent office get sued too? Curious ...

You can see the Patent Here.

Essentially, it's a total bullshit patent attempting to own the concept of having an interactive server/client style application embedded in a webpage.

I just want to emphasize what rights patents confer. A patent does NOT confer the right to make anything. In fact, patents confer the right to EXCLUDE others from making "the invention" disclosed in the patent. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. Section 271 confers this right.

While a generalized rationale is that patents spur innovation by forcing others to design around the disclosure in the patent, a patent can also be used offensively to prevent others from gaining a particular foothold in a relevant market. For example, Inventor A may invent the cure to cancer (let's just say "all cancer") and assign the patent application to Company B. The patent application later issues as a patent with Company B as the sole assignee.

Now, Company B does not have to do ANYTHING at all. Arguably, it would be in Company B's interest to start manufacturing the invention disclosed in the "cure all cancer" patent, but they do not have to. Furthermore, they can PREVENT others from marketing what's disclosed in that patent.

In summary, patents do not confer a right on the inventor (or assignee) a right to make what's disclosed in the patent, but confers a right to prevent others from making what's disclosed in the patent.

actually, this is somewhat in place, but it's the inventor that has to make a decision on whether to keep something patented. This is done through Patent Maintenance Fees. So, it costs money to maintain a patent. Currently, the fees are $900 at 3.5yrs, $2300 at 7.5yrs, and $3800 at 11.5yrs. (Half if you're a "small entity") Since it can take time to make money from a patented idea, this forces people to make a "is it worth it to keep this thing" decision. Granted, one can argue if those dollar values are at all significant or effective, as they tend to be more of a burden on entrepreneurs than large businesses, but at least there is an early expiration provision.

Is this the relevent patent ?

Electronic mail system with RF communications to mobile processors

Inventors: Campana, Thomas J. JR ..

http://snipurl.com/ke5g
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv. html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20020160753&OS=200 20160753&RS=20020160753

This is not correct in all cases. For example in Duck Hunt, the light guns work by blanking the screen to all black for a frame, followed by an all black screen with white squares where the objects to be hit are located in the next frame. See this patent. I am not sure if there are any games which operate in the manner you proposed, but it is probably feasible to do this using the NES light gun technology.

And why can't urinals in the great United States have electronic infrared sensors in place of those flush handles, like all those third world countries have?

Oh, silly me. I forgot that it's already patented. At least now some of us can go on our marry ways to argue about intellectual property.