Slashdot Mirror

Here is the first patent: a patent on some bar graphs to display market information.

I guess it is "functional" -- it does something. But that seems pretty shitty and obvious to me. And Click based trading with intuitive grid display of market depth"> is the other patent -- also for a UI.

Here is the first patent: a patent on some bar graphs to display market information.

I guess it is "functional" -- it does something. But that seems pretty shitty and obvious to me. And Click based trading with intuitive grid display of market depth"> is the other patent -- also for a UI.

My point is that patents, by design "lock out". That you would add the phrase "lockout" to describe a patent encourages me to explain stuff from the beginning, no offense intended. The second result is that I'm not always filled with patience to explain stuff from the beginning.

here's the scoop.

Here's the real scoop.
1. Your company never took advantage of 37 CFR 1.99.
2. Your company may have been screwed over by bad lawyers, but I couldn't say for sure. (If that's true, it obviously wasn't the system's fault.)
3. Your company may have been using technology that was lawfully and properly patented by someone else (don't fly off the handle here - keep in mind how much detail you've provided. Also, please don't discuss what "lawfully and properly patented" means unless you're going to cite laws and the MPEP. Anything else is playing armchair quarterback at best. If you'd like to phrase comments as legitimate questions, I'll try to be helpful.)

Here's my analysis. A company that doesn't pay its debts will eventually get screwed. A company that has intellectual property but ignores the patent system will eventually get screwed. It costs money to make money - investing in a few professional patent searches is never wasted money.

That said, if your company's lawyers didn't understand the technology, if they launched an incompetent validity attack, or if they never questions the patent's validity, then your company got screwed by moron lawyers, not a patent system wildly out of control and on the verge of anhilating the US economy. Likewise, if your company hired a moronic accountant and got nailed by the IRS, it would be the accountant's fault, not the crazy socialist tax code hell-bent on ruining the free market.

The system works fine for gadgets like cotton gins but is broken horribly with respect to software, and it will need serious reform before it ever will.

On this we agree. However, the system for serious reform is in place and has been for years. It is known as the Federal Circuit, and decisions by judges on the Federal Circuit will define how software related inventions can be patented. I agree with you that things need adjustment, but I think it's better to focus the energy and frustration on the people that ACTUALLY have the authority to fix it. They do not work for the USPTO. They sit on the Federal Circuit court.

Also, keep in mind that software related inventions were not accept by the USPTO at all until around 1995 when Diamond v. Diehr forced the USPTO to allow that software related inventions were patentable. These first applications would have been examined and issued around 1998 if there were no problems (indeed finding a software related patent before 1998 is nearly impossible.) Those first applications that were hard fought would have ended up at the Fed Circuit on appeals at 2001-2002 at the earliest. Therefore, the self-adjusting system has only been active for about 3 years with regard to software related inventions. Some parts of government were intended to work slowly, but whether this is appropriate for the patent system is a completely different topic.

Someone in the US has the idea patented...

Device, system, and method for scanning paper media
Do you think this thing would work?
It scans volumetrically through the book without opening it?

U.S. App. No. 20040230959

Not that we have rules around here, but shouldn't there be a rule that no story about a patent gets posted without a link to the patent?

In the last month alone the software patent bastards also gained patents on:

Network drives and folder mapping
The Photo Album Software that came with your digital camera
The clickable progressbar found in all video and music playing software
The "recent" menu

In the last month alone the software patent bastards also gained patents on:

Network drives and folder mapping
The Photo Album Software that came with your digital camera
The clickable progressbar found in all video and music playing software
The "recent" menu

In the last month alone the software patent bastards also gained patents on:

Network drives and folder mapping
The Photo Album Software that came with your digital camera
The clickable progressbar found in all video and music playing software
The "recent" menu

In the last month alone the software patent bastards also gained patents on:

Network drives and folder mapping
The Photo Album Software that came with your digital camera
The clickable progressbar found in all video and music playing software
The "recent" menu

Shouldn't this be sent via something hard-copy, such as registered mail? E-mail is great, and we geeks love it, but for documentable, dated, provably-received things, it's a good idea to send in such a manner that you get a receipt. Then you can wave it in someone's face when they claim they never saw your mail. :)

• send by ordinary first-class mail, enclosing a return post card that the Trademark Office will date-stamp and mail back to you;
• send by fax and save the fax receipt; and
• use the Trademark Office's e-filing system to e-file the communication.

Shouldn't this be sent via something hard-copy, such as registered mail? E-mail is great, and we geeks love it, but for documentable, dated, provably-received things, it's a good idea to send in such a manner that you get a receipt. Then you can wave it in someone's face when they claim they never saw your mail. :)

• send by ordinary first-class mail, enclosing a return post card that the Trademark Office will date-stamp and mail back to you;
• send by fax and save the fax receipt; and
• use the Trademark Office's e-filing system to e-file the communication.

Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body

I have to wonder if these patents will have a chilling effect on their ability to compete in the marketplace.

I have to wonder if these patents will have a chilling effect on their ability to compete in the marketplace.

Inventions in outer space

I know you do this for a living - you are a patent laywer or somesuch. Your string of postings is not a good advertisement for your business. The clause you refer to simply states that a deep search for prior usage is not demanded from the examiner during the ex-parte search, basically because that would be an unrealistic expectation. This clause, combined with the fact that an applicant is supposed to declare to be original author if the mark in question simply means the system is leaky, but pretty much workable.

However, the clause you quoted does not relieve the examiner from his due-dilligence duties, so if easy to verify evidence is shoved in his face, he is better off considering it: due dilligence. Having sent the mails, combined with the fact that the applicant should have declared orignial ownership or authorship would quickly make this an issue of fraud, thus leading us to clause 719

Irrespective of whether this will work or not, I am already enjoying the idea of the examining attorney wandering in on a peaceful monday morning, whistling, gently placing his briefcase and lunchbox on his desk. He sits down, had a sip of coffee, briefly looks out of the window, hears the birds sing, observes the sunshine, and - damm! his secretary is wearing that short skirt again! - A deep sigh of contentment escapes his lips as he reclines in his custom Herman Miller Aeron.

He leans forward, and totally at peace with himself, his life, his job, and the world, he pulls the next case off the stack. "ahh", he says to himself, "application 76627578. some arcade thingamajig. Should be a piece of cake". And as he opens the file, angry hordes of arcade freaks, open source afficionados, RMS wannabees, claims, counter claims, counter-counter claims, pseudo-laywers, rednecks with a ripoff cmam cabinet! they all come falling from the file, screaming for his attention, josling over eachother, shouting! Shoving! FALLING! SPILLING OVER HIS DESK!

The utter shock on his face should be worth millions, and we must find a way to rig a webcam into his office, so all can see this moment live on the Internet.

Just my 2c

Would this not be signed by his attorney, who might be able to argue that he took his client's word on it ...

Well, I actually do this sort of thing for a living, and based on what you have written, I doubt that you do.

You cited and linked to Chapter 12 of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, which contains a section 1207.03 that appears to contradict your view that this is the correct time in the procedure to raise your issue.

But we will see what happens with the letter you sent. If it works at this stage I will be quite surprised.

As others mentioned, a well-informed examiner will reject this application. I'd monitor here until an examiner is assigned and email that person.

The opposition idea discussed below, while viable, would require you to have standing and money. Getting the examiner to refuse it with a gentle nudge to the relevant facts would require neither.

Seems to me the application should indeed be refused on this basis, though expecting an examiner to work that out might be asking too much. The idea is that it's deceptively misdescriptive and therefore unregistrable. The only problem I see here is that I'm not sure that MAME is descriptive of the software that we know by that name- that MAME is indeed a mark, just not Foley's mark.

That is a very misleading post. The stuff you refer to is acutally a post-examination process, and what you want to do is get to the review during or before the review process. Which is what I did. There are numerous places where in the regulations that make this thing fall over, and this is a good a place to start as any. There are many others though.

Point is, that while the examiner can claim to grant the marque in good faith if he is unaware of any existance of any connection - the mail I (and by now many others) have sent makes it clear to the examiner that there is no basis in trademark regulation to allow this marque to be approved. This shifts the burden of proof back to the applicant, something he would be hard pressed to do.

Well, I sent the following email to the trademark office. I suggest others do the same ...

One thing I think everyone is missing so far is that it hasn't been approved yet. If you follow the Link to the USPTO site it says it hasn't even been assigned to [an Examining Attorney] yet.

On another note, having read over the differences between Trademarks and Servicemarks, I would think that a website would have a Servicemark rather than a Trademark, because of this piece of text: A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.

For example, Microsoft is a Servicemark, Windows is a Trademark. Google is likely both.

On another note, having read over the differences between Trademarks and Servicemarks, I would think that a website would have a Servicemark rather than a Trademark, because of this piece of text: A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product.

For example, Microsoft is a Servicemark, Windows is a Trademark. Google is likely both.

The USPTO will send a NOTICE OF PUBLICATION to the applicant stating the date of publication. Any party who believes it may be damaged by registration of the mark has thirty (30) days from the publication date to file either an opposition to registration or a request to extend the time to oppose. An opposition is similar to a proceeding in a federal court, but is held before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a USPTO administrative tribunal. If no opposition is filed or if the opposition is unsuccessful, the application enters the next stage of the registration process. A Certificate of Registration will issue for applications based on use, or a Notice of Allowance will issue for intent-to-use applications.

The USPTO will send a NOTICE OF PUBLICATION to the applicant stating the date of publication. Any party who believes it may be damaged by registration of the mark has thirty (30) days from the publication date to file either an opposition to registration or a request to extend the time to oppose. An opposition is similar to a proceeding in a federal court, but is held before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a USPTO administrative tribunal. If no opposition is filed or if the opposition is unsuccessful, the application enters the next stage of the registration process. A Certificate of Registration will issue for applications based on use, or a Notice of Allowance will issue for intent-to-use applications.

The USPTO site provides an email address for questions relating to the application: TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov. I've sent them an email pointing out the MAME web site and it's preexisting use of the applied for mark. If every slashdotter does the same, the USPTO might be forced to ask some questions (and may even be appeciative of being notified of a scam in the making).

LAST APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S) OF RECORD
1. Foley, David R.

Address:
Foley, David R.
1281 Wayne Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
United States
Legal Entity Type: Individual
Country of Citizenship: United States

Here: Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.

and copy paste this into an email to:
TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
--------
Regarding:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial &e ntry=76627578

This person (David R Foley) is trying to trademark a copyrighted work. I cannot trademark the mona lisa, so I do not think I could copyright MAME, the name or the logo as they are copyright works of art (both the image and text).

For more information of the true owner, please visit:

http://www.mame.net/

Thank you
--------

Optionally include contact info:

David R. Foley
144 S. 3rd Street
Suite 626
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 685-5403
david@davidrfoley.com

There may be fines for fraudulent applications that break copyright laws. (image)

On the USPTO webpage for this application (here) it says that its status is "Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney." Anyone can file any trademark -- I could file one for the term "Microsoft" -- and it would get to this stage.

The key is getting your trademark application approved. The main impediment is from either already registed trademarks that are similar in name or from people that file oppositions. The process of filing an opposition is described on this USTPO page.

As someone who knows a little bit about trademarks I can say that the individual who filed this is really wasting their time -- the only way he could get and keep this trademark is if no one noticed he filed for it.

-ben houston
http://www.exocortex.org/ben

On the USPTO webpage for this application (here) it says that its status is "Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney." Anyone can file any trademark -- I could file one for the term "Microsoft" -- and it would get to this stage.

The key is getting your trademark application approved. The main impediment is from either already registed trademarks that are similar in name or from people that file oppositions. The process of filing an opposition is described on this USTPO page.

As someone who knows a little bit about trademarks I can say that the individual who filed this is really wasting their time -- the only way he could get and keep this trademark is if no one noticed he filed for it.

-ben houston
http://www.exocortex.org/ben

This is absolute nonsense. In the U.S., you do not need to register a trademark to be the owner of it - just use the mark. Perhaps the MAME folks ought to register the name to prevent another clown from trying to steal their name. I've posted a trademark notice on my own site to keep away at least some of the predators. I did that after learning of the problems of problems of Katie Jones, owner of the katie.com domain. Linus Torvalds eventually had to register "Linux" everywhere because of a similar set of thefts.

Compare the one in the trademark application, to any of the copyrighted images here. Hmmm, something looks familiar . . can you spot it?

I'm sure if anyone has any queries about who this gentlemen is, the Us Patent Office has the relevant details:

1. Foley, David R.

Address:
Foley, David R.
1281 Wayne Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
United States
Legal Entity Type: Individual
Country of Citizenship: United States

KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET - FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614

Algorithms are abstract ideas, and thus are not part of what can be patented.

Here are some relavant portions of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the bible by which patents are examined in the US.)

The USPTO's public MPEP
From MPEP 2106, all emphasis added
The claimed invention as a whole must accomplish a practical application. That is, it must produce a "useful, concrete and tangible result." State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601-02. The purpose of this requirement is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of "real world" value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research (Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 528-36, 148 USPQ 689, 693-96); In re Ziegler, 992, F.2d 1197, 1200-03, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, a complete disclosure should contain some indication of the practical application for the claimed invention, i.e., why the applicant believes the claimed invention is useful.

...

A process that consists solely of the manipulation of an abstract idea is not concrete or tangible. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Schrader, 22 F.3d at 295, 30 USPQ2d at 1459. Office personnel have the burden to establish a prima facie case that the claimed invention as a whole is directed to solely an abstract idea or to manipulation of abstract ideas or does not produce a useful result. Only when the claim is devoid of any limitation to a practical application in the technological arts should it be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Compare Musgrave, 431 F.2d at 893, 167 USPQ at 289; In re Foster, 438 F.2d 1011, 1013, 169 USPQ 99, 101 (CCPA 1971). Further, when such a rejection is made, Office personnel must expressly state how the language of the claims has been interpreted to support the rejection.

...

There is always some form of physical transformation within a computer because a computer acts on signals and transforms them during its operation and changes the state of its components during the execution of a process. Even though such a physical transformation occurs within a computer, such activity is not determinative of whether the process is statutory because such transformation alone does not distinguish a statutory computer process from a nonstatutory computer process. What is determinative is not how the computer performs the process, but what the computer does to achieve a practical application. See Arrhythmia, 958 F.2d at 1057, 22 USPQ2d at 1036.

...

For such subject matter to be statutory, the claimed process must be limited to a practical application of the abstract idea or mathematical algorithm in the technological arts. See Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1556-57 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192, 209 USPQ at 10). See also Alappat 33 F.3d at 1569, 31 USPQ2d at 1578-79 (Newman, J., concurring) ("unpatentability of the principle does not defeat patentability of its practical applications") (citing O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 114-19). A claim is limited to a practical application when the method, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result; i.e., the method recites a step or act of producing something that is concrete, tangible and useful. See AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358, 50 USPQ2d at 1452. Likewise, a machine claim is statutory when the machine, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result (as in State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601) and/or when a specific machine is being claimed (as in Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544, 31 USPQ2d at 1557 (in banc). For example, a computer process that simply calculates a mathematical

PS - might be convinceable on this issue, but not impressed by some of the applications your firm is administering.

Patent #6,846,670: Genetically engineered herpes virus for the treatment of cardiovascular disease

Courtesy of Patently Silly

Patent #5,443,036 on the USPTO website @ 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=5443036.WKU.&OS=PN/5443036&RS=PN/ 5443036/ not only seems absurd, but a reading if the abstract shows how bad the patent review system has become.

"A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct."

So not only is a stupid idea patentable, somehow my cat is able to see "invisible light".

I'm from the government and I'm here to help (you patent some really stupid idea)

The present invention is directed to a system and method for raising financing and/or revenue by artist for a project, where the project may be a creative work of the artist. The method including registering, by at least one artist, with a centralized database, at least one or more projects, offering, by the at least one artist, an entitlement related to the artist in exchange for capital for the project of the artist. The method and system may also include searching, by an interested party, the centralized database, for the least one artist, registering, by the interested party, with the centralized database and accepting the offer by the interested party for the entitlement related to the project. The capital may then be forwarded to the artist and the entitlement provided to the interested party.

Microsoft patented a process for a 'limited resource computing device'. Presumably because they are aware of an unlimited resource computing device somewhere. Why don't you contact them?

Hello
I do not like this "empty" academic talks about is IP a real term for copyright, patents etc. or it is not. This term is in use and there is no need to discuss about it, unless You are a law professor and got a lot of free time to spent for such polemics ;) Yes it covers copyrights and industrial property rights (industrial property term was taken from French law doctrine and covers patents, utility designs, industrial designs trade marks, geographical indications etc. depends on which legal system we talk).
Anyway. Each country got different patent law and rules about to become a lawyer at all. Generaly speaking in USA to become a lawyer You have to be educated in a law school (it was not needed 150 yrs ago. ;) and You need to pass a bar exam (each state proviedes its own bar ex. but all are unified by American Bar Ass. rules). To become a patent attorney You need to pass USPTO exam. There are different positions for example You can be a patent examiner and there is no need to have law education.
You as an inventor can apply for a patent or a design for yourself at USPTO. Its easy. Of course they suggest You to take an advice of a PA to avoid mistakes.
ABA rules statue that You have to be a legal advisor (lawyer, patent attorney) in the field You are specialised.
For more details check USPTO web page and American Bar Ass. web page.
Hope I help You a little.
Tomasz Rychlicki
www.rychlicki.net

There is a separate exam to become admitted to the Patent Bar. You can get more information at the PTO website. You do NOT have to be a lawyer to take the Patent Bar Exam. If you pass it and are not a lawyer, you are called a "patent agent." If you pass the patent bar and are a lawyer (admitted to practice law in any state or D.C.), then you are called a "patent lawyer." In order to take the patent bar exam, you must have a technical degree (engineering, science, etc.) Detailed info is linked to above.

To file a patent, unless you are the inventor, you have to be admitted to the patent bar (patent agent or patent lawyer).

There are no such restrictions on copyrights or trademarks. However, you need to be an attorney to file trademarks on behalf of another. (I don't know about copyrights).

For litigation purposes (suing other people for patent infringement), you have to be a lawyer, but you do not have to be admitted to the patent bar. You only need to be a patent lawyer to prosecute (obtain) patents.

Software shouldn't be patented. It shouldn't even be copyrighted or trademarked.

That's like going to a murderer and saying killing isn't moral. Sure, it's true, but it ain't gonna do much.

If patents pass in europe, i can predict it won't be as bad as in america. Corporate biggies like MS can easily put tons of money in useless crap.

Heck, if the uspto accepts a patent on a bicycle filed in the year 2000, you know they'll accept any old crap from MS.

The definition of "obvious" or "non-obvious" is not clear. I can easily imagine the baffled patent examiner, considering the XOR drawing algorithm. "Wow! This guy knows about bits, and logic gates, and,... other complicated stuff. Hot damn, that can't be obvious. We gotta do something about this... We gotta... Make sure nobody else does this for 20 years!

At the time (1978), true-color framebuffers were expensive and consisted of an large board of RAM chips and several RAMDAC's. The only people to have access to such hardware were research departments in universities and corporations. Home computers were just coming onto the market, but still used block character graphics as the display system. The novelty for this patent was applying an arithmetic operation to framebuffer data in hardware. This was very much the same technological state as biological/genetic research is in now.

Nobody really anticipated that high-end workstation technology (as this was at the time) would eventually migrate down to consumer devices.

The text for the XOR patent was filed by NuGraphics and can be found by searching for patent no. 4197590

Quantel also filed for a similar patent covering the use of transparency/opacity/alpha blending to implement paint brush strokes (4,633,416).

Owning the XOR patent, simply stimulated companies to develop other more advanced methods of editing (overlays, underlays, transparency color).

The definition of "obvious" or "non-obvious" is not clear. I can easily imagine the baffled patent examiner, considering the XOR drawing algorithm. "Wow! This guy knows about bits, and logic gates, and,... other complicated stuff. Hot damn, that can't be obvious. We gotta do something about this... We gotta... Make sure nobody else does this for 20 years!

At the time (1978), true-color framebuffers were expensive and consisted of an large board of RAM chips and several RAMDAC's. The only people to have access to such hardware were research departments in universities and corporations. Home computers were just coming onto the market, but still used block character graphics as the display system. The novelty for this patent was applying an arithmetic operation to framebuffer data in hardware. This was very much the same technological state as biological/genetic research is in now.

Nobody really anticipated that high-end workstation technology (as this was at the time) would eventually migrate down to consumer devices.

The text for the XOR patent was filed by NuGraphics and can be found by searching for patent no. 4197590

Quantel also filed for a similar patent covering the use of transparency/opacity/alpha blending to implement paint brush strokes (4,633,416).

Owning the XOR patent, simply stimulated companies to develop other more advanced methods of editing (overlays, underlays, transparency color).

The definition of "obvious" or "non-obvious" is not clear. I can easily imagine the baffled patent examiner, considering the XOR drawing algorithm. "Wow! This guy knows about bits, and logic gates, and,... other complicated stuff. Hot damn, that can't be obvious. We gotta do something about this... We gotta... Make sure nobody else does this for 20 years!

At the time (1978), true-color framebuffers were expensive and consisted of an large board of RAM chips and several RAMDAC's. The only people to have access to such hardware were research departments in universities and corporations. Home computers were just coming onto the market, but still used block character graphics as the display system. The novelty for this patent was applying an arithmetic operation to framebuffer data in hardware. This was very much the same technological state as biological/genetic research is in now.

Nobody really anticipated that high-end workstation technology (as this was at the time) would eventually migrate down to consumer devices.

The text for the XOR patent was filed by NuGraphics and can be found by searching for patent no. 4197590

Quantel also filed for a similar patent covering the use of transparency/opacity/alpha blending to implement paint brush strokes (4,633,416).

Owning the XOR patent, simply stimulated companies to develop other more advanced methods of editing (overlays, underlays, transparency color).

It's a truly sick world that we live in. You have my heartfelt apologies for my failure to stop this insanity. A little collaboration on everybody's part might help.