Slashdot Mirror

My best guess is it's US Patent no. 5,701,400, "Method and apparatus for applying if-then-else rules to data sets in a relational data base and generating from the results of application of said rules a database of diagnostics linked to said data sets to aid executive analysis of financial data," filed March 8, 1995 and issued December 23, 1997 ("Merry Christmas, Carlos").

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=5701400.WKU.&OS=PN/5701400&RS=PN/ 5701400

I don't have an explanation for the Register saying it was filed in 1990, other than the Register's usual casual attitude about accuracy.

5,293,615, 8 March 1994

His last name is spelled differently, but this appears to be the one. I was an Amiga user in 1990, but this sounds like basic database/spreadsheet usage to me.

5,537,590, 16 July, 1996

The same guy appears to have been granted a more recent patent for a related process:

5,701,400, 23 December, 1997

The wording of the second one is very buzzword-laden and overblown ("artificial intelligence"? whatever). I'm still looking over both of them.

The news articles seem to have a number of other things wrong. First, no one with the last name Amado applied for a patent in 1990. The patent which appears to be being discussed was filed for in 1993 (After Access was released).

5,537,590, 16 July, 1996

The same guy appears to have been granted a more recent patent for a related process:

5,701,400, 23 December, 1997

The wording of the second one is very buzzword-laden and overblown ("artificial intelligence"? whatever). I'm still looking over both of them.

The news articles seem to have a number of other things wrong. First, no one with the last name Amado applied for a patent in 1990. The patent which appears to be being discussed was filed for in 1993 (After Access was released).

a memory for storing data;

a computer coupled to said memory and having a video display and an input device

This is almost definitely an eveolution of the Virtual PC technology. Here is a related patent filed by Eric Traut, former CTO of Connectix...

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=(Eric+AND+Traut).I N.&OS=in/(Eric+and+Traut)&RS=IN/(Eric+AND+Traut)

Crike... it isn't even Monday.

I'll try this again.

Whoops - wrong link. Here's the correct nonbinary link (though the other one is somewhat related).

US Patents are charged a Maintenance fee which goes up over time.

• US 6,836.799: Method and apparatus for tracking user profile and habits on a global network
  
• US 6,643,692: Method for controlling a computer using an embedded unique code in the content of video tape media
  

• US 6,836.799: Method and apparatus for tracking user profile and habits on a global network
  
• US 6,643,692: Method for controlling a computer using an embedded unique code in the content of video tape media
  

Indeed. After further research, I agree. My understanding of the tech was incorrect. Still, I maintain that the technology is merely clever 2D rather than actual 3D. According to the patent (6,554,430):

Thanks for the correction though. A better overview of the system is available here

Secondly they used TAP method which is outdated and inefficient. Predictive text input is much faster.

Predictive text input is also patented until 2015, so it's not a fair comparison with Morse code.

Secondly they used TAP method which is outdated and inefficient. Predictive text input is much faster.

Predictive text input is also patented until 2015, so it's not a fair comparison with Morse code.

Hmmm... it gets more interesting. It appears that the patent in question and also this one (mentioned in a post by lilo_booter) have dates of May 31, 2005 and May 24, 2005 respectively. I'm not sure what these dates mean (perhaps they're the dates the patents were confirmed?) but Microsoft's announcement of "opening" their formats comes suspiciously soon after these dates.

(Sorry for replying to my own post. I just noticed the dates.)

Hmmm... it gets more interesting. It appears that the patent in question and also this one (mentioned in a post by lilo_booter) have dates of May 31, 2005 and May 24, 2005 respectively. I'm not sure what these dates mean (perhaps they're the dates the patents were confirmed?) but Microsoft's announcement of "opening" their formats comes suspiciously soon after these dates.

(Sorry for replying to my own post. I just noticed the dates.)

Well, there is this one which looks kind of relevant here (there and everywhere...)

System for improving the performacne of information retrieval-type tasks by identifying the relations of constituents

if they patented the gene sequence, couldn't someone argue that it is not patentable since its a natural phenomena (that the sequence occurs).

at least that is what I'm getting from reading from the uspto site at...
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#whatpat

You can't patent general ideas.

You seem to be woefully unaware of how broken the patent system really is. General ideas dressed up in patent lawyerese allows companies to sue everyone in sight. Whether successful or not is another matter, but it still costs money defending it. Witness Sega's patent to sue anyone who makes something like Crazy Taxi, which was used in a lawsuit against the makers of Simpsons: Road Rage. Other companies have patented programming techniques as simple as side scrolling (no Moon Patrol for YOU! Come back 20 years!), page flipping (90% of the games written in the 80s), etc.

Hell, in the physical world it's just as bad. I was just talking about this the other day. Our company bought a George Foreman grill for the lunchroom. Right on the box, it announces their patent. Apparently they were able to get a patent on the incredibly hard to figure out idea that if you put the grill on a slight incline, the fat drippings will run off it. Those people should be working for NASA designing space habitats with insight like that!

What do you mean "next"? They're already here.

Patent 1
Patent 2
Patent 3

What do you mean "next"? They're already here.

Patent 1
Patent 2
Patent 3

What do you mean "next"? They're already here.

Patent 1
Patent 2
Patent 3

I would just like to take this moment to announce that I have succesfully patented video game violence.

Everybody owes me money.

^_^

Wow, too bad that's utterly subjective and impossible to determine before the patent is awarded.

Couldn't the examiner have looked at Namco's application, compared it to the existing loaders for Commodore 64 tape games that would let you play some simple 4 KB game while the main game was loading, as well as Windows 3.1 OS's ability to run Minesweeper while doing something else, and not awarded U.S. Patent 5,718,632 to Namco?

As soon as you come up with a mechanism to physically get 16 megs of data off a DVD rom faster than 1 second, I'll be all over improving load times.

How fast is the transfer rate on a hard drive once the entire game has been cached to the PC or Xbox console?

Seriously, get rid of the crates - Agree.

Is it that you were frustrated with Sokoban?

I agree that frivolous or baseless patents are not good for the game industry. But if a company comes up with something truly revolutionary, I think that they should get to reap some reward from that (I know, /. blasphemy).

Problem, which you recognize, is that the USPTO's stamp of approval doesn't distinguish real innovation from bullshit land grabs. Specifically, Namco's system of running a minigame while loading the main game has been implemented since Windows 3.something, where I could run Minesweeper while something disk-intensive happened. Heck, some Commodore 64 tape loaders apparently had the same feature. Yet Namco has a patent on it until December 2015.

I'll take this one step further and argue that jumping puzzles aren't fun *anywhere*.

Do you hate the Mario games?

(after a little more digging) The patent in question makes few specific references to an optical disc (elsewhere a "recording medium"), so could you provide some references for the Commodore 64 games you're talking about, which play one game while loading another?

And, with these new names, put in a mini-game!

How much does Namco charge other publishers per title and per copy to license the privilege, under U.S. Patent 5,718,632 and foreign counterparts, to run one game while loading an unrelated game from an optical disc? Or does Namco even make licenses under the patent available for less than half of parent company Bandai's market capitalization before December 2015?

The patent text shows that the inventor thought of gloves. One embodiement has the user wearing gloves with sensors, another the steering wheel needs periodic contact for the engine to keep running. US Patent Text from uspto.org

Are you telling me that noone has trademarked "foon" yet?

I just checked the US Patent and Trademark Office and the answer is yes someone has, but they abandonded it. I'd link to it, but the USPTO uses stupid expiring search links.

Word Mark FOON
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: shoes, clothing, headwear
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Serial Number 78331125
Filing Date November 20, 2003
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Owner (APPLICANT) CLEANERCORP LIMITED CORPORATION HONG KONG 26th Floor AT Tower 180 Tower Electric RD North Point Hong Kong
Attorney of Record Grace L. Pan
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date December 27, 2004

-

Here's one possible example (from a patent):

"Trinary signal apparatus and method

Extended trinary signal apparatus includes window comparator logic having first and second inputs for first and second trinary input signals, wherein each the trinary input signal can be a high, low or mid state, and an output for outputting signals dependent on the states of the first and second trinary input signals. A switch, which is connected to one of the first and second inputs, can be selectively activated in one phase to set the one of the first and second inputs to a state other than the mid state and can be inactive in another phase. Control logic is responsive to output signals from the window comparator output during the one and the other phase to provide extended trinary decoding of the trinary input signals. In this manner ninth and tenth input combinations can be identified by detecting whether two inputs which show a mid state are electrically connected to each other or not, this being achieved by selectively pulling one of the inputs to a predetermined state and determining whether the other input follows or not. Trinary encoding can thus be extended to provide ten, rather than the conventional nine states from two inputs."

From 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=trinary.TTL.&OS=TTL/ trinary&RS=TTL/trinary

Interesting considering that to file a patient you need to have a complete description of the device not just the idea. I would venture based on the spec requirements that you need something working to get the right level of detail

Interesting considering that to file a patient you need to have a complete description of the device not just the idea. I would venture based on the spec requirements that you need something working to get the right level of detail

Ajax is a trademark held by Colgate-Palmolive. Any use of it will probably provoke the giant.

It's ok that there's a new buzzword for everyone to use, but it's taken. Pick another! Perhaps Jesse Garrett should have used TESS the trademark search engine.

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel