Slashdot Mirror

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.

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.

Thanks for the links.

I was going from the top of 35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.. Which I appear to have misinterpreted.

A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

To me that appears in line with what I said above, in particular "would have been obvious at the time", but obviously the methods used by the patent office disagree with me! I haven't read up on this in depth anyway, thanks for the clarification.

The original poster is 100% correct. No offense, but I have no clue where "would they have been able to come up with the idea" question has any base in 35 USC, 37 CFR, or the MPEP. If you have any citations, I'd love to see them. I assure you that this is not the operative question when patent examiners are rejecting your application.

I advise that you become familiar with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure because the original poster is clearly familiar with it.

Here are two relevant portions of the MPEP regarding how to prove something is "obvious", MPEP 2143 and 2143.01.

MPEP 2143

MPEP 2143.01

You will find the original poster's comments are completely in line with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. With all due respect, comments and opinions that diverge from what the MPEP states are either a) suggestions to improve the patent system or b) simply irrelevant, depending on the context. In both cases, these comments would have no relation to the current US patent system as it exists.

It is my intention to be informative - I hope you won't take offense. If you have other questions about the MPEP or how the patent system works, I'd be happy to cite what I can.

The original poster is 100% correct. No offense, but I have no clue where "would they have been able to come up with the idea" question has any base in 35 USC, 37 CFR, or the MPEP. If you have any citations, I'd love to see them. I assure you that this is not the operative question when patent examiners are rejecting your application.

I advise that you become familiar with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure because the original poster is clearly familiar with it.

Here are two relevant portions of the MPEP regarding how to prove something is "obvious", MPEP 2143 and 2143.01.

MPEP 2143

MPEP 2143.01

You will find the original poster's comments are completely in line with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. With all due respect, comments and opinions that diverge from what the MPEP states are either a) suggestions to improve the patent system or b) simply irrelevant, depending on the context. In both cases, these comments would have no relation to the current US patent system as it exists.

It is my intention to be informative - I hope you won't take offense. If you have other questions about the MPEP or how the patent system works, I'd be happy to cite what I can.

I agree, and disagree. I think that one reason that I've been somewhat reluctant to jump on the "IP rights are evil" bandwagon is that there are times when granting an IP right to a company is a good thing. We all complain about how drugs are expensive and how pharmaceutical companies have mini-monopolies, but I'm not sure how a drug company would ever have an incentive to risk billions of dollars in R&D money otherwise. If there's another alternative then we should consider it, but I really don't see one.

When it comes to computer software and other areas where patents are granted, the notion of IP rights is really pretty stupid. When I see patents being issued for PB&J sandwiches, I have to ask the question about how much capital a company has put up for R&D. Are there really teams of research specialists, working day and night for years, trying to figure out how to make a crustless PB&J sandwich? How many sandwiches were made before the perfect combination of peanut butter and jelly were found, and how much did this cost? Can anyone tell me how long it takes to get a PhD in jelly-making?

My understanding is that patents are supposed to be issued when an idea is "new and novel", yet the Patent and Trade Office seems to accept every application filed. Recently, for example, I went looking for a fax service. When I asked one company if their system would email the fax to me directly, they replied that the technology was patented and they were prohibited from using it. Excuse me, but how is emailing a fax any different than dropping a piece of paper off on my desk? Does a different delivery method for a fax meet the "new and novel" test? Looking at the Conditions for patentability, it talks about the lack of obviousness of an invention in filing a patent application. Wouldn't it be obvious to someone who had email that you should be able to use it to receive a fax? Wouldn't it be obvious to a fax machine maker that hooking up their device to the Internet would allow them to email faxes? I'd like to know how these applications get granted.

So many lawyers, so little time, and so many really funny lawyer jokes . . . Some institutions change slowly. Law is one of them. Law is complex, convoluted, and contradictory, yet necessary to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority and the powerful. But laws created to defend freedom and protect individual rights in one context must respond to changing circumstances. Population growth, technological advances in communication and transportation, the Internet, other technological and medical advances, changes in international law and the world configuration of power and influence, all have contributed to a vastly different world than the context out of which our fundamental laws derived. Key concepts must be revisited in the face of evolving values, changing circumstances, and threats to freedom. Meaning relies on context and agreement: we agree about what something will mean, and the extent to which we share a common worldview is the extent to which we can understand each other. To understand oneself is difficult enough, to understand another who lives in a different culture with different values is extraordinarily difficult. In a world where we want to converse cross-culturally, share our knowledge instantly, and develop a human environment free of poverty, cruelty, gross inequality and oppression, laws must adapt to defend these values. They are considered sacred to the human experience by many, but, sadly, not to all. Law is not fractal. Scale matters, as does socio-political context. What we need are new laws that better reflect the new scale of human experience and interaction. When you have a lot of people wanting to do the same thing, conflict arises, and vultures circle to seek opportunities to exploit individuals in the face of confusion. Chaos benefits the exploiter to the same extent that the failure of privacy crushes individuality. So laws of copyright and patent, once, at a much smaller population scale, and slower, more isolated communication context, seemed to be a means to protect the individual against the powerful. Otherwise every time a person thought of something and tried to develop it as a commodity, someone with more money or power would simply take it, and the originator would be left out in the cold. But has not the Internet and other modes of instant world communication not heralded a fundamental change in the value we attach to property? Property as a means to well-being, happiness, and safety is valued less than the ability to communicate freely, share our knowledge, and overcome our differences. Property in this light is a by-product of freedom, not the means to it. Property protection matters most in a small world of isolated societies and individuals; that world is gone. Freedom in the new world we live in is not about control of property, but permitting adaptability, flexibility, rapid dissemination and sharing of knowledge, and the means to be of service. It is not what we own, but how we can be of service that will define our wealth in this new age. So we must surrender property to a bygone age, and embrace the new basis of economics: service. It takes courage not to need to "own", but this is the only way forward. Patent law, based on this antiquated notion of property, must be shelved, and many of our socially-directed laws need to be revisited if we are to find the right way of defending our most sacred values of individual freedom, and the inalienable right to safety, life, and value. Note: a general site for those wanting a quick definition of "patent" etc. - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/w hatis.htm

Does anyone have a link to their archive of prior art, or any other listing of prior art for this patent?

Start from TFA to PUBPAT ACTIVITIES > Protecting the Public Domain to Forgent Networks JPEG patent to the request for reexamination. This request lists U.S. Patent 4,541,012 (now expired) as the key prior art in this case.

Microsoft and Amazon race to patent 'bumps on blocks'.

Except that they're too late. "Toy Building Brick", US Patent #3,005,282 issued to G.K. Christiansen (assigned to Lego) in 1964.

"Blocks adapted to be connected together by means of projections extending from the faces of the elements".

Which is one of the reasons this suit was lost. The court found that Lego's patents had expired and that they couldn't use trademark law to protect the design of their blocks.

All doubters, read the patent application. It's from early 2000 (actually you'll see that they filed for the same patent in Japan in 1999). If they had wanted to use it they could've used it in the PS2

HAARP US Patent 4,686,605
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,686,605.WKU.&OS=PN/4,686,605&RS =PN/4,686,605

HAARP Invertor's military ties
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread15366/pg 1

Military research report (1996): Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay1996/spac ecast/vol3ch15.pdf

If it was patented ... it would be public information.

http://www.uspto.gov/

But who do we see hold the majority of software patents? Large software companies. And so, the whole system is turned on it's head. Companies with a lot of resources, who can out-market (spending lots of money on ad campaigns, etc), out-lobby, and out-patent (patents are very expensive, and so only people with a lot of money to burn on patents can afford to get a lot of patents) most of the small and mid-size players.

Take for example the Amazon.com infamous one-click patent. The reason so many people were in an uproar about it is that, fundamentally, they were using html and cgi the way html and cgi were designed to be used (that is, present users with a form, and when the user clicks on something on that form, the form is processed and some software is triggered to run on the server).

Finally, it's arguable whether the first person/company to implement a specific idea should have a monopoly on that idea, when many others may have had the same idea, and just come to market a few months later. Most of the times, ideas are not that original - but specific implementations might be.

There are many many patents that have been applied for not for their inherent market value, but simply their value as a stick with which to beat the hell out of your competition, by creating an artificial barrier to entry into a particular market, or into any market.

But who do we see hold the majority of software patents? Large software companies. And so, the whole system is turned on it's head. Companies with a lot of resources, who can out-market (spending lots of money on ad campaigns, etc), out-lobby, and out-patent (patents are very expensive, and so only people with a lot of money to burn on patents can afford to get a lot of patents) most of the small and mid-size players.

Take for example the Amazon.com infamous one-click patent. The reason so many people were in an uproar about it is that, fundamentally, they were using html and cgi the way html and cgi were designed to be used (that is, present users with a form, and when the user clicks on something on that form, the form is processed and some software is triggered to run on the server).

Finally, it's arguable whether the first person/company to implement a specific idea should have a monopoly on that idea, when many others may have had the same idea, and just come to market a few months later. Most of the times, ideas are not that original - but specific implementations might be.

There are many many patents that have been applied for not for their inherent market value, but simply their value as a stick with which to beat the hell out of your competition, by creating an artificial barrier to entry into a particular market, or into any market.

But who do we see hold the majority of software patents? Large software companies. And so, the whole system is turned on it's head. Companies with a lot of resources, who can out-market (spending lots of money on ad campaigns, etc), out-lobby, and out-patent (patents are very expensive, and so only people with a lot of money to burn on patents can afford to get a lot of patents) most of the small and mid-size players.

Take for example the Amazon.com infamous one-click patent. The reason so many people were in an uproar about it is that, fundamentally, they were using html and cgi the way html and cgi were designed to be used (that is, present users with a form, and when the user clicks on something on that form, the form is processed and some software is triggered to run on the server).

Finally, it's arguable whether the first person/company to implement a specific idea should have a monopoly on that idea, when many others may have had the same idea, and just come to market a few months later. Most of the times, ideas are not that original - but specific implementations might be.

There are many many patents that have been applied for not for their inherent market value, but simply their value as a stick with which to beat the hell out of your competition, by creating an artificial barrier to entry into a particular market, or into any market.

[...] exponentially increasing fees per year to maintain a patent (proceeds from this being directed back into the patent office to afford better review of the patent applications)

Nowadays most patent offices around the world are already "self funded", so the fees do already go back to the patent office. And the proprietor of a patent already has to pay maintenance fees to keep it valid. But this is part of the problem, since it invariably leads to lower and lower standards.

A look at the USPTO fee listUSPTO Fee Schedule explains the underlying math.

The basic application fee for a patent is $300, but you also have to pay a "search fee" of $500 and an "examination fee" of $200, making it a total of $1000 for making an application. But in order to collect that money, the patent office has to do quite a lot of work: set up a file, do an initial formal examination, perform a novelty search, and quite often engage in correspondence with the applicant to sort out various issues. It seems reasonable to assume that initial applications "as such" do not cover their own costs for the patent office.

But once a patent has been granted, nice things start to happen to the patent office's profitability calculations.

At the moment the patent is granted, the proprietor has to pay $1400 in "issuance fee". Then, in order to keep his patent valid, he has to pay maintenance fees at regular intervals. $900 is due at 3.5 years after it was granted, $2,300 due at 7.5 years, and $3,800 due at 11.5 years.

For a patent that is renewed throughout its full term, the post-allowance and maintenance fees add up to $8,400, compared to the $1000 for the initial application.

And the renewal fees are the good part of the patent office business, since the PTO doesn't actually have to do anything for the money, except make a note in the file that the fee has been paid. So for those patent offices around the world that are funded in whole or in part by the fees they collect, there is a direct incentive to let the standards slip to the lowest level they can possibly get away with.

The result can be seen at a patent office near you.

(This post is essentially a repost of a reply I made in another patent discussion a couple of days ago, with some minor changes in the numbers, as I had missed some of the fees in the original post. But the logic remains exactly the same.)

[As Minna Kirai said]

And since Aspect-Oriented programming is a patented technique http://www.pmg.lcs.mit.edu/~chandra/publications/a op.html , basically you can not use it.

So, who really cares if its theoretically any good, when legally it is worthless?

See US patents 6,467,086 and 6,442,750 :

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,467,086.WKU.&OS=PN/6,467,086&RS =PN/6,467,086

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,442,750.WKU.&OS=PN/6,442,750&RS =PN/6,442,750

[As Minna Kirai said]

And since Aspect-Oriented programming is a patented technique http://www.pmg.lcs.mit.edu/~chandra/publications/a op.html , basically you can not use it.

So, who really cares if its theoretically any good, when legally it is worthless?

See US patents 6,467,086 and 6,442,750 :

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,467,086.WKU.&OS=PN/6,467,086&RS =PN/6,467,086

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,442,750.WKU.&OS=PN/6,442,750&RS =PN/6,442,750

That's all very true, but the patent system was originally designed with the specific goal of granting the broadest patent claims that an inventor can demonstrate. Add to that the burden of rejecting a patent claim must be shown in documented, publicly available prior art (after the requirements of 35 USC 101 and 112 have been met).

Someone recently mention the "Method of exercising a cat with a laser pointer" patent to me. I have no doubt that there was no prior art for that. Granted, anyone whose cat chased their laser pointer immediately began "exercising a cat with a laser pointer", but that doesn't make it prior art. As you've defined the "smell test", we can probably agree that there isn't much "invention" there, but that's entirely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. The guy submitted a patent application and there was no prior art to refute his claim that he was the first person who invented the technique.

It didn't come close to exceeding the standard for obviousness I'd want, because all it was doing was applying well known techniques to a device small enough to fit in a human pocket instead of a ships radio room, telegraph office or desktop email server.

Understood. I don't recall how old that patent is, but newly issued patents have their prosecution published in PAIR (Patent Application Information.. uh.. Retrieval.... System?) accessible from www.uspto.gov. You can read what the lawyers and the examiner argued about during the prosecution. I'm not familiar with the prosecution of that patent (and not sure if it's publicly available at this time) but there is a section of the manual of patent examining procedure that specifically addresses "Making Portable"

MPEP 2144.04

The mere existence of that section suggests to me that the lawyers were probably arguing some other feature of the RIM/Blackberry application(s), however I don't know for certain.

Ask me or others to design a system architecture for the same task and it's nearly certain that the same principles would have been used in essentially the same way.

I don't debate that, however this avoids a couple of pertinent questions. Did you build it? Did you even attempt to solve the same problem they did? Do you have any evidence that you conceived of the idea before they made their product? The question of "invention" is not "could you have come up with this?", but rather, "Who first had the idea to do it and solved the problems of implementation?" You might not like it, but that's basically the concept that forms the foundation of the patent system.

Maintenance fees from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure

Fee amounts

I am referring to rather extensive fees that must be paid to the government in order to keep the patent active for 20 years. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I think there's probably a lot of stuff regarding patents you haven't heard before.

Sure, sure. But if you really want to produce a product which is based on the original invention, even if it is modified, you still owe the original inventor. And he may not even want to share his invention, or will ask a ridiculous fee (see, for instance, Eolas).

Absolutely not. You have to pay fees or you can be barred from producing an infringing product. If you have a patented modification of the product, it is not infringing, else your patent would be invalid. Exceptions exist where your attorney is a complete tool and fails to point out how the original patent never considers or describes your modification.

The only thing is that al the time you work on it, you know you are doing R&D for someone else for free.

Only if your attorney is your cousin Vinny. See above.

And, as a "patent law professional", aren't you bothered by the fact that nowadays the issuing of patents stiffles rather than stimulates innovation?

Sir, I don't have a clue to what you're referring. Over the last 225 years, the patent system has stifled American industry to a position of global economic dominance in a wide variety of technologies. In light of reality, facts, and an understanding of this topic, I am forced to answer that I'm not the least bothered.

And as for people spouting half-truths about my profession: happens all the time, but I laugh it away. You should do that too, instead of getting all worked up about it. It saves you a lot of anger over time.

Sage advice indeed. The part I have more trouble laughing off is the incessant doomsday prophecies on Slashdot about the patent system coupled with the belligerant ignorance held by basically everyone here. Like a bad romantic relationship, they're all in love with the suffering but refuse to do anything to alleviate it. That song gets old after awhile and sometimes I do cave in, but you're right - I should save the anger.

Maintenance fees from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure

Fee amounts

I am referring to rather extensive fees that must be paid to the government in order to keep the patent active for 20 years. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I think there's probably a lot of stuff regarding patents you haven't heard before.

Sure, sure. But if you really want to produce a product which is based on the original invention, even if it is modified, you still owe the original inventor. And he may not even want to share his invention, or will ask a ridiculous fee (see, for instance, Eolas).

Absolutely not. You have to pay fees or you can be barred from producing an infringing product. If you have a patented modification of the product, it is not infringing, else your patent would be invalid. Exceptions exist where your attorney is a complete tool and fails to point out how the original patent never considers or describes your modification.

The only thing is that al the time you work on it, you know you are doing R&D for someone else for free.

Only if your attorney is your cousin Vinny. See above.

And, as a "patent law professional", aren't you bothered by the fact that nowadays the issuing of patents stiffles rather than stimulates innovation?

Sir, I don't have a clue to what you're referring. Over the last 225 years, the patent system has stifled American industry to a position of global economic dominance in a wide variety of technologies. In light of reality, facts, and an understanding of this topic, I am forced to answer that I'm not the least bothered.

And as for people spouting half-truths about my profession: happens all the time, but I laugh it away. You should do that too, instead of getting all worked up about it. It saves you a lot of anger over time.

Sage advice indeed. The part I have more trouble laughing off is the incessant doomsday prophecies on Slashdot about the patent system coupled with the belligerant ignorance held by basically everyone here. Like a bad romantic relationship, they're all in love with the suffering but refuse to do anything to alleviate it. That song gets old after awhile and sometimes I do cave in, but you're right - I should save the anger.

From the USPTO web site:

If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit, the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent, which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.

First off, this guy prosecuted this application pro se, that is, without a patent attorney or agent.

Secondly, this guy had the case made special on the grounds it dealt with superconductivity, one of the areas for which you can get your case advanced in the queue.The original application was filed in 2003, but was refiled as a continuation in 2005 without ever having even been docketed to an examiner, for reasons I couldn't discern from the publicly available papers

But, most importantly, the application was issued on the first action; no rejections under 35 USC 101 (lack of utility for not working), 112, first paragraph (not adequately disclosed), or 102 or 103 (prior art). Just straight out the door with a minor Examiner's Amendment to correct some formal claim language. There's a bunch of prior art of record, cited by the applicant, including some papers from respected scientific journals (such as Physical Review). The only hint of any consideration of the art, other than the cited prior art, is the examiner's reasons for allowance, the substance of which reads "None of the prior art of record taught or dislosed the claimed superconducting shield and electromagnetic field generating means structure."

And, with payment of the issue fee, it issued.

Here is an anti-gravity nuclear-powered spaceship. You know there was a time when they would reject this kind of nonsense. Is it time to re-file a patent on all those perpetual motion machines?

Patent #6,960,975

Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state

A space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state is provided comprising a hollow superconductive shield, an inner shield, a power source, a support structure, upper and lower means for generating an electromagnetic field, and a flux modulation controller. A cooled hollow superconductive shield is energized by an electromagnetic field resulting in the quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a gravitomagnetic field that forms a spacetime curvature anomaly outside the space vehicle. The spacetime curvature imbalance, the spacetime curvature being the same as gravity, provides for the space vehicle's propulsion. The space vehicle, surrounded by the spacetime anomaly, may move at a speed approaching the light-speed characteristic for the modified locale.

I'm glad they're actually doing something useful: CS research!

USPTO must be as well staffed as FEMA

Definitely not. I have it on good authority that Director of the USPTO, Jon Dudas, has never even owned an Arabian Horse. Pathetic.

The patent: 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=6960975.WKU.&OS=PN/6960975&RS=PN/ 6960975/

The abstract:
"A space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state is provided comprising a hollow superconductive shield, an inner shield, a power source, a support structure, upper and lower means for generating an electromagnetic field, and a flux modulation controller. A cooled hollow superconductive shield is energized by an electromagnetic field resulting in the quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a gravitomagnetic field that forms a spacetime curvature anomaly outside the space vehicle. The spacetime curvature imbalance, the spacetime curvature being the same as gravity, provides for the space vehicle's propulsion. The space vehicle, surrounded by the spacetime anomaly, may move at a speed approaching the light-speed characteristic for the modified locale."

Wow what a great invention. Too bad we don't have any of the items he wants to build it out of. Flux modulation controller? Quantized vortices of lattice ions? Gravitomagnetic? WTF?

The actual text of the patent just gets better and better. Some of my favorites:

"In the late 1940s, H. B. G. Casimir proved that the vacuum is neither particle nor field-free. It is a source of zero-point-fluctuation (ZPF) of fields such as the vacuum gravitomagnetic field. ZPF fields lead to real, measurable physical consequences such as the Casimir force. The quantized hand-made electromagnetic processes, such as those occurring in superconductors, affect the similarly quantized ZPFs. The most likely reason is the electron-positron creation and annihilation, in part corresponding to the "polarization effect" sited by Evgeny Podkletnov in explaining the gravitomagnetic effect reportedly observed by him in 1992. ("Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu33O(7-x) Superconductor Below 70 K Under E.M. Field", Evgeny Podkletnov, LANL database number cond-mat/9701074, v. 3, 10 pages, 16 Sep. 1997). "

"String theory unifies gravity with all other known forces. "

It might be 6,963,867 ("Search query processing to provide category-ranked presentation of search results") - 6,963,867

This one's assigned to Amazon subsidiary A9.com

Now, I'm not an IP lawyer, but I do pay attention when IP lawyers talk, and I get thoroughly annoyed when people believe the article summaries and ignore the readily accessible primary documents.

Despite what Slashdot groupthink might have you believe, it is not relevant whether their is similar art *now*. It IS relevant as to whether there was similar art before the patent was filed -- which is years before the patent is ever granted. Furthermore, objectives are NOT patented; methods are. Thus, unlike what the summary might have you believe, Amazon has not patented a generic method for getting product reviews.

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=6963848.WKU.&OS=PN/6963848&RS=PN/ 6963848

Amazon, for instance, obtained US Patent 6,963,848. This was granted on November 8, 2005. It was *filed* March 2, 2000. PriceGrabber only started grabbing reviews in May of that year, and that by partnering with ConsumerReview.COM -- which may or may not have used methods specified in the patent. Amazon's VERY FIRST CLAIM, for instance, specifies that the covered system must do the receiving of the order AND the later solicitation of a review AFTER a reasonable period of time to allow for an initial experience. Unless ConsumerReview or PriceGrabber itself TAKES THE ORDERS, they would not appear to constitute prior art that would invalidate the first claim.

In fact, ALL TWENTY-EIGHT CLAIMS have this stipulation -- that the system itself takes the order for which a review occurs. Does Epinions take the order, or merely send you to someone else? Does NexTag? Does PriceGrabber? Did you read the freaking patent AT ALL?

Go vomit at your own laziness, and at the Moderator that would declare you Insightful.

Here is the patent in question.

For those too lazy to click, here's the primary claim:

A method of encouraging customers to provide reviews of purchased items, the method comprising:

receiving over a network an order from a first customer for an item purchased from an electronic catalog;

estimating by what date the first customer will have at least initially evaluated the item based at least on the item type;

initiating an electronic transmission, based at least in part on the estimated date, to the first customer on or after the estimated date of a message requesting the first customer to provide a review of the item to thereby encourage the first customer to provide at least one review, wherein the message includes a link to an electronic review form and activation of the link by the first customer causes the review form to be presented to the first customer;

receiving the review from the first customer electronically via the review form;

individually presenting the first customer review in a group of reviews to a second customer interested in the item; and

based at least in part on the first customer's review, using a collaborative filtering process to automatically generate personalized recommendations for the first customer of other items.

One thing that's common to all the claims is that the system estimates when the user will have evaluated the item, based on what kind of item it is. So if you always send the review request three days after shipping, you're not infringing the patent. OTOH, if you figure that books take longer than DVD's to evaluate, and therefore don't send a book review request for a week, then you may be in trouble.

Also, note that the patent application was filed in March 2000, so any prior art would have to predate that.

Interesting that the article omits these kind of details.

Methods and system of obtaining consumer reviews

It is not primarily because the patent examiners are incompetent, as is often suggested. Instead it is the economics of running a patent office that make sure that it becomes like this.

Nowadays most patent offices around the world are "self funded", which means that they are funded by the fees that the collect from the patent applicants. This may perhaps seem like a sensible idea at first sight, but unfortunately it invariably leads to lower and lower standards for what is patentable.

A look at the USPTO Fee Schedule explains the underlying math.

The initial application fee for a patent is $300. In order to collect that money, the patent office has to do quite a lot of work: set up a file, do an initial formal examination, perform a novelty search, and quite often engage in correspondence with the applicant to sort out various issues. It seems reasonable to assume that initial applications "as such" do not cover their own costs for the patent office.

But once a patent has been granted, nice things start to happen to the patent office's profitability calculations.

In order to keep his patent valid, the proprietor has to pay maintenance fees at regular intervals. $900 is due at 3.5 years after it was granted, $2,300 due at 7.5 years, and $3,800 due at 11.5 years.

For a patent that is renewed throughout its full term, the maintenance fees add up to $7,000, compared to the $300 for the initial application.

And the renewal fees are the good part of the patent office business, since the PTO doesn't actually have to do anything for the money, except make a note in the file that the fee has been paid. So for those patent offices around the world that are funded in whole or in part by the fees they collect, there is a direct incentive to let the standards slip to the lowest level they can possibly get away with.

The result can be seen at a patent office near you.

6,963,850 ("Computer services for assisting users in locating and evaluating items in an electronic catalog based on actions performed by members of specific user communities") looks like one - 6,963,850

6,963,848 ("Methods and system of obtaining consumer reviews") looks like another - 6,963,848

Anyone know the third?

6,963,850 ("Computer services for assisting users in locating and evaluating items in an electronic catalog based on actions performed by members of specific user communities") looks like one - 6,963,850

6,963,848 ("Methods and system of obtaining consumer reviews") looks like another - 6,963,848

Anyone know the third?

The previous system was 17 years from *issue*, which meant that if you delayed your examination for years you could really extend the life of your patent (these delayed patents were known as submarine patents).

So, I really don't see any argument that the current system has expanded the old? It is simply a new way to calculate the term to eliminate people benefiting by purposely protracting their examination. In most cases the patent term comes out to be the same as the previous system. In addition, continuations of patents claiming priority to earlier filings are calculated from the priority date and, thus, have a term much shorter than 17 years from issue.

One last note... you mention variable speed windshield wipers. Do you have a reference regarding the early invention. The earliest I have found is reference to Kearns inventing the idea in 1962 and this patent filed in 1982 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=3&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =148&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=kearns.INZZ.&OS=IN /kearns&RS=IN/kearns

If you want to see how the 'logic' of Sony works, see this patent;

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1 &f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=(Kutaragi.INZZ.+AND+Sony.ASNM. )&OS=in/Kutaragi+AND+an/Sony&RS=(IN/Kutaragi+AND+A N/Sony

For short version, see this story;

http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000420067137/

(Sony is patenting a method for games console discs to be tied to the console unit they're first ran on. No second hand game sales or loaning of games...)

What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.

It may not be likely, but the patent holder would certainly be entitled to an injunction against even non-commercial use. I'm having trouble finding statutory damages (an amount they can sue you for without proving any actual harm) for patent infringement but I'd be surprised if it doesn't exist. And damages can be tripled for knowing and deliberate infringement.

The patent bar is the only bar in the U.S. that allows practicioners to be non-lawyers. Sure, you're an agent, rather than an attorney, but you still practice before the USPTO. (And the practice is quite lucrative, if anybody is thinking of finding a new job.) The USPTO has tons of discretion to choose who practices before it, according to the Supreme Court in Sperry v. Florida.

Just another example of how the USPTO has too much power for it to use effectively, and how Congress has failed to properly regulate the patent industry.

For those who are interested, link to the original application publication.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but that's certainly not true in the United States. Looking at the trademark database at the USPTO website shows that Microsoft Corporation holds the trademark "Windows"

Registration number is 1872264, serial number is 74090419.

http://www.uspto.gov/index.html

Microsoft is the corporation everyone loves to hate, but at least let's keep the facts somewhat straight.

If you look carefully under the diagram (Fig 1) there are two links to one of the patents - #6,015,258. Pictures and all (although the uspto site didn't show the pics properly for me). Text version or PDF.

I'd rather check with the USPTO about Microsoft Trademarks than Microsoft themselves.

Hate to break it to everyone, but Microsoft does own the Windows trademark on a number of computer related products and services, any one of which, may have been enough to blast this guy into oblivion.

Check out Reg Nos. 2212784, 2463526, 2463526 and 2463510 (among others) on the Trademark search system (sorry, no direct link available).

-A

But, what about http://www.defender-pro.com/? My mom uses their Anti-Spy product named Defender "Pro Anti-Spyware." And they have a TM: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=6 dahq0.2.2/ I think I might email them for a finders fee...:0

> Sure, but Microsoft does not have a trademark on the word Windows, not in this nor any other domain.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/0791/trdp079157700e. html

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=pase f3.5.861

My quick search of the Austraian TM engine shows WINDOWS being TM'ed by MS.

Now perhaps by 'here' you meant Bolivia or something but you should be careful with your use of the absolute case!

Their general US patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,015,258.WKU.&OS=PN /6,015,258&RS=PN/6,015,258
I didn't bother making links to non-US patents but you can find them at the company website. According to the company the patent process is still continuing.

Contact information (note that it is a private company):
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/merc-compint-00005 70076-Moya-Terra-Aqua-Inc.html

Their website:
http://www.tmainc.net/

I'm not impressed with the journalistic and editorial abilities of either Slashdot or OpenSourceEnergy. And I guess there shouldn't be any need to mention that most people on Slashdot talk out of their asses... (some even try to hide behind PhD's instead of actually making an argument - that's low!).

I suggest people do a bit of searching and reading on their own before making absolute statements about the "newsstories", be it this one or about hydrinos or whatever, otherwise all you're doing is succumbing to groupthink and knee-jerk reactionism. Have some pride (irrespective of whatever opinion you end up with).

from their website:
"A final note: Eolas also 'invented' (designed, actually) the now-ubiquitous stylized "e" logo. IBM purchased rights to use it from us in 1997."

I can understand you being upset over the patents
But what exactly is your problem with that? It's their trademark which they had and used since 1994: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=29 d5ac.2.17

Looks like you're quite right.

IANAS (I Am Not A Scientist), so I'm just assuming that they've probably perfected (or at least, somewhat improved) on the original concept. Hard to tell, of course, if they can't produce actual photos of the finished article (although there is a diagram).

Those Darrieus designs look like right hazards to avian navigation.


slide

Patent applications are public information. Open source in this case means anyone can generate energy, not just the utilities. Nothing to do with "free".

He HAS got a patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6024935.WKU.&OS=PN/6024935&RS=PN/ 6024935

So what do you think of that?