Slashdot Mirror

if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.

And that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.

And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.

Yes, and Google had to make an effort to establish that trademark.

If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google

No, it is not "deducable" except as a result of Googles efforts establish that fact.

FROOGLE'S: Restaurant Services
FLOOGLE: Frozen Confections
BLOOGLE: TOY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
TOOTLE: 49 Records(s) found
DOODLE: 591 Records(s) found
FOOFLES: PEANUT-BASED SNACK FOODS
KOOGLE: noodle based baked food product
NOOGLES: TOILET SOAPS
ROOGLE: Wine
ZOOGLE: 13 Records(s) found

Virtually all of those trademarks predate the Google mark, never mind the more recent Froogle mark.

-

if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.

And that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.

And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.

Yes, and Google had to make an effort to establish that trademark.

If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google

No, it is not "deducable" except as a result of Googles efforts establish that fact.

FROOGLE'S: Restaurant Services
FLOOGLE: Frozen Confections
BLOOGLE: TOY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
TOOTLE: 49 Records(s) found
DOODLE: 591 Records(s) found
FOOFLES: PEANUT-BASED SNACK FOODS
KOOGLE: noodle based baked food product
NOOGLES: TOILET SOAPS
ROOGLE: Wine
ZOOGLE: 13 Records(s) found

Virtually all of those trademarks predate the Google mark, never mind the more recent Froogle mark.

-

if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.

And that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.

And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.

Yes, and Google had to make an effort to establish that trademark.

If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google

No, it is not "deducable" except as a result of Googles efforts establish that fact.

FROOGLE'S: Restaurant Services
FLOOGLE: Frozen Confections
BLOOGLE: TOY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
TOOTLE: 49 Records(s) found
DOODLE: 591 Records(s) found
FOOFLES: PEANUT-BASED SNACK FOODS
KOOGLE: noodle based baked food product
NOOGLES: TOILET SOAPS
ROOGLE: Wine
ZOOGLE: 13 Records(s) found

Virtually all of those trademarks predate the Google mark, never mind the more recent Froogle mark.

-

if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.

And that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.

And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.

Yes, and Google had to make an effort to establish that trademark.

If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google

No, it is not "deducable" except as a result of Googles efforts establish that fact.

FROOGLE'S: Restaurant Services
FLOOGLE: Frozen Confections
BLOOGLE: TOY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
TOOTLE: 49 Records(s) found
DOODLE: 591 Records(s) found
FOOFLES: PEANUT-BASED SNACK FOODS
KOOGLE: noodle based baked food product
NOOGLES: TOILET SOAPS
ROOGLE: Wine
ZOOGLE: 13 Records(s) found

Virtually all of those trademarks predate the Google mark, never mind the more recent Froogle mark.

-

if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.

And that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.

And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.

Yes, and Google had to make an effort to establish that trademark.

If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google

No, it is not "deducable" except as a result of Googles efforts establish that fact.

FROOGLE'S: Restaurant Services
FLOOGLE: Frozen Confections
BLOOGLE: TOY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
TOOTLE: 49 Records(s) found
DOODLE: 591 Records(s) found
FOOFLES: PEANUT-BASED SNACK FOODS
KOOGLE: noodle based baked food product
NOOGLES: TOILET SOAPS
ROOGLE: Wine
ZOOGLE: 13 Records(s) found

Virtually all of those trademarks predate the Google mark, never mind the more recent Froogle mark.

-

As someone who teaches Cyberlaw and runs a program on law and technology, I'd urge you to consider broadening your horizons a bit, and to focus on practical rather than theoretical discussions. As relevant as IP law is to the technology industries, it is only one small part of the whole picture. Contract law, corporate structure finance (yes, even in this post-bubble era!), privacy law and especially international law are also crucial subjects to learn.

I'd echo the sentiments of those who said to take a look at casebooks and other law school texts in a local library. You can also go to the sources for IP law: the U.S. Copyright Office and Patent and Trademark Office have some good basic info, as does the Federal Trade Commission on privacy rules. This site has a good list of info. on doing e-business throughout the world. Finally, for an introduction to Internet-related business legal issues, you can always find my book in a local library.

Finally, you'll need to decide if you actually want to be a lawyer. Law school is rather expensive these days, even for state schools, and the loan burden for many of our students is severe. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to ponder this further. {Professor Jonathan Ezor}

The term "snowball's chance in hell" comes to mind.

Many choose to simply submit the patent and let the PTO verify prior art. In this case I suspect the prior art search by the examiners resulted in three sites:

• Webpage: Netfirms, Sep. 1998.*
• Webpage: Freeyellow.com, Apr., 1998.*
• Webpage: switchboard.com, Jun. 1996.*

What is claimed is:

1. A method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of:

assigning each member of said group a URL of the form "name.subdomain.domain"; and

assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form "name@subdomain.domain;"

wherein the "name" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same and unique for each particular one of said members such that an only difference between said URL and said e-mail address for said member is that in said URL the "@" symbol of the e-mail address is replaced with a "." and wherein said "subdomain" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same for all members of said group.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said members of said group comprise members of a licensed profession.

The patent (6,671,714) is a worth read.

I know I did not address your points directly but the nature of the examination is such where this is a gray area. The courts are supposed to be the final filter, seemingly making it guilty before innocents... when it comes to property rights infringements.

Not that the system is much better in EU or other places

s, but practice in this matter seems to have a tendency to spread from the US to EU and so forth. ;-)

pursue substantive harmonization goals that will strengthen the rights of American intellectual property holders

a method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of: assigning each member of said group a URL of the form name.subdomain.domain and assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form name@subdomain.domain.'

You know what's funny? the USPTO is supposed to do prior art research to grant patents. Well guess where you can find prior art for this method? at the USPTO itself. Here for example:

estta.uspto.gov is a live server, and
estta@uspto.gov is a valid email address at USPTO.

You gotta love these guys ...

a method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of: assigning each member of said group a URL of the form name.subdomain.domain and assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form name@subdomain.domain.'

You know what's funny? the USPTO is supposed to do prior art research to grant patents. Well guess where you can find prior art for this method? at the USPTO itself. Here for example:

estta.uspto.gov is a live server, and
estta@uspto.gov is a valid email address at USPTO.

You gotta love these guys ...

Link to patent text

Its not like the patent office don't deserve a good slashdotting.

Kelsey and Schneier's Street Performer Protocol article has priority, however, and the fact that the patent does not cite it, could be significant.

(IANAPL either)

According to the patent, it was filed in December 1999, so no - that wouldn't count as prior art. Not that there isn't any, but that particular example was several years after the filing.

The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system, find out exactly what the requirments are for filing, allowing and rejecting patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress that would improve the situation.

After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators and Representavies explaining the current problems with the system and how they should be fixed, if you do find current legislation before either house that you agree with, tell them that you would like to see them vote (yes/no) on that bill.

It is important to know exactly how the current system operates before you attempt to change it. Once you know what is currently in place, you will have a much better idea of what needs to be changed, and be able to write a much more conving letter to your members of Congress.

Note that this method, with a little modification, may work for other problems that you see with US government and laws.

To summarize in a way any slashdotter can understand:

1) Learn as much as you can about the current system
2) Identify problems in current system
3) Write Congress concerning those problems
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system, find out exactly what the requirments are for filing, allowing and rejecting patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress that would improve the situation.

After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators and Representavies explaining the current problems with the system and how they should be fixed, if you do find current legislation before either house that you agree with, tell them that you would like to see them vote (yes/no) on that bill.

It is important to know exactly how the current system operates before you attempt to change it. Once you know what is currently in place, you will have a much better idea of what needs to be changed, and be able to write a much more conving letter to your members of Congress.

Note that this method, with a little modification, may work for other problems that you see with US government and laws.

To summarize in a way any slashdotter can understand:

1) Learn as much as you can about the current system
2) Identify problems in current system
3) Write Congress concerning those problems
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system, find out exactly what the requirments are for filing, allowing and rejecting patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress that would improve the situation.

After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators and Representavies explaining the current problems with the system and how they should be fixed, if you do find current legislation before either house that you agree with, tell them that you would like to see them vote (yes/no) on that bill.

It is important to know exactly how the current system operates before you attempt to change it. Once you know what is currently in place, you will have a much better idea of what needs to be changed, and be able to write a much more conving letter to your members of Congress.

Note that this method, with a little modification, may work for other problems that you see with US government and laws.

To summarize in a way any slashdotter can understand:

1) Learn as much as you can about the current system
2) Identify problems in current system
3) Write Congress concerning those problems
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system, find out exactly what the requirments are for filing, allowing and rejecting patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress that would improve the situation.

After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators and Representavies explaining the current problems with the system and how they should be fixed, if you do find current legislation before either house that you agree with, tell them that you would like to see them vote (yes/no) on that bill.

It is important to know exactly how the current system operates before you attempt to change it. Once you know what is currently in place, you will have a much better idea of what needs to be changed, and be able to write a much more conving letter to your members of Congress.

Note that this method, with a little modification, may work for other problems that you see with US government and laws.

To summarize in a way any slashdotter can understand:

1) Learn as much as you can about the current system
2) Identify problems in current system
3) Write Congress concerning those problems
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system, find out exactly what the requirments are for filing, allowing and rejecting patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress that would improve the situation.

After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators and Representavies explaining the current problems with the system and how they should be fixed, if you do find current legislation before either house that you agree with, tell them that you would like to see them vote (yes/no) on that bill.

It is important to know exactly how the current system operates before you attempt to change it. Once you know what is currently in place, you will have a much better idea of what needs to be changed, and be able to write a much more conving letter to your members of Congress.

Note that this method, with a little modification, may work for other problems that you see with US government and laws.

To summarize in a way any slashdotter can understand:

1) Learn as much as you can about the current system
2) Identify problems in current system
3) Write Congress concerning those problems
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

Sorry, that's wrong. Patent law is more complicated than that.

35 USC 102 and 103 give the criteria for obtaining a patent in the US: novelty and non-obviousness to one with ordinary skill in the relevant art.

The applicant for this patent had to invent the invention sometime before applying for the patent (obviously). If this invention was (1) prior to what anyone else can prove (or prior inventors abandoned, supressed, or concealed the invention) and (2) there was "reasonable diligence" [see 35 USC 102(g)] from just before the invention by another until application, then prior art to overcome the patent must be either a patent (anywhere), a printed publication (anywhere), or public use/sale (in the US) more than one year prior to the application date.

Basically, someone either has to show a printed publication prior to invention or public use or sale in the US more than one year prior to the US application.

I hope that made sense. Reading the two short sections of patent law linked to above should help in understanding a lot of patent disputes.

Sorry, that's wrong. Patent law is more complicated than that.

35 USC 102 and 103 give the criteria for obtaining a patent in the US: novelty and non-obviousness to one with ordinary skill in the relevant art.

The applicant for this patent had to invent the invention sometime before applying for the patent (obviously). If this invention was (1) prior to what anyone else can prove (or prior inventors abandoned, supressed, or concealed the invention) and (2) there was "reasonable diligence" [see 35 USC 102(g)] from just before the invention by another until application, then prior art to overcome the patent must be either a patent (anywhere), a printed publication (anywhere), or public use/sale (in the US) more than one year prior to the application date.

Basically, someone either has to show a printed publication prior to invention or public use or sale in the US more than one year prior to the US application.

I hope that made sense. Reading the two short sections of patent law linked to above should help in understanding a lot of patent disputes.

That moron better have a good lawyer, because if the butterknife is in any way ornamental, he's in big trouble.

Seriously though, whatever did happen to the "non-obvious" thing with regard to patents?

Having been through the patent process once myself the above is only half true. You can write the patent yourself, but if you don't know what you are doing it will be much easier for someone to claim that the patent doesn't apply, and then what was the point (free or proprietary).

The small entity fee will keep the price down, but it will still get expensive, especially to keep the patent alive for the full 20 years. Fees can be found here.

If you don't file in the US, then the software could be proprietary in the US. If you don't file in the EU, same thing in the EU. Doing those two ought to do it. (If both markets are closed, there isn't much left to sell to). Still talking a couple of thousand USD at an absolute minimum, and that is assuming 11.5 years is enough (would be for most software patents).

My favorite patent. Did someone really pay 10k dollars for that?

I don't know about Strangeberry, but Tivo has a patent on the ornamental design for a 36 button remote control.

Here's the the link again.

That said, I admittedly couldn't spy in the IBM patent's abstract any leap of innovation. It reads more like a "best practices" memo, and even then one surprisingly devoid of surprises.

...IBM is renowned for patenting more things every year than you can shake a stick at...

Try shaking a stick at 3415 preliminary patents in 2003 alone - nearly double their nearest competitor! IBM has been #1 in patents for 11 consecutive years now.

Chew on that, SCO :-)

Wrong.

Microsoft patented Scoring based upon goals achieved and subjective elements.

> Let's all remember that the USPTO's job is to deal with paperwork, not to deal
> with prior art; that's what the courts are for.

Lets kindly not remember that, and I ask that you forget that incorrect bit of info as well.

In the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure it clearly states in this section:


1.104 Nature of examination.

(a) Examiner's action.

(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.

(Bold added by me)

So they are not doing their stated jobs by not looking for any/all prior art.

While yes I realize this is not a possible feat for them, not being specalists in any field but law, the fact remains that their own guidelines still state that it IS their job to do so.

> Let's all remember that the USPTO's job is to deal with paperwork, not to deal
> with prior art; that's what the courts are for.

Lets kindly not remember that, and I ask that you forget that incorrect bit of info as well.

In the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure it clearly states in this section:


1.104 Nature of examination.

(a) Examiner's action.

(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.

(Bold added by me)

So they are not doing their stated jobs by not looking for any/all prior art.

While yes I realize this is not a possible feat for them, not being specalists in any field but law, the fact remains that their own guidelines still state that it IS their job to do so.

You did read the article, didn't you? That "prior art" is from the same people who are suing.

I put up the quote from the Goldberg Patents to show that their patent is dated December 1996, which was after Case had already implemented some prior art. I don't know if Case tried to patent his system (I suspect not; trying to patent a ladder system as "new" just because it's implemented on a computer instead of pen-and-paper should strike any reasonable person as silly).

Unless Mr. Goldberg works for IGN and hence owns rights to Case's Ladder, the prior art example should be valid. I also happen to think that implementing a ladder for computer games should be a blindingly obvious extension of sports ladders which have been around since before I was in diapers, but I guess the whole point of this news post was how lax patent examiners have become in allowing these things.

95. An apparatus for playing a game on a network, comprising:
a display area for electronically displaying an instance of the game to a first user;
an input area for allowing the first user to input a game play;
a communications network connection for communicating, on a network, game related information, between: (a) one or more of said display and said input area, and (b) an addressable node on said network accessible by a network address available to said apparatus;
wherein a plurality of users communicate with said addressable node for playing instances of the game; and
wherein between at least a majority of game plays by the first user, there is a game play related network transmission via said communications connection; and
a game speed of play control for allowing the first user to control the pace of the instance of the game.

The Patent Office is hiring patent examiners in the Computer Science Field. We've seen the hard, comprehensive work of patent examiners profiled on Slashdot many times. Don't pass up this opportunity to join the U.S. Government Team. You too could be the subject of a future /. post!

No patents filed under strangeberry, but the latest Tivo patents are interesting.

Set up an anti-patent database, findable on the web through obvious domains (unpatentable.org, anti-patent.org, etc). Accept all submissions of ideas, completely keyworded and timestamped, just as searchable as the USPTO's patent database. It doesn't matter too much if the same idea is submitted twice; advise people to search and avoid that, if you want to save disk space. When you find out an idea in the database is patented, leave it in the database but add references to the patents. Maintain security of the database and accuracy of timestamps, because without credibility the database is worthless.

A centralized site like this makes it easy for anybody who wants to use these ideas to say, "Look - you can't sue me for using your patent; this idea was published to the world two months before you filed for patent." (IANAL)

As a side effect, patent examiners could use the database to find prior art, but they don't have to use this system for it to help.

Don't expect the USPTO to do the job you want them to do. You know they're broken, and they'll drag us through thousands more bad patents before they change, if they ever do. Here: the new Director of the USPTO as of 2004-01-12 touts his help getting the DMCA passed: Jon Dudas. What more do you need to know?

Fixing the broken USPTO will take time, organization, money, and expertise. Publishing anti-patents outside of any government might be the simplest way. Maybe the EFF could organize the effort.

People outside the US have different laws and jurisdictions to worry about. But this database might help in those jurisdictions too (e.g. Microsoft patenting obvious XML usage in Europe).

Set up an anti-patent database, findable on the web through obvious domains (unpatentable.org, anti-patent.org, etc). Accept all submissions of ideas, completely keyworded and timestamped, just as searchable as the USPTO's patent database. It doesn't matter too much if the same idea is submitted twice; advise people to search and avoid that, if you want to save disk space. When you find out an idea in the database is patented, leave it in the database but add references to the patents. Maintain security of the database and accuracy of timestamps, because without credibility the database is worthless.

A centralized site like this makes it easy for anybody who wants to use these ideas to say, "Look - you can't sue me for using your patent; this idea was published to the world two months before you filed for patent." (IANAL)

As a side effect, patent examiners could use the database to find prior art, but they don't have to use this system for it to help.

Don't expect the USPTO to do the job you want them to do. You know they're broken, and they'll drag us through thousands more bad patents before they change, if they ever do. Here: the new Director of the USPTO as of 2004-01-12 touts his help getting the DMCA passed: Jon Dudas. What more do you need to know?

Fixing the broken USPTO will take time, organization, money, and expertise. Publishing anti-patents outside of any government might be the simplest way. Maybe the EFF could organize the effort.

People outside the US have different laws and jurisdictions to worry about. But this database might help in those jurisdictions too (e.g. Microsoft patenting obvious XML usage in Europe).

...by none other than IBM.

United States Patent #6,658,642 was awarded to Megiddo, et al. on December 2, 2003. The Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation of (Armonk, NY).

System, method and program product for software development provides that "Software developers intending to participate may provide an intention to submit."

This patent goes a long way to explain IBM's, Novell's and Microsoft's interest in OSS. philtr

In the real world, you can file for a patent on literally anything.....swinging sideways on a swing

Or the wheel

Or excercising a cat using a laser pointer

Hope this helps. philtr

1) In the real world, you can file for a patent on literally anything, and it will often be granted no matter how ludicrous.

I think I can prove your point.

Interesting idea. FWIW the fact is that filing and maintaining a patent can be amazingly expensive. This is probably what puts off most of the "small players" in the first place. As an example, a buddy at work wanted to patent a production process (and sell the patent to the company), but lost interest as soon as he saw the $385 USD price just for the initial application as an individual. The USPTO makes all the forms and schedules available here.

Interesting idea. FWIW the fact is that filing and maintaining a patent can be amazingly expensive. This is probably what puts off most of the "small players" in the first place. As an example, a buddy at work wanted to patent a production process (and sell the patent to the company), but lost interest as soon as he saw the $385 USD price just for the initial application as an individual. The USPTO makes all the forms and schedules available here.

No, the biggest problem is that software (or any mathematics for that matter) should not be patentable.

I think it's time to spend some karma here, as I'm most assuredly going to lose some for saying this, but...

The idea of a patent is to benefit those that invent things, on the notion that inventing things in general is a good idea.

A patent is never completely new. All ideas come from other ideas. Taking an existing idea and improving on it can easily result in a patentable item.

Patents are issued quite legitimately for all kinds of incremental ideas. For example, I have a patented Snap-on ratchet screwdriver. I looked up the patent one time, just for kicks. The actual latch mechanism inside the screwdriver is what's patented. If you are interested, you can look it up yourself.

Notice that it references some 20 other patents, one dating back to 1883! Ratchet screwdrivers are nothing new - but there's still plenty of patentable ideas around ratchet screwdrivers.

Now, with a patent, you have an idea that results in a machine that does something. How is software really any different?

You can't get a patent on software itself. You can only get a patent on the resulting combination of a computer and the software, which, as a unified piece, is an operating machine that is capable of performing a real activity or service.

You are not be able to patent a specific instance of software - that's protected by copyright law. (which IMHO is easily more messed up than patents are with their 100+ year extensions)

You can't patent an algorithm, unless that algorithm is part of a demonstrable machine that produces an identifiable result.

Granted, software can be represented as a set of numbers, but then, too, so can a design for the tractor hitch!

Where is the problem?

The USPTO states in their process manual that they _are_ the ones that should search for prior art before approving a patent.

You can find the exact section here on their website

The main page of their Manual of Patent Examining Procedure is at this link.

To quote the sections that apply here:


1.104 Nature of examination.

(a) Examiner's action.

(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.

The USPTO states in their process manual that they _are_ the ones that should search for prior art before approving a patent.

You can find the exact section here on their website

The main page of their Manual of Patent Examining Procedure is at this link.

To quote the sections that apply here:


1.104 Nature of examination.

(a) Examiner's action.

(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.

Ever see the ORIGINAL ipods? Maybe you aren't as familiar with the item being discussed as you think.

Um, yes. In fact, I had one. Then I got a 3rd gen one. So I've had both. Which have you had?

Right, none.

You can sit down now. Maybe you'll learn something.

"It's a touch-pad, built in a circular form, and touching it acts to scroll it. That's what's patented, not a freakin' scroll wheel."

Do you have a reference for this? You don't seem to be aware of the different ipod models, so I'm not going to just assume you have all the relevant patents memorized.

Um, yes. I have a freaking reference for this. It took me 10 seconds on Google. Are you really that lazy?

-T

Apple has patents for its own version of a scroll wheel

Which patent would that be, exactly? Do you have a number?

You can start looking here.

Most people here are mistaken. Apple never patented the scroll wheels found on the iPod or this D-cube. (however the D-cube looks like so much of a knockoff that it may be infringing Apple's design patent.) Apple did apply for a patent on a mouse having something similar to the combination scroll wheel/D-pad which made its way to the iPod Mini, however this patent has not been granted.

See all Apple patents here.

Most people here are mistaken. Apple never patented the scroll wheels found on the iPod or this D-cube. (however the D-cube looks like so much of a knockoff that it may be infringing Apple's design patent.) Apple did apply for a patent on a mouse having something similar to the combination scroll wheel/D-pad which made its way to the iPod Mini, however this patent has not been granted.

See all Apple patents here.