Slashdot Mirror

Sadly, given the state of the patent system nowadays, it would not surprise me if it is granted.

Attention all SlashDotters: you too can join the hunt for prior art on patents! That's right -- the US Code Section 35 part 301 specifies that "Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential."

See also Persons Who May Cite Prior Art", which explicitly says that "'Any person' includes patentees, licensees, reexamination requesters, real parties in interest, persons without a real interest, and persons acting for real parties in interest without a need to identify the real party of interest." You don't even need to have a legal stake in the outcome of the patent application in order to submit prior art.

Mind you, it's probably not as straightforward as just writing a letter to the US Patent and Trademark Office. Nothing is ever straightforward with legal stuff, and the USPTO web site doesn't go out of its way to advertise the approved method for submitting prior art. Could somebody with more legal background than I have please write a HOWTO on submitting prior art? Then, every time a story pops up on SlashDot about patents like this one, we can all turn our collective attention to unearthing prior art that might shoot down the foul thing instead of bellyaching about how b0rked the system is.

This is a published patent application. It most definitely IsNot a patent...

Sorry to spoil the MS-bashing party kids, but there's really nothing to see here.

It hasn't even been reviewed by an Examiner yet. If you're concerned or curious about the progress of this application (or any other), you can monitor changes here: http://portal.uspto.gov/. Just plug in the application or publication number. The "Transaction History" tab has a timeline of things that have happened with the application, and the "Image File Wrapper" tab (if there is one) links to images of every paper filed in the application.

There are actually rules for what is supposed to be accepted as patents, and including those things are that there exists no prior art and that it is non-obvious. It's nice of the patent clerks to look things up to see if it has been patented before, but what is included in their job is to do at least a basic search for prior art and to reject things that are obvious solutions.

And they are not doing that, which results in lots of patents who should not be accepted, many of which sooner or later end up in a court case, costing companies lots of money.

This "IsNot" patent is only one of many patent applications which are both obvious and has lots of prior art, and which should therefore not be accepted. Chances are, it will be, because it is no less patently absurd than Lotus patenting the use of backslash to open a menu, or this gem. Yes, it's the famous comb-over patent.

there is no way that the PTO will let something this bad be granted a patent.

I beg to differ.

United States Patent: 6,368,227 - 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=6,368,227.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS =PN/6,368,227

Is the USPTO simply rubber stamping everything???

Jw

By the way, the USPTO has recently updated the Public Pair service so file wrappers for published applications (at least the more recent ones) can be viewed by the public. With all the talk of more robust examination, the new PAIR is a good way for public watchdogs to keep tabs on "patent" offenders, especially since many dubious applications are in art groups with significant delays that enable the publication of the application even before it is examined (such as this one).

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

Suggested use of the exact same syntax is here. There are numerous other examples of Jonathan Allen suggesting and requesting this exact same feature.

Maybe he should sue for not being mentioned in the patent application! Or maybe he just didn't read the EULA for Microsoft newsgroups...

OK, granted, it's cleaner than lead-acid, but are you implying a claim that the Ni-MH battery manufacturing process has significantly less detriment to the environment than the petrol that a hybrid car saves? What about the cheaper non-environmentally-friendly products that the buyer must substitute in other areas of his or her life in order to afford a hybrid in the first 20 years that hybrids are on the market? Compare $19,800 for a Honda Civic Hybrid to $13,160 for the conventional sedan, and remember how expensive VGA LCDs were when they first came out.

They'd have to pay a fee to the patent holder.

3.1. You agree not to assert against Yahoo!, or any other DomainKeys Developer, a patent infringement claim against any Implementation ("Implementation IP Claim").

They proceed to give identification numbers for patent applications, not granted patents. I was not able to locate these applications at the USPTO, so perhaps they are unpublished?

For all we know, Yahoo is trying to win legitimacy and enforceability for overly broad patent claims, where we don't even know what they are. How could a rational person agree to that?

An incorporated entity does not pay taxes on salaries, even if it's a one person company. A company only pays taxes on retained earnings and disbursments to shareholders. So if you paid yourself an income, but no dividends, and paid out enough so that your company had very little money left in the bank at year's end, there essentially is no double taxation. You also cannot be personally sued and lose personal belongings if you're set up as a corporation (in most cases). Of course you then have to be careful about "purchases" made in the companies name (Why does a 1-person software company need an 56" plasma TV and copies of "Girls Gone Wild"?) But that's another story.

As for the patents, here it goes:

Can you get in trouble for selling software that has been patented by someone else? Yes. Have lots of software patents been issued? Yes. If you accidentally infringe on a patent, will the government kick down your door and kill your dog? Probably not. How can you tell if you're working on something that's already patented? Do a search.

1.) Proper searches are expensive because they're very hard. However, more often than not Google and /or a local college library can handle general searches.

2.) I recommend that anyone involved in things like software retain the services of a patent attorney. But you should know that the trickiest patents to find are going to be something that you think no one's ever done before, but an obscure IBM facility in the Alps perfected 5 years ago. If you're doing something that everyone already does (Linux, browsers, office applications, etc), something that's in the public domain, chances are you won't be sued (or else they would sue Mozilla, Open Office, etc).

Will I be sued? Probably not. Why not? Lawyers are expensive, you're not worth their time.

You should also realize that with the services of a very good attorney, someone not blatantly stealing ideas can probably fend off just about anyone. Also, most companies will send you cease and desist letters before they haul you to court.

A few seconds to search http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html the USPTO will probably do you some good.

If you're doing something that no one has ever done before, you just might want a patent (here's a tip, get an attorney for that one).

Don't be afraid, as crazy as it sounds, patents exists to encourage development and even protect small businesses!

Method for making a sandwich

Intructions to make toast

Method for making a sandwich

Intructions to make toast

Basically, keep things as is, but limit the patent term to,say, 5 years. After that patent owner can extend it to the full 17 year term but make the extension EXPENSIVE (say, 40K per patent)...

The system you suggest already exists and has existed for decades, albeit at about 1/10th the costs you propose. It is called Maintenance Fees. See 37 CFR 1.362 et seq. These fees are due at 4, 8, and 12 years after issuance. Big companies are charged higher amounts than small ones.

what are you talking about "export", no one else respects US patents, they are only valid in USA

from the kids page at US patent office

Q:If I get a patent from any country's Patent Office in the world is my invention protected in all the other countries?

A:In general, patents are only effective in the country for which they are granted.

so there you have it, the kids know so why don't you ? all this company are doing is screwing the USA, the other 191 countries will carry on without you

you can't patent Silly

Are you sure?

The US Patent and Trademark Office maintains searchable databases of both patents and trademarks. The earliest Excel I see is from 1925, serial number 71215931, a footware trademark owned by BF Goodrich. There's another (72419485) dating from 1972 in current use for "CHAINS AND MORE SPECIFICALLY ROLLER CHAINS" by what seems to be the Jeffery Chain corporation. Around the time that M$ was starting to put together their cute-and-fuzzy little office suite, Hyundai (aka Hyunda) were using Excel (73511599) as the name for a car model.

There's only so many phoneme combinations to go around; a certain amount of overlap is necessary. You'd have to ask a lawyer -- and specifically, a trademark specialist -- to find out if the theory that the failure to register for trademark protection this long results in abandonment of enforcement rights.

I mean, nobody has trademarks on allen wrenches or tarmac, Spandex, or Polaroid....

I mean, nobody has trademarks on allen wrenches or tarmac, Spandex, or Polaroid....

I mean, nobody has trademarks on allen wrenches or tarmac, Spandex, or Polaroid....

I mean, nobody has trademarks on allen wrenches or tarmac, Spandex, or Polaroid....

Actually, Microsoft is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

Because it has nothing to do with patents, and everything to do with trademark.

Which part of my post did you not understand??

The magic cube guys had/have a valid trademark for the "magic cube" (what the agents told the toy store to take off the shelf) given to them by the trademark office.

Ser no. 76351080/reg no.2671747 look it up here or just stick in "magic cube."

You know how to use the internets, don't you? Stop being a tool/troll or fool.

Enough of those already work for the government.

Science & Engineering Associates is a subsidiary partner of Apogen Technologies, who licensed this to Trakstar. They've been pretty busy in this area.

My cat's terrified of my laser pointer. "Method of exercising a cat" my ass.

It's application 20040130815, "Information storage systems", by James Barnes. The basic idea is to go back to head-in-contact recording, like a floppy, rather than the flying heads used in hard drives. Diamond coating is supposed to keep the substrate from wearing out. A huge number of read/write heads is envisioned. ("Indeed a preferred embodiment of the invention has over 64 million heads in a rectangular array of 1024 long by approximately 64 thousand wide.") These are being vibrated back and forth through small distances by piezoelectric actuators, eliminating the usual voice-coil positioner.

Fabricating that will be a neat trick.

I felt compelled to check whether Land Of The Free (tm) was an actual trademark. It is, but I was surprised to see what for...

Word Mark LAND OF THE FREE
Goods and Services IC 030. US 046. G & S: SOYA-BASED NONDAIRY FROZEN DESSERTS FOR CONSUMPTION ON OR OFF THE PREMISES. FIRST USE: 19850401. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19850401
Owner (REGISTRANT) TOFU TIME INC.
(emphasis mine)

Those damn IP-holding, money-grubbing...tofu companies?
And don't forget, kids, enjoy your Tofu-Time Soya-based non-dairy frozen desserts on OR off the premises. After all, this is The Land Of The Free (tm)
For more trademark fun, be sure to visit the USPTO.

One such videotape of this type consisted of a solid block of what appeared to be Styrofoam. (A patent describes a limited-use video tape in which the core could be cardboard, styrofoam, or synthetic resin.) This block had openings and gaps for the path of the magnetic tape and for the plastic reels onto which the magnetic tape was wound. On the outside of the block was thin plastic that appeared to be attached with some adhesive. Stuck to the top of the cassette was a cardboard sheet printed with information about the promotion. The end of the tape which was inserted into the VCR had a long cardboard tab. This tab had serrations so that it could be easily pulled off of the tape without damaging anything.

Read through the MPEP chapter 2100 and take a moment to think about why the system is setup the way it is.

Then go back and read your posts, see what you have argued, compare that to the requirments and let me know what you come up with.

A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). (From MPEP 2131)

To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). (From MPEP 2143.03)

A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). (From MPEP 2131)

To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). (From MPEP 2143.03)

The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before...

unique? novel? original? Note that the term "novel" is only mentioned 3 times on this entire page and it seems to mean what a dictionary would define it as.

the concept of "non-obvious" does not mean what you think it means...

Continuing the last sentence:

...that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention.

And the previous sentance:

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious.

That's pretty much what I thought it meant.

From the same page:

...and abstract ideas are not patentable...

An "abstract idea" like, say, mouse traps vs. a specific implementation of a mouse trap.

So substitue "novel" and "abstract ideas" for "unique" and "overly broad" and my original argument stands.

But someone did!!!!!!!!111oneoneleven
Now that this theory is tested, develop a proof and get a patent on it. These fine people will love to grant you one. Oh and do it fast. I mean now that we know that your theory works and all...

The patent claims the benefits of a provisional application filed in 1996. If you feel like checking it out, you'd have to find pre-1996 data.

At the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and type in the pat number 6,460,020. You'll notice this application wasn't exactly sailing through the door. A notice of allowance (grant) was sent and withdrawn, after which the examiner decided to reject the application. The examiners work hard with what they have access to, I know it's easy but we can't just be blaming them all the time. *cough* USPTO Fees are essentially free money for the government
*cough*

I'm sure Dell's attorneys will check the details of the file wrapper to determine if and how the claims were narrowed or something else invalidated the patent. Saying that they have a rock solid case is something any lawyer much less a patent attorney (ahem CEO) would say. The patent just seems like the result of a successful negotiation to me. Whether or not Dell et. al will bow to the pressure, well...

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=6,460,020.WKU.&OS=PN/6,460,020&RS =PN/6,460,020

The patent you saw could have been a design patent (different from a utility patent; see definitions), such as D485,810.

It could have been a utility patent, like 6,469,247, though.

The patent office doesn't pick the title. The inventor or attorney probably did.

Just because it has a broad title doesn't mean the claims aren't very specific.

The patent you saw could have been a design patent (different from a utility patent; see definitions), such as D485,810.

It could have been a utility patent, like 6,469,247, though.

The patent office doesn't pick the title. The inventor or attorney probably did.

Just because it has a broad title doesn't mean the claims aren't very specific.

The patent you saw could have been a design patent (different from a utility patent; see definitions), such as D485,810.

It could have been a utility patent, like 6,469,247, though.

The patent office doesn't pick the title. The inventor or attorney probably did.

Just because it has a broad title doesn't mean the claims aren't very specific.

Fixed:

The patent in question: #6,460,020

--
Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions

I did, by snooping around the website of the (I consider) punks. They announced they won the patent in a press release about getting the Borderless Order Entry System (BOES(TM)) patent. The actual patent would be found on the USPTO.gov website. It was filed December 29, 1997, and so it really was prior to much internet international transactions taking place. And this patent went through a lot of scrutiny from what I see.

At one point, it was even mentioned in Congress by a Virginia lawmaker as a horrible use of the patent system. (Read another news story that has more on this.) And it was revised many times. I see a lot of work done on this.

Now do I think they are bastards? Oh yea. Do they have a case? Unfortunatly, it appears so. But this sort of thing shouldn't be patented in the first place.

The patent can be found here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1='DE+Technologies'&OS =%22DE+Technologies%22&RS=%22DE+Technologies%2 2 And yes, it is as bad as it seems.

c t1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.h tml&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1='de+technologie s'&OS="de+technologies"&RS="de+technologies">Th e patent in question: #6,460,020</a>

The abstract says it covers everything from currency transactions to providing credit card facilites to have the payment made. Seems, if anything, to be a bit broader than Slashdots article claims. But that's just me.

The actual patent is #6,460,020. I would summarize it by saying that it covers writing a program to do all of the stuff you need to do to sell products internationally, including currency conversion, tariff and shipping calculations, etc. Sounds pretty obvious to me. Enjoy...

job qualifications.
:-)

The history of this application can be found here.

A couple of interesting points:
- This case was rejected 4 times prior to being allowed.
- This case was originally allowed after the second rejection, but the allowance was withdrawn.
- After the fourth rejection, this case was sent to the board of appeals, where the examiner was partially affirmed.
- After the boards decision, a final amendment was made and the case was allowed.
- Four years past from the time the case was first looked at by an examiner until the case was finally allowed.

Sears sent out Christmas catalogs based on past purchases; thus, it is prior art. Anything you could buy is in the catalog and anything bought at sears is in the catalog. Further more, this is a case whereby Sears provides a means of purchasing products via past purchases.

Sears isn't prior art for a couple reasons:

1. Sears catalogs are not customized to the desires of the individual shopper. This customization greatly increases the probability of an extra sale, thus satisfying the "usefulness" patent requirement.
2. The Sears process for sending out catalogs involves humans compiling data on who has made purchases into a mailing list. The Cendant process (presumably, I haven't actually read it) involves analyzing the purchase data of all its customers and using algorithms to determine that a given customer is likely to desire specific products because of similar purchasing patterns. These two processes are completely different, satisfying the "novelty" patent requirement.
3. Similarly, the algorithms for predicting which products a customer will want do not obviously derive from the Sears process, satisfying the "non-obviousness" patent requirement.

Of course, these points only apply to Sears catalogs. There may be other prior art that uses computers to run purchase-predicting algorithms (which would undermine the "useful" and "novel" claims unless Cendant's process had significant advantages over the prior art). There could even be prior art that used humans to process the same algorithms as Cendant, in which case the move to computers could be an "obvious" transition. The algorithm gives the process firm legal ground for the patent, because it's something that required effort to develop.

For more information, read this.

Seriously, there's a reference in patent application to the article "Amazon.com Catapults Electronic Commerce to Next Level With Powerful New Features", dated September 23, 1997 -- barely two weeks after the patent filing date. And the odds are good that it took Amazon.com a lot longer than two weeks to develop, test, and deploy that functionality.

But wait it gets better... reading further in the PR blurb, we see that their group filtering technology was based on an existing product, called Grouplens. I assume that this is the same kind of functionality that Cendant is claiming as their own work; if so, surely Grouplens must have something to say as far as prior art goes...

Jay (=

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=Cendant&s2=recommend ation&OS=Cendant+AND+recommendation&RS=Cendant+AND +recommendation

All relating to the same thing just about

PAT. NO. Title 1 6,782,370 Full-Text System and method for providing recommendation of goods or services based on recorded purchasing history

2 6,076,070 Full-Text Apparatus and method for on-line price comparison of competitor's goods and/or services over a computer network

3 6,035,288 Full-Text Interactive computer-implemented system and method for negotiating sale of goods and/or services

All three

This seems to be the patent: System and method for providing recommendation of goods or services based on recorded purchasing history