Slashdot Mirror

[...]then in Sept 1997 Games Workshop filed for "SPACE MARINE" again (SN 75010236), which covered video computer games; computer software for playing games.

So, they don't even own a trademark on the term for any books at all.

The problem here being that what was taken down was an eBook, which is considered to be software, which is why they are permitted to licene the things, rather than you being able to own them outright, since you have purchased a physical artifact. For the same reasons, first use law doesn't apply, and therefore you can be prohibited from resale of eBooks.

This crap is out of hand, and in sore need of some reform; After 400 years, we are back to book licenses; we came up with copyright in the first place to stop this crap.

1932, really... so 80 years later someone claims copyright on a science fiction concept almost as old as the phrase science fiction? Someone has balls.

They're claiming trademark, not copyright, which is why it's so odd that they used the DMCA for this. It's also strange that they would assert it against an author.

Hopefully these links work, I'll provide the serial numbers in case.

The trademark for "SPACE MARINE", serial number 74186534, issued in 1993, covers: 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 trademark for "SPACE MARINES", SN 75014487, filed in 1995 by someone else, but abandoned in 1997, did cover "series of science fiction books". It was abandoned in July 1997, then in Sept 1997 Games Workshop filed for "SPACE MARINE" again (SN 75010236), which covered video computer games; computer software for playing games.

So, they don't even own a trademark on the term for any books at all.

1932, really... so 80 years later someone claims copyright on a science fiction concept almost as old as the phrase science fiction? Someone has balls.

They're claiming trademark, not copyright, which is why it's so odd that they used the DMCA for this. It's also strange that they would assert it against an author.

Hopefully these links work, I'll provide the serial numbers in case.

The trademark for "SPACE MARINE", serial number 74186534, issued in 1993, covers: 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 trademark for "SPACE MARINES", SN 75014487, filed in 1995 by someone else, but abandoned in 1997, did cover "series of science fiction books". It was abandoned in July 1997, then in Sept 1997 Games Workshop filed for "SPACE MARINE" again (SN 75010236), which covered video computer games; computer software for playing games.

So, they don't even own a trademark on the term for any books at all.

As evidenced by its popular use dating back for nearly a century as seen in this 1936 comic book, by itself, the term "space marine" is a descriptive and generic term that is ineligible for trademark protection, in much the same way that you cannot trademark the term "laptop computer" or "space ship". Whereas this trademark should never have been granted in the first place, the petitioner requests summary judgment in invalidating the errantly issued trademark.

See the USPTO's appeals process page for information about how you can proceed with or without an attorney.

Once the trademark has been invalidated, inform Amazon. They will restore your book, and the entire publishing and software world will rejoice in your space marines' victory over the egregiously evil trademark abuser.

It isn't owned by AT&T, though it was the original assignee. As you can see here, its changed hands a number of times: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pat=5506866 Most recently (5/2012) the patent was assigned to "Clearview Innovations" Its info is listed here: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asned=CLEARWATER%20INNOVATIONS,%20LLC It's possible that there was some unrecorded assignment after that, but based on available information from USPTO, Clearview is the current owner.

It isn't owned by AT&T, though it was the original assignee. As you can see here, its changed hands a number of times: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pat=5506866 Most recently (5/2012) the patent was assigned to "Clearview Innovations" Its info is listed here: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asned=CLEARWATER%20INNOVATIONS,%20LLC It's possible that there was some unrecorded assignment after that, but based on available information from USPTO, Clearview is the current owner.

But Microsoft trademarked their store design too, and had it granted in 2011. This looks much like return fire, and not an opening shot.

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85194406&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

But:
(i) Microsoft's trademark application was December 2010, while Apple's was May 2010; and
(ii) Microsoft's trademark registration was on the supplemental register, while Apple's is on the principal register. Unlike the principal register, the supplemental register gives no presumption of ownership, distinctiveness, or validity.

Except that's not the lesson Apple needed to learn. Apple copyrighted all their design elements, they just then went and legally licensed them to Microsoft and got a bit upset when Windows didn't turn out to be a cheap knock off of their idea no one would want to buy.

Only that Apple intended to license them to use the GUI for Macintosh applications, but wrote something like "software" in the contract, which the judge decided included Windows. At the time the contract was written there wasn't even an official plan for "Windows" at Microsoft.

BTW, here's a precedent trademark for a store interior http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77033433&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Something like this?
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85194406&docId=DRW20101213072755

That's Microsoft's store layout trademark they registered in 2011.

Samething, minus the glass out front.

No, it isn't. MS's layout has curved tables along the sides of the store, and lacks both the table and video screens on the rear wall. Also, their lighting appears to protrude from the ceiling while Apple's is integrated into the ceiling. There's also an additional middle row of tables that would possibly prevent it from being infringing even by itself.

Don't forget to mention this little tidbit, or US-based Slashdotters could get into trouble. "TM" or "SM" is fine, but don't get caught using the "®" symbol when not registered.

Here is the rest of rule, from the same page you quoted from:

[...]

However, you may use the federal registration symbol "®" only after the USPTO actually registers a mark , and not while an application is pending. Also, you may use the registration symbol with the mark only on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the federal trademark registration. [source]

Last I checked (which was over 15 years ago) you could be fined in upwards of $3,000 for using that little symbol when not registered. There was even a hotline where you can snitch on a company, or on a person, using the wrong symbol when not registered. And since the rule doesn't seem to have changed, my assumption is that the penalty amount hasn't changed either, or perhaps has even increased to keep up with inflation.

Don't forget to mention this little tidbit, or US-based Slashdotters could get into trouble. "TM" or "SM" is fine, but don't get caught using the "®" symbol when not registered.

Here is the rest of rule, from the same page you quoted from:

[...]

However, you may use the federal registration symbol "®" only after the USPTO actually registers a mark , and not while an application is pending. Also, you may use the registration symbol with the mark only on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the federal trademark registration. [source]

Last I checked (which was over 15 years ago) you could be fined in upwards of $3,000 for using that little symbol when not registered. There was even a hotline where you can snitch on a company, or on a person, using the wrong symbol when not registered. And since the rule doesn't seem to have changed, my assumption is that the penalty amount hasn't changed either, or perhaps has even increased to keep up with inflation.

Something like this?
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85194406&docId=DRW20101213072755

That's Microsoft's store layout trademark they registered in 2011.

Samething, minus the glass out front.

Now, if Apple had requested a servicemark instead of a trademark, that would be a different story ... but a service mark is much harder to get.

How much harder exactly? Because they got one:

Owner Name: Apple Inc.
Legal Entity Type: CORPORATION

...
US Serial Number: 85036990
US Registration Number: 4277914
Register: Principal
Mark Type: Service Mark

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85036990&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

The summary gives the impression this is a patent, but the /. article title says trademark. Actually, according to the linked USPTO file, it's a service mark.

I had once considered applying for a registered trademark for the FreeDOS Project, just to protect the name. To be clear, a registered trademark is R not TM. But the Apple file is a service mark, or SM. To simplify, a SM is basically the same as a TM, but the understanding is a SM will be for a short term use, for various definitions of "short term" (usually a SM is applied to an advertising slogan, like Walmart's "Save money. Live better.")

First of all, to apply for either mark in the US, you need to pay a fee to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). But even if you file, there is the issue of diligence. If there's a violation (someone uses that trademark or service mark without permission) the mark holder fails to prosecute or take action, the mark can be found in a court to be unprotected and open for use. There are other ways to lose a mark as well.

However, it is not necessary to register a mark with the USPTO in order to claim it as a trademark or service mark. The USPTO says any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO.

Owning a mark registration on the Principal Register does give you several things:

• constructive notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark;
• a legal presumption of the registrant's ownership of the mark and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;
• the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
• the use of the U.S registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries; and
• the ability to file the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods.

So really what Apple is doing here is registering the layout and design of their store as a service mark (an identity) so that if someone else comes along and uses the same layout and design, Apple can make a stronger case to sue them. The legal theory is that you could have looked up the service mark to see if someone else was using it so it's harder to defend yourself if you are found to be infringing. Not impossible to defend, just harder.

Companies do this kind of thing all the time. It just doesn't usually hit the news. Coke has a registered mark on the shape their bottle, for example.

This isn't an Apple patent, it's not an abuse of the patent system. It's just a service mark.

But Microsoft trademarked their store design too, and had it granted in 2011. This looks much like return fire, and not an opening shot.

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85194406&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Hope they are aware of this before spending too much monies,
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20060071122.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060071122&RS=DN/20060071122

-do note: this is akin to the person claiming barbie dolls he dug up were ancient relics.

United States Patent 8,254,902
Bell , et al. August 28, 2012

Disingenuous. "They DO not pass through supernodes" is not the same as "They CAN not pass through supernodes."

Microsoft had at that time already obtained a patent describing recording agents that can be placed in a multitude of devices, including routers. There is also the note of a recording agent software that represents “a software module that logically and/or physically sits between the call server and the network.” According to Microsoft, the agent will have access “to each communication sent to and from the call server,” which clearly refers to the general infrastructure of a VoIP service and network.

Disingenuous. "They DO NOT pass through supernodes" clearly says that calls do not pass through supernodes, whether they can or not. Furthermore, the patent on recording agents is completely irrelevant - it's clearly something useful for.. oh, I don't know... Unified Communications Systems like Lync.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20110153809.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110153809RS=DN/20110153809

The only conclusion you can make is that:

While we don't know the full details of how Skype handles its key exchange, what is clear is that Skype is in a position to impersonate its customers, or, should it be forced, to give a government agency the ability to impersonate its customers. As Skype acts as the gatekeeper of conversations, and the only entity providing any authentication of callers, users have no way of knowing if they're directly communicating with a friend they frequently chat with, or if their connection is being intercepted using a man in the middle attack, made possible due to the disclosure of cryptographic keys by Skype to the government.

http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2012/07/the-known-unknows-of-skype-interception.html?m=1

Actually, no, that's not the only conclusion you can make. It's the only conclusion that you are willing to make, because you're a tinfoil hat nutter.

This has not changed the underlying nature of Skype’s peer-to-peer (P2P) architecture, in which supernodes simply allow users to find one another (calls do not pass through supernodes)

Disingenuous. "They DO not pass through supernodes" is not the same as "They CAN not pass through supernodes."

Microsoft had at that time already obtained a patent describing recording agents that can be placed in a multitude of devices, including routers. There is also the note of a recording agent software that represents “a software module that logically and/or physically sits between the call server and the network.” According to Microsoft, the agent will have access “to each communication sent to and from the call server,” which clearly refers to the general infrastructure of a VoIP service and network.

“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a Microsoft patent application that reaches back to December 2009 and describes ‘recording agents’ to legally intercept VoIP phone calls. The ‘Legal Intercept‘ patent application is one of Microsoft’s more elaborate and detailed patent papers, which is comprehensive enough to make you think twice about the use of VoIP audio and video communications. The document provides Microsoft’s idea about the nature, positioning and feature set of recording agents that silently record the communication between two or more parties.”

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20110153809.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110153809RS=DN/20110153809

The only conclusion you can make is that:

While we don't know the full details of how Skype handles its key exchange, what is clear is that Skype is in a position to impersonate its customers, or, should it be forced, to give a government agency the ability to impersonate its customers. As Skype acts as the gatekeeper of conversations, and the only entity providing any authentication of callers, users have no way of knowing if they're directly communicating with a friend they frequently chat with, or if their connection is being intercepted using a man in the middle attack, made possible due to the disclosure of cryptographic keys by Skype to the government.

http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2012/07/the-known-unknows-of-skype-interception.html?m=1

I'm an Apple fanboy and I wasn't left scratching my head at all. And anyone with even a basic understanding of trademark law wouldn't be either. Apple has a registered trademark for "App Store" ( http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:2zpo7n.2.5 ). If they failed to defend that trademark in court, they are assumed to accept unauthorized usage of the trademark. Even if defending it is a longshot (which this was), they must defend it or they lose it.

There are many examples from about 20 or 30 years ago but they are rare now because most legal departments have learned that if you want to keep your trademark protected, you are required to defend it.

This is different from copyrights and patents. Trademarks must be defended or they become harder and harder to defend.

So, no, I wasn't left scratching my head. I thought this lawsuit was a longshot but they were required to file it to defend their "App Store" trademark.

The US Patent Office's guidelines for an ex parte reexamination request.

What I mean is they don't start your patent expiry after you actually have your product on the shelves.

U.S. patent terms for products that are "subject to a regulatory review period", such as new drugs, are routinely extended by the USPTO for undue delay by the FDA or other regulator. For example, the term of the patent on Xenical (orlistat) was extended for several years pursuant to 35 USC 156.

Why did you link geekwire instead of The Patent?

Because the USPTO is not a for-profit business. Duh.

Why did you link geekwire instead of The Patent?

Dead wrong. There were be almost no patented medicines then since patents are usually filed before Phase II or III clinical trials take place, which often take years to run. This is why there is a "patent term extension" may be granted to recover some of the lost sales during clinical trials.

To be fair, Apple's original patent on this was filed in 1993. That version of the patent talked about pen computing on a tablet, which presumably referred to the Apple Newton, which was also released in 1993. This patent covered the opaque image under the pop-up keyboard on the Newton.

I believe Microsoft introduced translucent windows with Windows 2000, although it is possible that like many other Microsoft new features that it was merely public access to a technology that already existed in previous versions of Windows.

I don't think that the concept of two programs each building an image and then a third program blending them together is really novel enough to justify a patent. The concept of blending two images together were not unknown then, so the idea that you use that existing technology just to blend two screenshots together seems technically obvious. If they really wanted to patent an opaque representation of the underlying screen under a pop-up keyboard then they should have made it a design patent.

I didn't believe it until I read it myself:

Source

"A method and apparatus is described for producing a translucent image over a base image created on the display screen of a computer system by a selected first application program, and conducting image operations either on the base image created by the selected application program with reference to the translucent image produced, or conducting image operations on the translucent image with reference to the base image of the first application program. The first application program runs on a central processing unit (CPU) of a computer system to produce a base image, and another application program referred to as the overlay program is run to produce the translucent image such that portions of the base image which are overlapped by the overlay image are at least partially visible through the translucent image. There is also a mechanism for blending the first video data and the second video data to produce a blended image on the screen assembly."

"The efficient use of the available display screen space for observation of images and windows containing images, while particularly pronounced for pen computer systems, is common to all computer systems which display information or images to the user. No matter how large a particular display may be, a particular user will be tempted to attempt to display more information on the screen than can effectively be handled.

Images or information presented on a display screen are typically presented as opaque images, i.e., images "behind" a displayed image are obscured. This is the case with display windows which are layered on a particular screen, with the uppermost window image partially or completely blocking the view of the lower windows. For two windows to be capable of interaction, it is preferable that the user be able to observe both images at the same time, or at close to the same time."

And that's if you can manage getting through the ridiculous descriptions of "pen-like" devices... Does the lawyer that wrote this have any respect for himself?

Even if it is some type of "new" transparency, I feel like it would be hard to come up with a new method that hasn't already been done in OpenGL.

Note the dashed lines are not what is patented, just the solid rounded rectangle.

patent 6,070,068, which was issued to Sony and covers a method for controlling the connecting state of a call

patent 6,253,075, which covers call rejection

patent 6,427,078, which covers a data processing device

patent 6,070,068, which was issued to Sony and covers a method for controlling the connecting state of a call

patent 6,253,075, which covers call rejection

patent 6,427,078, which covers a data processing device

patent 6,070,068, which was issued to Sony and covers a method for controlling the connecting state of a call

patent 6,253,075, which covers call rejection

patent 6,427,078, which covers a data processing device

It seems to me that the actual claims and subsequent description are on (1) a method to wirelessly charge devices, with one device serving as secondary power source source for another device if needed, and with devices up to a meter away from the primary and secondary power sources; (2) a method that improves the efficiency of charging high capacity batteries as a bonus from the circuit needed to do (1); and (3) using (1) and (2) to charge a mouse and keyboard (explicit in the claims). Evidently, (1) and (2) could also be used to charge phones and tablets in an office environment too.

At any rate, I merely scanned the patent, but contrary to what TFS and TFA suggest, Apple didn't patent wireless charging, or even long range wireless charging. What Apple patented is cooperative and efficient wireless charging of a network of devices; in particular of peripherals located on a desk. I presume that plenty of researchers are working on the same kind of stuff, but assuming it hadn't been done yet, nobody can argue with a straight face that this patent is without merits.

Really doesn't matter when the application was made. It still hasn't been granted.

WiPower got a patent on this stuff that's unpatentable back in 2008

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,169,185&OS=8,169,185&RS=8,169,185

Surely there was enough prior art for that patent to be questionable as well

Isn't the real problem with copywrite due to nearly 35% of the GDP being dependent on Intellectual Property laws?

"IP-intensive industries accounted for about $5.06 trillion in value added, or 34.8% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP)"
http://www.uspto.gov/about/ipm/industries_in_focus.jsp

The Ars Technica piece is very slanted, pulling quotes our of context. Here's the full text of the speech itself: http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2012/kappos_CAP.jsp

For instance, compare these quotes, which give a very different perspective:

"But it is equally important that patent protection be properly tailored in scope, so that programmers can write code and engineers can design devices without fear of unfounded accusations of infringement. And we know that inconsistency in software patent issuance causes uncertainty in the marketplace and can cause threats of litigation that in turn can stifle innovation and deter new market entrants."

"Software experts have long observed that programming is incremental in nature, with modest improvements not worthy of patent protection. KSR gave us the ability to recognize this valid observation and incorporate it in our examination process."

"Should we just accept the problems, given the importance of the innovation and the illogic of discriminating against great technology that happens to be implemented in software? Of course not. The right point of inquiry is quality. By getting that right, we grant patents only for great algorithmic ideas worthy of protection, and not for everything else. This administration and its innovation agency understand that low-quality patents do no good for anyone. Low quality patents lead to disputes, uncertainty, and lost opportunity. Quality is central to our mission. All of this especially for software."

"One such initiative has already begun crowdsourcing searches for software prior art. It's called Ask Patents and is an online network hosted by Stack Exchange, where software experts engage in robust discussions of possible prior art for given applications, then submit the best prior art along with helpful commentary."

"You know, the history of software patents is not a perfect one, although things are improving. Some of the most troublesome patents have expired; others can be challenged with new post-grant proceedings; and newer patents are quantifiably clearer, and aligned with current legal standards."

"For those who feel more needs to be done, we encourage you to keep reaching out to us at the USPTO, as well as to other actors who also have an important role to play. The USPTO administers the laws, while Congress and the courts write the laws and interpret them, respectively. Working together, we can find the right balance for software patents. We can find a balance that ensures market certainty, encourages investment and research and product development, and guarantees that patents issued going forward are appropriately tailored."

And yet a utility patent for just this sort of thing already exists, so the point would seem to stand, wouldn't it?

...they've even referenced the venerable 805678, leave him out of it.

It's an odd day when an AC has something more insightful to say than everyone else, but that's the case here.

Since this is a design patent, it only covers the ornamental aspects (in fact, the methodology and the like were specifically excluded in the patent, since the patent cannot cover any function). As such, others are welcome to make page turning animations (in fact, IBM had a VERY similar patent back in '95 that was cited as a reference by Apple) as much as they want, so long as it doesn't look like Apple's implementation. As the AC pointed out, the BeOS design looks nothing like Apple's, so it wouldn't act as prior art that could invalidate the patent. Even the IBM patent, while similar, is not close enough.

Case in point.

Indeed...

We are actually witnessing fewer patent suits per patent issued today than the historical average.

The main problem with the patent system today is not what can be patented, it's that it is *much* easier for some parties (like IBM) to file a huge volume of patents annually. As a result, even though patent examiners and the courts do not scale, due to the huge increase in patents applied for (and issued without full investigation), the load on the system is approaching unsustainable.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/issuyear.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm

There were 1013094 utility patents issued up to 1912.
There were 3015103 utility patents issued up to 1962 -- roughly 2 million patents in 50 years.
There were 8087094 utility patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 5.5 million patents in 50 years.

There were 42073 design patents issued up to 1912.
There were 192004 design patents issued up to 1962 -- roughly 150,000 patents in 50 years
There were 651376 design patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 450,000 patents in 50 years

There were 0 plant patents issued up to 1912.
There were 2117 plant patents issued up to 1962.
There were 22428 plant patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 22,000 patents in 50 years.

There were 0 statutory inventions up to 1912.
There were 0 statutory inventions up to 1962.
There were over 2251 statutory inventions up to 2011.

The trend, while not horrendous, is significant. This doesn't even take into consideration patents that were reissued and so are still in the patent pool.

The applications are even worse:
Utility Patent Applications (e) (inventions)
503,582 (2011)
490,226
456,106
456,321
456,154
425,967
390,733
356,943
342,441
334,445
326,508
295,926
270,187
243,062
215,257
195,187 (1996)

See any trends?

Something I'd be interested in is the number of distinct patent applicants per year -- I have a feeling that this number is stable or shrinking, but have nothing to back that up. A list of patent holders would also be interesting -- especially to see how it compares to the applicants.

Indeed...

We are actually witnessing fewer patent suits per patent issued today than the historical average.

The main problem with the patent system today is not what can be patented, it's that it is *much* easier for some parties (like IBM) to file a huge volume of patents annually. As a result, even though patent examiners and the courts do not scale, due to the huge increase in patents applied for (and issued without full investigation), the load on the system is approaching unsustainable.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/issuyear.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm

There were 1013094 utility patents issued up to 1912.
There were 3015103 utility patents issued up to 1962 -- roughly 2 million patents in 50 years.
There were 8087094 utility patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 5.5 million patents in 50 years.

There were 42073 design patents issued up to 1912.
There were 192004 design patents issued up to 1962 -- roughly 150,000 patents in 50 years
There were 651376 design patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 450,000 patents in 50 years

There were 0 plant patents issued up to 1912.
There were 2117 plant patents issued up to 1962.
There were 22428 plant patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 22,000 patents in 50 years.

There were 0 statutory inventions up to 1912.
There were 0 statutory inventions up to 1962.
There were over 2251 statutory inventions up to 2011.

The trend, while not horrendous, is significant. This doesn't even take into consideration patents that were reissued and so are still in the patent pool.

The applications are even worse:
Utility Patent Applications (e) (inventions)
503,582 (2011)
490,226
456,106
456,321
456,154
425,967
390,733
356,943
342,441
334,445
326,508
295,926
270,187
243,062
215,257
195,187 (1996)

See any trends?

Something I'd be interested in is the number of distinct patent applicants per year -- I have a feeling that this number is stable or shrinking, but have nothing to back that up. A list of patent holders would also be interesting -- especially to see how it compares to the applicants.

Apple apps don't have any ads, even bundled apps. Will they eventually go there? Well, they do have a patent for that...

Indeed, although the Apple weather app gets awfully close to having ads -- the details button takes you to a Yahoo page that contains ads.

Apple apps don't have any ads, even bundled apps. Will they eventually go there? Well, they do have a patent for that...

B) How it wasn't picked up on a patent search.

Microsoft has been aware of the patent. It's even referenced in Microsofts own patent on displaying tiles on mobile devices.

Software patents are fundamentally wrong :(

No kidding.

If you really wanted many people to see different things on the same screen, the various tricks used for 3D (shutter glasses, polarization) would be more effective.

I agree entirely but I figure it's due to Sony putting up a brick wall in that direction.

"Retina display" isn't copyrighted by Apple. In fact it's not even a trademark.

"Retina" is the trademark.

Copyright and trademark are not the same thing.

IIRC (this is mid-90s) that technology was patented by Hagenuk.

The only US patent I could find assigned to Hagenuk that discusses antennas was 5886668, which doesn't mention radiation absorbed by the body at all. Can you supply a reference?

Who said anything about BIG.

Boeing:

the cloud has a size of 50 km to 500 km, a mass of 1,000 kg to 10,000 kg

Yeah! And why do we waste so much time in criminal trials? It seems they could save a lot of time looking at evidence if they just took the "guilty" part of the law seriously and threw people in jail right off the bat.

Your analogy seems exactly backwards to me. In criminal law you are innocent until proven guilty. Nobody can (ideally) take your freedom away unless they can make, and are willing to shoulder the expense of making, a compelling case in court against you.

Patents aren't about taking something away from the patent applicant, they are about granting the applicant the special privilege of a monopoly on an invention.

Actually, the analogy is exactly right, for the reason you note - just as a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, a patent application is presumed allowable and valid unless the Examiner proves it not to be:

The examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness. If the examiner does not produce a prima facie case, the applicant is under no obligation to submit evidence of nonobviousness.

Just as a defendant doesn't have an initial burden of proving themselves innocent, a patent application doesn't have an initial burden of showing nonobviousness.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant patents "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." It does not, as far as I am aware, require Congress to grant your particular patent.

Sure, but once Congress has created by statute an examination and approval process, that examination and approval process must be subject to the due process requirement of the 5th Amendment.

I'm going to assert my opinion that the purpose of patents is to keep people from copying ideas that took substantial work or creativity to develop, since such copying would deprive the inventor of financial benefit for the idea, which would reduce the incentive to innovate. An undesirable side-effect is that patents also keep someone from utilizing the idea if he/she developed it independently (rather than copying), and we live with that side-effect because it is almost impossible to prove that someone copied an idea (unlike copying a book). As such, we require patented ideas to be non-obvious to an expert in the field, so the likelihood of someone else coming up with the idea independently, rather than copying, and suffering the loss of not being able to utilize it due to a patent is small. If that is, in fact, the motivation for the non-obvious requirement, an idea should be very non-obvious to be patentable.

I disagree. Patents are not a reward for an awesome invention, they're a grudgingly granted monopoly in exchange for public disclosure. Inventors don't need an incentive to innovate, because they'll be commercially exploiting their idea anyway. Rather, inventors need an incentive to not keep trade secrets, which hinder society by hiding away useful innovations, forcing others to re-invent the proverbial wheel. This has been the justification for the patent system for the past 500 years.

We require patented ideas to be non-obvious because otherwise we're not getting anything in exchange for the monopoly: if everyone already knows the secret (i.e. it's obvious), then there's no need to encourage disclosure of it. But if it's it not obvious, then we want it publicized, so we grant the monopoly. As such, the test is a black or white one - is it obvious or not? There is no qualitative test of "well, how non-obvious is it?" This is also pragmatic - how do you measure how non-obvious something is?

Given that a patent is a privilege, not a right, and should (rightly) not be granted unless the idea is non-obvious to an expert in the field, why should the USPTO rubber-stamp your

Here's first such patent registered by Google: Patent #8,271,894

As noted on Slashdot, it's a patent for using anonymity online much like you can already. The problem here is that since Google has been awarded this patent, then other companies like Facebook or any other website CANNOT offer anonymity! This is a perfect example of a very dangerous patent and who else patented it than Google, the champion for losing anonymity on the internet.