Slashdot Mirror

The main reason it was rejected appears to be that its claims were anticipated by patent 7,724,242. But now that patent still covers a pretty wide range of the same things, and is still valid (at least so far).

And if we look at who filed that patent, it's two people whose names appear at the list of Senior Inventors of everyone's favorite litigious organization that doesn't technically hold patents itself...

The issue, as always with government services, is funding.

The issue is that the USPTO is 100% funded by application and maintenance fees so they have a conflict of interest in regards to denying new patents. Fewer active patents means fewer patents to renew and less revenue for the USPTO. The whole reason why they allow software patents in the first place is because the USPTO saw what a gold mine they would be for their agency. It took an act of Congress to get them to change their system, making it possible for Ask Patents to exist.

On the surface yes, but with very little research you can find prior art reaching back to 1972 (in the cae of Blue GaN LEDs) http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F3683240 and easily 1989 for the process http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4819058

On the surface yes, but with very little research you can find prior art reaching back to 1972 (in the cae of Blue GaN LEDs) http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F3683240 and easily 1989 for the process http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4819058

Of course, an argument can be made that the original inventor should be recompensed, and that's fair...to a point. To redress this perceived injustice: patents should expire after a reasonable time, and NOT be renewable beyond a limited extent (say one or two renewals).

Patents do expire after (what Congress has decided is) a reasonable time: twenty years from the date of filing of the application. They are not renewable, period. And they can even expire earlier, if you fail to pay maintenance fees.

Wow, I wasn't aware of the requirement for maintenance fees, very interesting. So essentially, these fees do pretty much as I described, with the exception that the last 'maintenance fee' paid in year 12 extends the patent eight years, instead of only four years for the previous 'maintenance' fees.

Am I correct in assuming that once it expires (for whatever reason), it then gets assigned to the public domain?

Mostly yes - slight change to what you described was that maintenance fees are based on filing date, so if you have a patent application pending for 10 years, you only pay the year 12 fee, and it expires 8 years later.

And yes, once it expires, it's public domain forever. Interestingly, though unsurprisingly, most software-related patents get abandoned without paying the 12 year fee. The fees are not static, but increase significantly, so for most companies, it's not worth it to pay that last extension, particularly in software where technology moves so quickly. So, allowing for the time from filing to grant, most software-related patents already only last around 4-5 years.

Ah, so let the patent term start from the day it's granted, not the day it's filed (I think that's how it works now, isn't it?) That seems fair to everyone. The key takeaway is that patent terms should be drastically shortened, so as not to stifle the very innovations they purport to protect...but OTOH, it doesn't look like the 'maintenance fees' implemented in 1980 are having much of an impact on the patent circus, either.

That is how it works - term starts from day of grant and lasts until it expires, either for non-payment of maintenance fees or the end of 20 years from the date of filing. Now, whether 20 years is too long is open to debate, but it's not like the lifetime+70 years of copyright. And the maintenance fees do have a significant impact - see above - although maybe they should be either increased or have an added increment or two... I agree, having the final fee at 12 years is odd... maybe there should be additional fees due at 15 years and 18 years. That would tend to make patents expire sooner, unless the patent owner really thinks they're valuable.

...their polymer, conveniently termed a "resin" on the Form 1 website, seems like nothing more than a creative attempt at skirting patent law.

The resin / polymer isn't under patent. Doesn't really much matter what they call it. The patent is about automatically generating support lattice for an object during the printing process. It expires in less then 10 months.

Of course, an argument can be made that the original inventor should be recompensed, and that's fair...to a point. To redress this perceived injustice: patents should expire after a reasonable time, and NOT be renewable beyond a limited extent (say one or two renewals).

Patents do expire after (what Congress has decided is) a reasonable time: twenty years from the date of filing of the application. They are not renewable, period. And they can even expire earlier, if you fail to pay maintenance fees.

Wow, I wasn't aware of the requirement for maintenance fees, very interesting. So essentially, these fees do pretty much as I described, with the exception that the last 'maintenance fee' paid in year 12 extends the patent eight years, instead of only four years for the previous 'maintenance' fees.

Am I correct in assuming that once it expires (for whatever reason), it then gets assigned to the public domain?

So, for example, a filed patent would expire in two years, renewable to up to twice for a maximum length of six years.

The problem there (or rather, not a problem) is that patents aren't just registrations or rubber stamps. They get examined, and that takes time - currently, it's about 4-5 years from filing to granting. So, under your proposal, they could expire before they even make it through the queue to examination. That would be fine, if it was more like copyright and simply paying your $35 registration fee gets you registered, but is not fine with an examination system... and I think the latter is a better system.

Ah, so let the patent term start from the day it's granted, not the day it's filed (I think that's how it works now, isn't it?) That seems fair to everyone. The key takeaway is that patent terms should be drastically shortened, so as not to stifle the very innovations they purport to protect...but OTOH, it doesn't look like the 'maintenance fees' implemented in 1980 are having much of an impact on the patent circus, either.

And this would prevent these 'submarine' patents from almost a quarter-century ago from inhibiting current technology development.

17 years is a lot closer to a 5th of a century than a quarter-century. And the patent will expire in 3 years, long before it gets to a quarter century.

Ah, yes, sorry. Skimmed too fast, thought I read that it was granted in 1993 (no, I don't know where I got that number either). That would be exactly a fifth of a century, true...but still longer than I would consider reasonable.

Which points to the shocking state of the patent system, where 'omnistereo' can be patented in 2011 despite having been openly published years earlier. Blimey, even stereoscopic movies were still being patented in 2005! (oh yes, that 'rectilinear' makes all the difference...)

Which points to the shocking state of the patent system, where 'omnistereo' can be patented in 2011 despite having been openly published years earlier. Blimey, even stereoscopic movies were still being patented in 2005! (oh yes, that 'rectilinear' makes all the difference...)

If you do a search from the US Patent and Trademark Office, you'll see that they're not "just typing TM". They have a Trademark
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:1dd3pm.2.1
They applied and it was granted. Case closed!

Adecco owns the trademark. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:1dd3pm.2.1 Case closed.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:15tnmo.2.3

Guess again.

Serial Number 85314959

Word Mark THUNDERBOLT

Owner (APPLICANT) Apple Inc.

That is a trademark, do you know what one is?

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:15tnmo.2.3

Guess again.
Serial Number 85314959
Word Mark THUNDERBOLT
Owner (APPLICANT) Apple Inc.

6,199,076 and 8,112,504

6,199,076 and 8,112,504

Too late: http://gammapix.com/corporate/about "The patent-protected GammaPix (TM) technology (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,391,028 and 7,737,410 plus foreign filings) has been under development since 2002 with over $2.5 million in government support." http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7391028 and patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7737410 were from applications filed on Feb. 28, 2005.

It is worth adding that both of the Monsanto patents mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment either are, or will shortly become, history. The Supreme Court judgment itself can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf.

One of the Monsanto patents is U.S. Patent 5,352,605, issued October 4, 1994 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,352,605.PN.&OS=PN/5,352,605&RS=PN/5,352,605

and the other is U.S. Patent RE 39,247E, a reissue of U.S. Patent Number 5,633,435, originally issued May 27, 1997
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,633,435.PN.&OS=PN/5,633,435&RS=PN/5,633,435.

Both these were filed before mid-1995 (see linked information at US Patent Office website) , and so they seem to have arisen from the 'old-law' US patent regime, when the patent term used to be '17 years from issue date'. Under that old regime the normal expiry dates for these two patents would be October 2011 and May 2014 (unless Monsanto manages for any reason to obtain some patent-term extension).

(The current patent-term regime doesn't seem to apply to these two, but if the last patent applications in the chains leading to these patents had been filed under the current law, with a 20-year term from application date, then the normal expiry dates would have been determined from the earliest dates in the chains of patent applications from which the two patents eventually issued. These chains began in 1983 and 1990, and would have led to normal expiry dates in 2003 and 2010, so the patents would on that basis already have been history for some time now.)

-wb-

It is worth adding that both of the Monsanto patents mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment either are, or will shortly become, history. The Supreme Court judgment itself can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf.

One of the Monsanto patents is U.S. Patent 5,352,605, issued October 4, 1994 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,352,605.PN.&OS=PN/5,352,605&RS=PN/5,352,605

and the other is U.S. Patent RE 39,247E, a reissue of U.S. Patent Number 5,633,435, originally issued May 27, 1997
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,633,435.PN.&OS=PN/5,633,435&RS=PN/5,633,435.

Both these were filed before mid-1995 (see linked information at US Patent Office website) , and so they seem to have arisen from the 'old-law' US patent regime, when the patent term used to be '17 years from issue date'. Under that old regime the normal expiry dates for these two patents would be October 2011 and May 2014 (unless Monsanto manages for any reason to obtain some patent-term extension).

(The current patent-term regime doesn't seem to apply to these two, but if the last patent applications in the chains leading to these patents had been filed under the current law, with a 20-year term from application date, then the normal expiry dates would have been determined from the earliest dates in the chains of patent applications from which the two patents eventually issued. These chains began in 1983 and 1990, and would have led to normal expiry dates in 2003 and 2010, so the patents would on that basis already have been history for some time now.)

-wb-

I'd argue that the spirit of 35 USC 101 refers to physical processes, not abstract ones; at most a practical implementation of an abstract algorithm is what is patentable, not the algorithm itself. The Juducial Exceptions explain this further. This was decided by Gottschalk_v._Benson, and seems to have been confirmed by the current case.

Except that the recent cases have affirmed or cited positively Diamond v. Diehr, which was patenting an algorithm, too:

1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising:
providing said computer with a data base for said press including at least, natural logarithm conversion data (ln), the activation energy constant (C) unique to each batch of said compound being molded, and a constant (x) dependent upon the geometry of the particular mold of the press,
initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of the press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,
constantly determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding,
constantly providing the computer with the temperature (Z),
repetitively performing in the computer, at frequent intervals during each cure, integrations to calculate from the series of temperature determinations the Arrhenius equation for reaction time during the cure, which is ln(v)=CZ+x where v is the total required cure time,
repetitively comparing in the computer at frequent intervals during the cure each said calculation of the total required cure time calculated with the Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time, and
opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates completion of curing.

The current case also cites Diehr positively.

Why blame the examiners?

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101_training_aug2012.pdf

Step 2: If a process, follow the process analysis. Step 3: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (a judicial exception)? If no, eligible. If yes, proceed. Step 4: Is the claim as a whole directed to a practical application of the abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? If no, ineligible. If yes, proceed. A man-made tangible embodiment with a real world use is evidence of a practical application. Step 5: Does the claim cover substantially all practical applications of the exception? Is innovation based on the abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon foreclosed? If yes, ineligible. If no, the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter.

An algorithm never deserves a patent. Practical application, tangible embodiment: patent eligible (for now).

I'd argue that the spirit of 35 USC 101 refers to physical processes, not abstract ones; at most a practical implementation of an abstract algorithm is what is patentable, not the algorithm itself. The Juducial Exceptions explain this further. This was decided by Gottschalk_v._Benson, and seems to have been confirmed by the current case.

I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field. I think that right there would help quite a bit. there is no reason someone who went to school for cooking but gets the qualifications and becomes a patent officer should have any reason saying yes or no to something such as computer systems / hardware or engine design etc.

That's a brilliant idea... We could have a classification system wherein patent applications are sorted by area of technology and assigned to patent units with specialized Examiners who are skilled in those fields to apply prior art and test for obviousness. We can call them "art units".

Brueske; David November 15, 2012
Telescoping tripod sprinkler cart

Abstract

A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly. In some preferred embodiments, the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart may also include a carriage assembly to enable the portability of the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart.

Inventors: Brueske; David; (Olympia, WA)
Serial No.: 068530
Series Code: 13
Filed: May 12, 2011
Current U.S. Class: 239/722
Class at Publication: 239/722
International Class: B05B 3/00 20060101 B05B003/00

Claims

1. A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly; the tripod junction unit comprises a first leg, and a second leg, and a hose conduit; the plurality of support members are sized to mate with the legs; the legs comprise a detent orifice sized to mate with a detent on a support member; the support members comprise a detent for the purpose of fastening the support member to the tripod junction; the sprinkler support assembly is disposed upon the hose conduit of the tripod junction.

2. The Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart of claim 1 further comprising a carriage assembly; the carriage assembly comprises an axle, an axle housing, a pair of wheels, and a pair of struts.

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0001] The present invention is in the area of lawn sprinklers, and more particularly pertains to an apparatus for irrigation.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0002] One of the most common chores for a homeowner to address is watering or irrigating a lawn. While some people may use a simple lawn hose to manually irrigate their lawns, most people use various irrigation systems. These irrigation systems can be used to cover large swaths of landscape quickly and efficiently.

[0003] However, the problem with sprinkler systems is their relative high cost and attendant installation. Their relative high cost can stem in large part from the installation thereof. Effective installation requires that underground tunnels or troughs be dug. In many instances, these distances can exceed 50 yards in length. As a consequence, this installation can require a substantial amount of back-breaking work.

[0004] Therefore, what is clearly needed in the art is an apparatus which enables someone to irrigate a large lawn, orchard, or garden and cover a large diameter of space.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0005] It is an object of the present invention to provide an apparatus to elevate an irrigation sprinkler to increase the surface area to be covered. By manually adjusting the height of the sprinkler head above ground, a person will be enabled to cover wide areas of lawn, landscape, gardens, orchards, or other areas where constant irrigation is required.

[0006] It is an object of the present invention to provide a portable apparatus with pneumatic wheels to place an elevated tripod sprinkler cart in its desired destination. Oftentimes, long hoses can become heavy, and with the wheels, the towing thereof can be made substantially easier.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING FIGURES

[0007] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0008] FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0009] FIG. 3 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0010] FIG. 4 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

There are resources for inventors. The USPTO has a page. There are startup incubators. There's Kickstarter. And then there's a bunch of slimeball "invention brokers", with success rates somewhere below 0.1%. These clowns are in that category.

Here's my idea: run two sites, the first one's like this (previously unknown to me) quirky, a good way to get candidate ideas some of which would be profitable (but as noted, a horribly ineffective way of actually doing anything with the contributed ideas), and another much more like Bennett's which can effectively filter and exploit the ideas. Then feed the latter from the former, and (with any luck) get profitable products which can then be sold. Or maybe just sell the ideas/patents (along with the list of interested customers) to third party manufacturers (or some combination).

Obviously it would be bad if people at the quirky-like site knew about the other one, so I'd want to keep it quiet (and probably vice versa). Maybe have it only operating in a foreign language in a foreign country (perhaps more than one).

(I'm not suggesting this is how quirky (or any other site) works. Seems likely they started with what seemed like a good idea and for some reason haven't been able to make it actually good (Bennett's analysis seems sound to me, what they're doing seems ineffective). And they don't care yet because they're getting press (apparently, anyway) and perhaps VC. Or maybe it's basically a hobby, or makes enough from selling the rejected ideas back to the proposers, or something else I just haven't thought of.)

Nope, first time in my life I ever heard that name.

Me too, and I make significant money as an inventor.

Looking at their website, it seems similar to Kickstarter.

No, it's much, much worse. The terms are awful. "While one aspect of the Site is to provide Users, including Idea Submitter's with the right to share in Product Sales Revenue, Users should not participate on the Site or in the Services primarily for financial gain, as any actual monetary compensation actually received by a User in connection with the Site, may or may not bear any relation to the actual time invested on the Site, or the quality or quantity of User Content submitted, or Influence allocated." They own your submitted idea even if they don't use it. If they don't use it, you can buy it back from them for a fee, plus a cut of future revenue.

There are resources for inventors. The USPTO has a page. There are startup incubators. There's Kickstarter. And then there's a bunch of slimeball "invention brokers", with success rates somewhere below 0.1%. These clowns are in that category.

http://www.uspto.gov/

With all the money you're going to spend filing those patents, why not contribute to the research instead? $20M would help bring the industry a long way :)

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee031913.htm

Another reason the backlog of patents has declined is that the USPTO is better funded, and has hired many more patent examiners. In 2005, there were about 7300 examiners. Today, there are more than 9500.

It seems to me that we need to compare the numbers here. So looking at 2005 as you mentioned, there were 417,508 patents filed. That means a per-examiner average of 57.19 patents. Fast forward to today, in 2012 there were 576,763 patents filed which gives us a per-examiner average of 60.71 patents. Instead of showing a decrease in the average patents indicating a more acceptable workload for examiners, we instead find that the opposite is the case. Given even the budget increase that provided for additional examiners, the workload on each examiner has been increased by ~6.4% since 2005 which should indicate that the approval rate should be in the same ballpark as it has trended to in the past. I can see no way to account for the 20% increase in patent approvals when the workload has also increased.

I browse the USPTO approved patents occasionally just for fun because seeing what gets approved is laughable sometimes. Ultimately I haven't seen any difference in quality of those approved at all but I do not evaluate a significant enough subset of the total approved patents to say with certainty that this is the case. I find it very hard to believe, however, that in the face of increased workload the quality of overall submissions has improved so drastically in 3 years that 20% more patents are being approved. With such massive datasets, a huge trend change like this almost never occurs. You can't tell me that out of 276,788 approved patents 55,358 of them just suddenly got better than previous years when the ruling in KSR v Teleflex that should have spurred these changes happened ~4 years earlier. Again, there should be a trend to the changes that shows an upward swing in approvals rather than this:

2007 - 484,955 Total Patents / 182,899 Approved Patents / 37.71% approval
2008 - 485,312 Total Patents / 185,224 Approved Patents / 38.17% approval
2009 - 482,871 Total Patents / 191,927 Approved Patents / 39.75% approval
2010 - 520,277 Total Patents / 244,341 Approved Patents / 46.96% approval
2011 - 535,188 Total Patents / 247,713 Approved Patents / 46.29% approval
2012 - 576,763 Total Patents / 276,788 Approved Patents / 48.99% approval

Ultimately, just looking at the numbers comparisons, it is almost as though every additional patent to the total number of patents since 2009 has been approved. For example, in 2010 there were 37,306 more patents than 2009 but there are !!52,414!! more approved patents. Taking the same comparison but going 2011 vs 2009 (because this is the year that shows the marked trend change), we have 52,317 more patents and 55,786 more approved patents. Finally, in 2012 vs 2009, we have 93,982 more patents and 84,861 approved patents (the first time since 2009 there have been less approved patents than the increase of actual submissions). What intrigues me most about these numbers is that we see a huge increase in the number of submitted patents during 2010 and on...I have heard through the grapevine that this is because of the slackening in standards at the USPTO to bolster the agency's numbers which has spurred the patent trolls but IANAPL (patent lawyer) so I wouldn't know anything about whether this is reality or not.

The basic fundamental problem is that the patent office receives money to grant patents. Instead, it must receive money to evaluate patents. They get a small amount of money when you file, and a larger amount when they grant.

USPTO Fee Schedule:
Basic filing fee: $280
Size fee (if applicable: $400
Search fee: $600
Examination fee: $720
Publication fee: $300
Issue fee: $1780
Total USPTO receives to evaluate patents: $2300
Total USPTO receives to grant patents: $1780

... there's a flaw in your math.

Additionally, if you read the article or study, one of the things they're complaining about is that an application can be examined multiple times with multiple rejections, through the filing of requests for continued examination... which cost $1200 for the first request and $1700 for each subsequent request. And, so, on average, the PTO is receiving somewhere between $3500 and ~$7000 to evaluate patents and only a mere $1780 to grant patents.

Sorry, but no: when you look at the actual fees involved rather than the ones you imagine exist, if economic concerns were behind this, then the allowance rate would be plummeting, not rising.

Another war against Linux? Do I detect a whiff of Microsoft's scent in the air surrounding this?
:>(
Thanks for the link, and that page has even more informative links. It looks like Rackspace won a dismissal against Uniloc for a patent troll argument asserting patents on simple mathematical operations: rounding a floating point number up or down before performing a mathematical operation on it, rather than performing the math operation and then performing the rounding afterwards. The judge's dismissed Uniloc's suit stating that "simple mathematical operations are not patentable".
.
That patent was PTO#5,892,697 and only the first claim was asserted for that lawsuit.
.
Interestingly, the way the lawsuit was filed shows that Rackspace was being sued for deploying Linux servers, and the servers were claimed to be infringing # 5,892,697 because they ran Linux. Doesn't this look like another wave of concerted lawsuits and patent trolling against Linux? I wonder who the concert-master is in this case, waving the baton and funding this crazy patent assertion of rounding numbers before an op being performed rather than after the op is performed? Is there a whiff of Microsoft in the air?

In this case, a patent would have been reasonable.

Actually it would not have been reasonable, as the existing drug was public knowledge at the time drugs became patentable. As such, it counted as "prior art".

My reason for stating that a patent would be 'reasonable' is that they would have been given a patent if the current laws stood when the drug was developed. Perhaps "not unreasonable" would be the correct term.

Your drug and process example also hints at a failure in the patent process:

35 U.S.C. 112 says

Specification. The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Link: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450 So if an essential process or precursor for making the drug was held back in the original patent application, the original patent should not have been granted.

Oh, hear here. But that law has not been followed for years. The art of writing a patent these days is the art of making the wording so complex that it provides the reader with no benefits, and so ambiguous that you can extend it to cover things others invent later. "Full, clear, concise and exact". Yeah. That's why we need 'claim construction' arguments to work out what a patent means.

In this case, the original patent could not be granted because India's laws did not recognize patents on drugs at the time. Now India has passed laws recognizing patentable drugs, the company wanted a patent, and claimed one for the existing drug, unpatented because of previous laws, slightly changed.

In this case, a patent would have been reasonable.

Actually it would not have been reasonable, as the existing drug was public knowledge at the time drugs became patentable. As such, it counted as "prior art".

Your drug and process example also hints at a failure in the patent process:

35 U.S.C. 112 says

Specification.
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Link: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450
So if an essential process or precursor for making the drug was held back in the original patent application, the original patent should not have been granted.

The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive. If this holds up (and I doubt it will), Microsoft could make a "Microsoft iPad", and LG, Samsung, Asus, would also be able to make "iPad" devices of their own. This would be a disaster for Apple, but I seriously doubt it is going to happen.

... except for the fact that Microsoft, Samsung, Asus, and LG would be infringing Apple's Trademark Reg. No. 3776575 for "IPAD".

Specifically, the rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive, but Apple can submit evidence to show that that term has acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness in the marketplace... and that other registered mark is conclusive evidence.

In your defense it's a common misconception on Slashdot that you can patent genes, but the truth is that genes are not patentable without an application and a transformation outside the body. It is the same thing as the concept that an algorithm per se is not patentable, but if you come up with a nice implementation for using it then shezzam! you get a patent.

For details see the section on Utility Examination Guidelines in the following:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/utilexmguide.pdf

they'll notify you when someone is going to buy a domain that uses your trademark on one of these new vanity gTLDs and you'll have the chance to contest the purchase (ie, buy it yourself) or give up all future claims.

Yes, but you (owner of the trademark) still have to do the work. What they (ICANN) do is to watch if anyone else is going to buy similar domain to your trademark which is somewhat an extension to what they are doing. The trademark owner really has to do the work to stop/deter the purchase (owner of the intellectual property must enforce his/her own IP).

Also even though someone else has bought a domain name with your trademark and used it to make money, you could still sue for damages (if there is any) without needing to know it in advance. One problem I am seeing is that how would one determine whether the domain name bought by someone else is violating your trademark. From the USPTO ( http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp ), you may challenge those who use your trademark in the country where your trademark has been registered. If someone registered the domain name in a country where your trademark has not been registered but sells products (online) in the country your trade mark is registered, what can you do? I am not so sure you can really stop the domain name purchase this way...

In other words, they just want free money every year with their little afford to do the work for you. Is it really worth it?

Want to screw with the USPTO? Nominate Fanning and Parker for a National Medal of Technology and Innovation, "the highest honor awarded by the president of the United States to America's leading innovators." Funny thing is, they probably deserve it!

So...Microsoft has a patent on attaching a camera to a portable computer with an operating system?

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft has patents on attaching almost anything to a computer with an OS. As patents go, they have weirder ones.

The USPTO is supposed to support itself with fees. The largest fee is for reexamination, creating a financial incentive to grant bad patents (which are likely to be reexamined). -da

Patent filing fees in total are less than $1000... you can take the time to do it yourself if you wish. Plenty of people do so. It will give you one hell of a hangover just from thinking so hard about getting the wording just right, but it's very doable. Here's the USPTO fee schedule: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee100512.htm

It's not the patent that costs a lot, it's the attorney fees that get ya. But guess what - a decent attorney would have saved this guy a ton of pain. They wouldn't have let him do up a patent for a spring powered wind up product. His patent, rather than covering a windup radio with a spring in it, would have been written something along the lines of a radio including "generating energy via [generic action phrase here, 'winding' being the simplest, but why limit it to that?] and storing the energy in a reservoir (covers mechanical [spring] and chemical [battery] and any other storage way).

Oh, and your $250,000 is ridiculous. I suppose it's possible to spend that obtaining a patent, but 1/10th ($25000) of that will cover medium-high complicated patents done by an attorney to make sure it's done just right. 1/200th ($1250) of that will cover you doing it yourself which is very possible for most purely mechanical inventions (the type the average inventor could whip up in their garage).

I read an article a while back about Sandy Stein who invented a clip that held car keys in a purse so they would not disappear in the vast clutter in the bottom of the purse. It was a very simple clip with an attachment point for a decorative feature. She planned ahead and obtained a utility patent on the concept. She then got a series of design patents on each different version with the different decorative features. This product has sold very well. Because the patents were done well and the decorative features are also protected she has had no problems with ripoffs of her idea. From Article: "Such successful ideas are targets for thieves, but Sandy’s preparation paid off. One notorious knockoff specialist confided to her that he had wanted to copy her product, but “her patent was just too strong and well-written to get around.” Another copycat did try and, for his efforts, lost an infringement case. Sandy agrees that protecting her idea with a patent was the key to the Finders Key Purse staying in the market and remaining successful." http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201206/sparkofgenius.jsp

You do know that patent fees are on a sliding scale depending on the size of the patenting entity?

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee100512.htm#maintain

What kills the independents are the legal costs. They are generally 3 orders of magnitude larger.

The filing fee is about 1/4 of the size of the issue fee. Once you file, you commit the Patent Office to an expensive process. This process costs the Patent Office more than the filing fee.

The Patent Office admits this issue at page 37 of their proposed 2013 budget: http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/budget/fy13pbr.pdf

They say: "..More than half of all patent fee collections are from issue and maintenance fees, which essentially subsidize examination activities."

They also include a workflow diagram at the end of their budget. It looks like the Patent Office MUST grant about 1/4th of all filed patent applications to survive.

Since the Patent Office is currently committed to a Cost Recovery model, a patent lawyer can blackmail the Patent Office into granting a poor quality patent, simply by filing lots of poor quality applications.

The simplest and most reliable reform would be to eliminate and unify the Patent office fees into a single, large filing fee. This fee would provide no guarantee of receiving a patent, only a guarantee that your patent would be considered. This would free the Patent Office to be able to deny poor patents.

Miles

Unfortunately, at some point the USPTO started evaluating their patent clerks based on number of patents *approved* rather than number of patents *examined*.

I don't know where you got that from, but you're incorrect. The PTO uses a count system to evaluate examiners, and an action that results in abandonment receives the same counts as an allowance. See slide 7 here.

(Note: Prior art is not *required* for a finding of non-obviousness, it's just a more definite way to prove it.)

Let me quote 35 USC 103(a):

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

You are technically correct in that examiners can take official notice of minor things without citing to prior art. However, this is only used for minor things (like the notion that a wing creates a pressure differential in the air to provide lift, something so basic in the field it shouldn't need explanation) and rejections based on using official notice too broadly are frequently overturned in administrative appeals in the PTO.

Worse...most of them are so trivial that a couple of lines of code would cover it.

Sorry, this proposal is a complete failure.

Examples:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050023524%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050023524&RS=DN/20050023524

Worse...most of them are so trivial that a couple of lines of code would cover it.

Sorry, this proposal is a complete failure.

Examples:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050023524%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050023524&RS=DN/20050023524

Apple just got a patent on a solution (for a specific case): Progress indicator for loading dynamically-sized contents.

As I understand, they patented their subscribe and save feature which has been around for years. How nobody else implemented this almost justifies that amazon should get the patent... almost, it's a stupid patent.

When you look at the actual patent you see there was plenty of prior art cited. If Amazon cited these you can bet they believe (as does the USPTO) that the Amazon patent is significantly different, and does not infringe.

You have to READ the patent to see what part of this is new.

For instance Amazon states in the Patent

Some online merchant systems may provide customers the ability to place standing orders for delivery of consumable products on a recurring basis, such as every week or every month. However, these systems may be limited in their flexibility for allowing modifications of the recurring orders or for allowing the addition of one-time or specialty products to an order. Further, the customer may not be able to schedule the recurring orders for the same time and day of each week or month, thereby making it difficult for the customer to arrange to be present at the delivery of perishable goods or other consumables.

This patent is different, in that it allows Scheduling not only the day of a re-occurring delivery, but also the time. This is pretty significant. You get to choose the time slot from available time slots, when the truck will be in your neighborhood on the days you request, at the hour you request. And you do this by some form of drag and drop of products to your door step, selecting from the available time slots (presumably when the truck will be there). Pretty specific if you ask me.

Further, you can easily change it by adding or subtracting items (one time, or every scheduled time) to be on that truck, put it on vacation hold, etc.

(If Amazon can actually pull that off in any grand scale, I'd be surprised, but that's not the patent office's problem.)

Further virtually every claim in the patent is proceeded by the words: A computer-implemented method.
Dammit! I hope there is an App for this!!

This, the computer scheduling done by the customer, combined with picking the actual delivery time slot from the available time slots, is the bit that they are patenting. Not the milkman, not the newspaper boy, not your local grocery weekly delivery.

The closest prior art is the cited Amway patent. But it merely suggests to the customer that they might want to order some more Amway for future delivery, and says nothing about the details of precision or picking of exact days and time slots.

I'll leave it to the lawyers (and wanna-be lawyers) among you to pick out the details where this patent differs from the others, but do try to contain your rage till you at least Read the Patent, and ignore the hype in the summary. Its really pretty clever, and relies on Amazon knowing the precise location of the delivery vehicles on their routes in the future, and using that information, allowing the customers to make sure a half dozen bananas are on that truck, and will arrive at their door step when they are home to receive them.

Ambitious, and fairly novel if you ask me.

As I understand, they patented their subscribe and save feature which has been around for years. How nobody else implemented this almost justifies that amazon should get the patent... almost, it's a stupid patent.

When you look at the actual patent you see there was plenty of prior art cited. If Amazon cited these you can bet they believe (as does the USPTO) that the Amazon patent is significantly different, and does not infringe.

You have to READ the patent to see what part of this is new.

For instance Amazon states in the Patent

Some online merchant systems may provide customers the ability to place standing orders for delivery of consumable products on a recurring basis, such as every week or every month. However, these systems may be limited in their flexibility for allowing modifications of the recurring orders or for allowing the addition of one-time or specialty products to an order. Further, the customer may not be able to schedule the recurring orders for the same time and day of each week or month, thereby making it difficult for the customer to arrange to be present at the delivery of perishable goods or other consumables.

This patent is different, in that it allows Scheduling not only the day of a re-occurring delivery, but also the time. This is pretty significant. You get to choose the time slot from available time slots, when the truck will be in your neighborhood on the days you request, at the hour you request. And you do this by some form of drag and drop of products to your door step, selecting from the available time slots (presumably when the truck will be there). Pretty specific if you ask me.

Further, you can easily change it by adding or subtracting items (one time, or every scheduled time) to be on that truck, put it on vacation hold, etc.

(If Amazon can actually pull that off in any grand scale, I'd be surprised, but that's not the patent office's problem.)

Further virtually every claim in the patent is proceeded by the words: A computer-implemented method.
Dammit! I hope there is an App for this!!

This, the computer scheduling done by the customer, combined with picking the actual delivery time slot from the available time slots, is the bit that they are patenting. Not the milkman, not the newspaper boy, not your local grocery weekly delivery.

The closest prior art is the cited Amway patent. But it merely suggests to the customer that they might want to order some more Amway for future delivery, and says nothing about the details of precision or picking of exact days and time slots.

I'll leave it to the lawyers (and wanna-be lawyers) among you to pick out the details where this patent differs from the others, but do try to contain your rage till you at least Read the Patent, and ignore the hype in the summary. Its really pretty clever, and relies on Amazon knowing the precise location of the delivery vehicles on their routes in the future, and using that information, allowing the customers to make sure a half dozen bananas are on that truck, and will arrive at their door step when they are home to receive them.

Ambitious, and fairly novel if you ask me.

There is no trademark or copyright for book titles. Period. Ever. In the US.

Then explain Wiley's FOR DUMMIES mark and what its owners have done.

It's not complicated. Trademark law is applicable here. Amazon gets letter about trademark. Amazon looks up the trademark in the database. It's here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4008:7ndtqg.1.1

Play along!

Amazon searches for "space marine".

Amazon sees that the trademark applies to "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith" Another mark applies to "video computer games; computer software for playing games".

Has Games Workshop provided evidence that this product (a book) is infringing? No. Therefore take no action.

The suggestion that this is complicated favors the bullies abusing the law (Games Workshop) and the companies that roll over on their users (Amazon). Don't let them make this about the trademark system, which is pretty straightforward and pro-consumer. Games Workshop could not get a trademark on Space Marine in books. Amazon should care about this.