Slashdot Mirror

Then why are you acting like you do?

only USPTO workers educated in that field(computer science, for example) would be able to accept patents

Patents are already grouped into different technology centers. See this page for a broad overview of the different technology centers. After an application is filed, it is categorized (see here for the different categories) and an examiner in the appropriate technology center is assigned to the application.

Then why are you acting like you do?

only USPTO workers educated in that field(computer science, for example) would be able to accept patents

Patents are already grouped into different technology centers. See this page for a broad overview of the different technology centers. After an application is filed, it is categorized (see here for the different categories) and an examiner in the appropriate technology center is assigned to the application.

If you're stuck using Gnome, KDE, Window Maker, CDE, etc., there's a way out now!

Not for me there isn't. I'm poor, and unlike x86 computers, there aren't any super-cheap Macintosh computers.

What does "source-compatible" mean?

It means I can take the source code of a a Cocoa app that uses complicated Quartz calls, recompile it on gnustep, and It Just Works®.

If you have a decent idea and can get it to the filing point for a "regular" application by the end of the year, then you ought to consider filing a "provisional" patent application now. The filing fee for a provisional application is currently $80.00 US (for a small entity). The catch is you _have_ to either file a regular application, or change your provisional to a regular, within 12 months. Also, you don't have to have a prototype to file, but you do have to be diligent in reducing the invention to practice (e.g., making the prototype).

Now explain why Mac OS X is not UNIX.

For the same reason Canon does not make Xerox photocopiers. The term "UNIX" has a specific meaning in U.S. law.

There's nothing "standard UNIX" about X11.

True, but take it in context. The first graphical environments that come to mind when one thinks about UNIX-mark-bearing systems are X11-based: GNOME, KDE, Window Maker, CDE, etc.

You'd find more detailed information on developer.apple.com

Now I'm curious. Does developer.apple.com contain enough information for a third party to produce a source-compatible clone of the Quartz graphics layer?

The definition of Small Entity is long, but, as a starting point, individuals and companies with fewer than 500 employees is considered a small entity.

Not to act all prissy, but actually it isn't that long:
1) Independent inventors (someone who has not assigned and is not under obligation to assign the invention)
2) Nonprofit organizations
3) Small business concerns

See here. What's long is the document that defines what a small business concern is by the industry it is in. You might note that a "Electronic computer manufacturing" business is a small entity if it has less than 1,000 employees, whereas for beer and ale wholesalers it's 100. "Custom computer programming services" are defined in dollar amounts, though, where the limit is $18M in revenue.

As to your response to #3 - I think this is one of the most important points, and the one where your response is incomplete. As an engineering law professor at Northwestern once told us, patent exmainers are usually going to be the least skilled graduates in their areas of expertise. Don't believe me? Well, take a look at these two links:

First this http://www3.uspto.gov/go/jars/sgs.html
then this http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/ohr/jobs /gradelevels.htm

So if I've got a degree in Chemical Engineering, I can start at the US Patent office making a whole $32,819 a year! And it gets better. If I have a masters in Chemical Engineering I can start at $47,240! And my reward for these splendid salaries? I get to sit and stare at patent applications all day. Even in this crappy enconomy, those salaries don't look that good. Imagine the kind of employee they were able to hire in the boom of the previous decade. Yeah.

I realize that I could've been nicer and more politic in this post, but...well I have no excuse. I just didn't feel like it.

As to your response to #3 - I think this is one of the most important points, and the one where your response is incomplete. As an engineering law professor at Northwestern once told us, patent exmainers are usually going to be the least skilled graduates in their areas of expertise. Don't believe me? Well, take a look at these two links:

First this http://www3.uspto.gov/go/jars/sgs.html
then this http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/ohr/jobs /gradelevels.htm

So if I've got a degree in Chemical Engineering, I can start at the US Patent office making a whole $32,819 a year! And it gets better. If I have a masters in Chemical Engineering I can start at $47,240! And my reward for these splendid salaries? I get to sit and stare at patent applications all day. Even in this crappy enconomy, those salaries don't look that good. Imagine the kind of employee they were able to hire in the boom of the previous decade. Yeah.

I realize that I could've been nicer and more politic in this post, but...well I have no excuse. I just didn't feel like it.

People need to understand that the USPTO is a cash cow for the Feds. It made somewhere along the lines of 400 million dollars for the Feds in 2002.

It has done that, in part, by actively encouraging the general public to file for both patent and trademark applications. It has implied to the public that it is easy to go through the application process. It also has a lopsided bonus structure for examiners that encourages quantity, not quality. While I was a trademark examiner, I could have made up to $20,000 per year in bonuses for the quantity of my work, but only about $3,000 dollars for the quality of my work. Does that make any sense if you do not want stupid patents and trademarks being issued!?!

The USPTO has implemented a new strategic plan that will restructure how the PTO handles both patent and trademark applications. Most people in the field believe that this restructuring will increase pendency and decrease quality. You can read the PTO's annual reports and the 21st Century Strategic Plan"

So it should be no surprise that filings are going way up and pendency is going way up along with it... and that more mistakes are made and more garbage gets through. It also should come as no surprise that the PTO has a vested interest in making sure people believe that they can file applications on their own. So it offers "online filing", "online searching" and other tools that are really a poor substitute for having a complete search done by an attorney (or a patent agent). There is no question that some people don't want to put out the money for a professional search, and are willing to chance the money they lose in filing fees. That's fine. There are also those who earnestly get the impression that all they have to do is "file an application" and they will get a registration. Like most things in life (and especially with the government), it rarely works that way.

-A

People need to understand that the USPTO is a cash cow for the Feds. It made somewhere along the lines of 400 million dollars for the Feds in 2002.

It has done that, in part, by actively encouraging the general public to file for both patent and trademark applications. It has implied to the public that it is easy to go through the application process. It also has a lopsided bonus structure for examiners that encourages quantity, not quality. While I was a trademark examiner, I could have made up to $20,000 per year in bonuses for the quantity of my work, but only about $3,000 dollars for the quality of my work. Does that make any sense if you do not want stupid patents and trademarks being issued!?!

The USPTO has implemented a new strategic plan that will restructure how the PTO handles both patent and trademark applications. Most people in the field believe that this restructuring will increase pendency and decrease quality. You can read the PTO's annual reports and the 21st Century Strategic Plan"

So it should be no surprise that filings are going way up and pendency is going way up along with it... and that more mistakes are made and more garbage gets through. It also should come as no surprise that the PTO has a vested interest in making sure people believe that they can file applications on their own. So it offers "online filing", "online searching" and other tools that are really a poor substitute for having a complete search done by an attorney (or a patent agent). There is no question that some people don't want to put out the money for a professional search, and are willing to chance the money they lose in filing fees. That's fine. There are also those who earnestly get the impression that all they have to do is "file an application" and they will get a registration. Like most things in life (and especially with the government), it rarely works that way.

-A

Not a patent but a trademark, but it's the same USPTO providing the quality service.

The Patent Office has a kids page. My mother is actually a Philadelphia elementary school teacher and she used it in class once. It went well

Someone's been reading too much US patent number 4,666,425.

Actually, if you read the patents linked from the article, they aren't even patents on JPEG. They make claims on the use of compressed storage formats in digital cameras, such as JPEG.

• #6,496,222 Digital camera with memory format initialization
• #6,323,899 Process for use in electronic camera
• #6,233,010 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #6,094,219 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,576,757 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,138,459 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output

What digial camera doesn't have the capability to store compressed images? Nobody would buy a camera that wasted memory by storing uncompressed images. Therefore, these are essentially patents on digital cameras!

Actually, if you read the patents linked from the article, they aren't even patents on JPEG. They make claims on the use of compressed storage formats in digital cameras, such as JPEG.

• #6,496,222 Digital camera with memory format initialization
• #6,323,899 Process for use in electronic camera
• #6,233,010 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #6,094,219 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,576,757 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,138,459 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output

What digial camera doesn't have the capability to store compressed images? Nobody would buy a camera that wasted memory by storing uncompressed images. Therefore, these are essentially patents on digital cameras!

Actually, if you read the patents linked from the article, they aren't even patents on JPEG. They make claims on the use of compressed storage formats in digital cameras, such as JPEG.

• #6,496,222 Digital camera with memory format initialization
• #6,323,899 Process for use in electronic camera
• #6,233,010 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #6,094,219 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,576,757 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,138,459 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output

What digial camera doesn't have the capability to store compressed images? Nobody would buy a camera that wasted memory by storing uncompressed images. Therefore, these are essentially patents on digital cameras!

Actually, if you read the patents linked from the article, they aren't even patents on JPEG. They make claims on the use of compressed storage formats in digital cameras, such as JPEG.

• #6,496,222 Digital camera with memory format initialization
• #6,323,899 Process for use in electronic camera
• #6,233,010 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #6,094,219 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,576,757 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,138,459 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output

What digial camera doesn't have the capability to store compressed images? Nobody would buy a camera that wasted memory by storing uncompressed images. Therefore, these are essentially patents on digital cameras!

Actually, if you read the patents linked from the article, they aren't even patents on JPEG. They make claims on the use of compressed storage formats in digital cameras, such as JPEG.

• #6,496,222 Digital camera with memory format initialization
• #6,323,899 Process for use in electronic camera
• #6,233,010 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #6,094,219 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,576,757 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,138,459 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output

What digial camera doesn't have the capability to store compressed images? Nobody would buy a camera that wasted memory by storing uncompressed images. Therefore, these are essentially patents on digital cameras!

Actually, if you read the patents linked from the article, they aren't even patents on JPEG. They make claims on the use of compressed storage formats in digital cameras, such as JPEG.

• #6,496,222 Digital camera with memory format initialization
• #6,323,899 Process for use in electronic camera
• #6,233,010 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #6,094,219 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,576,757 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output
• #5,138,459 Electronic still video camera with direct personal computer (PC) compatible digital format output

What digial camera doesn't have the capability to store compressed images? Nobody would buy a camera that wasted memory by storing uncompressed images. Therefore, these are essentially patents on digital cameras!

What I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

Great - corporations patent every new/old/used algorithm and idea in sight and use it as a part of their portfolio to scare off competitors. How is this helping innovation? If anything it is preventing anyone to actually act on the idea to innovate.

Patent system is flawed - on top of what has already been said about it such as patents are too broad, many things should not be patentable, etc. - it is flawed in that USPTO receives money for every patent granted; it is to USPTO's advantage to grant more and more patents to get more funding. It is so ridiculous, I don't know that anything I do isn't patented already. The argument that patent database is open is not helpful - there's so many of them, you can't be expected to go through it next time you want to do something obvious.

Can I raise my hand to pull over a cab without violating a patent? I don't know - I certainly can't swing on a swing.

Actually, they may have. Tivo holds 20-odd patents covering many aspects of its DVR technology... see this , this and this, for example. They've tried to enforce them, too.

And what Tivo hasn't patented, SonicBlue/Replay probably has. Granted, SonicBlue won't exist much longer, but someone is bound to buy the patent rights, and they'll probably try to enforce them.

Actually, they may have. Tivo holds 20-odd patents covering many aspects of its DVR technology... see this , this and this, for example. They've tried to enforce them, too.

And what Tivo hasn't patented, SonicBlue/Replay probably has. Granted, SonicBlue won't exist much longer, but someone is bound to buy the patent rights, and they'll probably try to enforce them.

Actually, they may have. Tivo holds 20-odd patents covering many aspects of its DVR technology... see this , this and this, for example. They've tried to enforce them, too.

And what Tivo hasn't patented, SonicBlue/Replay probably has. Granted, SonicBlue won't exist much longer, but someone is bound to buy the patent rights, and they'll probably try to enforce them.

I'm a dumbass, I found them. All the patent numbers are listed here

Here are the 5 US Patent Office Links:
# 5,132,992
# 5,253,275
# 5,550,863
# 6,002,720
# 6,144,702

I'm a dumbass, I found them. All the patent numbers are listed here

Here are the 5 US Patent Office Links:
# 5,132,992
# 5,253,275
# 5,550,863
# 6,002,720
# 6,144,702

I'm a dumbass, I found them. All the patent numbers are listed here

Here are the 5 US Patent Office Links:
# 5,132,992
# 5,253,275
# 5,550,863
# 6,002,720
# 6,144,702

I'm a dumbass, I found them. All the patent numbers are listed here

Here are the 5 US Patent Office Links:
# 5,132,992
# 5,253,275
# 5,550,863
# 6,002,720
# 6,144,702

I'm a dumbass, I found them. All the patent numbers are listed here

Here are the 5 US Patent Office Links:
# 5,132,992
# 5,253,275
# 5,550,863
# 6,002,720
# 6,144,702

I can't seem to find the patents after doing a search at the patent office website http://patft.uspto.gov/. Anybody have better luck?

Acacia Research reported a net loss last year of $29.6 million on sales that plummeted to $882,000, from $24.6 million the previous year. If nothing else, the stock is a screaming bargain. The market values the entire company at just 43% of the $55 million Acacia has on hand in cash and cash equivalents. "All I know is I've been buying a lot of stock lately," Ryan says gamely.

The bottom line is that there is a desperate need for patent reform. My first suggestion is a peer review process. Technology specialization has gotten to the point where I do not think a fulltime patent clerk can stay current in a field. Second, the patent process must be completed in a short timeframe. If you cannot provide a clear patent right away, then you probably do not have good idea. The current patent process has a disclosure document program that can be used to help establish precedent. It even provides for a patent pending. IMHO those two concepts provide sufficient protection of an idea. The purpose of a finite timeframe is to reduce the number of submarine patents.

A dissenting opinion to my view can be found here.

That is standard patent boiler-plate. Every single patent uses the first claim as an overview of the device or method, then subsequent claims (which you left out) specify the method in which the first claim is accomplished.

A different anti-overclocking device that also uses a method of measuring and comparing the clock speed would reference this patent, then describe how it differs from the specific methods used therein. Hell, the patent in question even references other patents from which claim 1 is derived, such as this one.

Better idea: Patent spam. :)

It's even better with diagrams.
(The patent application number is 20020019834--you forgot a 2 at the beginning)
pretty picture version
In particular I like the diagram: START -> VIEWING A FIRST DISPLAY IN A FIRST PLATFORM OF THE MEDIA -> INITIATING A LOAD TRIGGERING EVENT -> OPENING A POST-SESSION PLATFORM IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE MEDIA -> INITIATING A VIEW TRIGGERING EVENT -> VIEWING A POST-SESSION DISPLAY IN THE POST-SESSION PLATFORM
Sheer BS, of course. I like parent's JavaScript better.

How about popunders?

United States Patent Application: 0020019834

Almost 10.000 words to explain something that I can do in two lines of JavaScript:

x = window.open (y);
window.focus();

The USPTO is hiring patent reviewers.

In the short amount of time you spend reading slashdot and shaking your fist at "The Man" you could have reviewed (and rejected) an obvious patent.

Seriously, It is a nice government job, with benefits, and you'd be doing a lot of good.

The USPTO is hiring patent reviewers.

In the short amount of time you spend reading slashdot and shaking your fist at "The Man" you could have reviewed (and rejected) an obvious patent.

Seriously, It is a nice government job, with benefits, and you'd be doing a lot of good.

if someone puts a patent in my face I just laugh and code around it

Then do you think you can implement an LZW encoder by the end of May (i.e. before the U.S. patent runs out on June 21), without infringing U.S. Patent 4,558,302? What about an MP3 encoder that doesn't infringe any of these?

Among patent lawyers, it is widely believed that Wired.com invented the banner ad, and that they lost a chance to be the gatekeepers for online publishers by failing to patent it. Even though banner ads seem like a trivial migration of advertising from paper into electronic documents, apparently the idea was novel enough to have stood a good chance of validity (by the USPTO's loose definitions)

Since then, other companies have attempted to patent more specific aspects of online advertising. Doubleclick.com's patent, for instance, was covered on /. when it came out.

However, the new Amazon patent is (apparently) not for something as general as banner ads, or tracking the users viewing ads- but on selecting ads to run by comparing them with the shopping behavior of a customer.

As usual, that's something which hardly seems worthy of the name "invention". Let us remember: Jeff Bezos agrees that the USPTO accepts patents far too liberally- but as a responsible businessman, he has no choice but to seize every advantage the government offers him.

One could even argue that high-profile abuses of the patent office serve to emphasize it's shortcomings, and set the stage for eventually fixing patent law. Call it a backwards form of civil disobedience, maybe?

In addition to patenting "adding advertisements to web pages" Slashdot reports that in the same patent, titled "Method and system for allocating display space", Jeff Bezos is also trying to patent "adding the word 'and' to a patent application".

The Slashdot community is in outrage

"There must be prior art. I mean someone must have the word 'and' in a patent application" writes one reader.

"I never read the patent, but I can see from the other comments that this monster is really trying to patent the word 'and'!! How ridiculous. The patent office is ensuring its own doom with this one."

"No one is sure if Bezos' secret agents in the patent office will get this one approved," reports the Slashdot editor who posted the story, "but this is yet another sign of the impeding downfall of western civilization"

There is a better alternative to GPS named STDMA (Self-organizing Time Division Multiple Access). It is patented with U.S. Patent No. 5,506,587, which you may find HERE.

It is in use in marine navigation. See also HERE and for a tech overview HERE.

Apparently, the US has tried to suppress the system as it may well replace GPS because of better performance and other reasons; one can imagine wartime control may be of importance here.

making 64 bit chips is not the only way to "court" the gaming market. I'm sure intel has other plans for bigger (read: smaller) and better chips. Eventually I think they will start to make the 64's, but for now they're making chips with Hyper Threading (great for game servers).

But AMD can have both. After all, they have a patent on "Microprocessor configured to execute multiple threads including interrupt service routines", which is basically hyperthreading with another name.

well, patents expire after seven years, so...

(2) Term. - Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years...

It's worth noting that you have to keep paying periodically to keep a patent in effect. Check out the PTO's fee schedule...you can lose a patent after as little as 3.5 years if you don't keep forking over the money.

I had a gadget idea (related to the production of homebrew) for which it was recommended that I obtain a patent, but I'm not sure that I could recover the nearly $3500 it'd take to keep a patent in force for 20 years...and that's before you add in attorney fees and other expenses associated with obtaining a patent.

A transaction system is disclosed wherein, when a transaction, document or thing needs to be authenticated, information associated with one or more of the parties involved is coded together to produce a joint code. This joint code is then utilized to code information relevant to the transaction, document or record, in order to produce a variable authentication number (VAN) at the initiation of the transaction. This VAN is thereafter associated with the transaction and is recorded on the document or thing, along with the original information that was coded. During subsequent stages of the transaction, only parties capable of reconstructing the joint code will be able to uncode the VAN properly in order to re-derive the information. The joint code serves to authenticate the parties, and the comparison of the re-derived information against the information recorded on the document serves to authenticate the accuracy of that information.

Heres the link

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not an expert on encryption, but this doesn't sound like a bs patent to me. is it possible that a legitimate inventor got screwed trying to press his claim on a corportation that just doesn't want to pay people for what they've rightfully created?

The sad thing is that if these patents had been held by a laywer or a big company with a good legal team, they probably would have held up at least long enough for them to generate some revenue. And chances are they would have picked their legal battles more carefully and settled out of court at just the right points to avoid even the risk of invalidation.

Moreover, the expired patent does not cover just XOR, it covers a system of which XOR is a part. Such a system as a whole was probably pretty novel in 1978. (Yes, software patents were perhaps too long given the pace of innovation at that time.)

Looks more like evidence that the Patent office is owned by money and does not serve individual inventors. How are this man's patents any different from any other BS work protected by that office? Are they even valid? Most importantly, what makes you think he did not do anything with those patents or even needed to?

You don't need to do anything other than put a good faith effort. I could have an idea that would take billions of dollars to implement, it's still mine and the patent office would still grant me protection of that idea for being good enough to share it through them. If the only companies in the world with the kinds of resources to work that patent decided to sit for seventeen years the world is just that much worse off.

Of course we need to know when and what he patented to draw such a conclusion. Another, equally viable, possibility is that he's a little guy who really did "invent" something, but he's getting steamrolled in court because it's "Stambler, Leon", and not "Big Business Inc".

The patents (I believe)

I once fell of a swing and broke my ass. Can I sue Steven Olson the Inventor of Swinging for lost work time?

"Cash-strapped lawyer sues local playgrounds for infringement on swing patent"? Honestly.

It seems to me that if you're not going to vigorously defend your patent for years on end in face of its open--literally, in the case of open-source IBM/Linux initiatives--then you shouldn't be able to sue every manufacturer on the block like this for what amount to arbitrary infringements. I grant that patent rights are important to protect, but inaction unfairly intimates apathy (cough Rambus) and obfuscation only exacerbates the problem.

As thousands of Slashdotters with nearly identical opinions have elucidated before far better than can I, the American patent system badly needs great reform. Tsk.

• A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design ... that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.