Slashdot Mirror

Here is the link to all the patents listed to assignee 'Toyota'. There are 29,770 patents, and there are many that are granted not that long ago (10 million number). Here is another link that are specified with the word 'hybrid' in the patent title. There are 792 patents. Similarly, there are many patents that are granted not long ago too.

Here is the link to all the patents listed to assignee 'Toyota'. There are 29,770 patents, and there are many that are granted not that long ago (10 million number). Here is another link that are specified with the word 'hybrid' in the patent title. There are 792 patents. Similarly, there are many patents that are granted not long ago too.

Why guessing when you can do a quick check on the USPTO site?

Here is the link to all the patents listed that 'assigned to Toyota'. There are 29,770 patents, and there are many that are granted not that long ago (10 million number). Here is another link that are specified with the word 'hybrid' in the patent title. There are 792 patents. Similarly, there are many patents that are granted not long ago too.

Why guessing when you can do a quick check on the USPTO site?

Here is the link to all the patents listed that 'assigned to Toyota'. There are 29,770 patents, and there are many that are granted not that long ago (10 million number). Here is another link that are specified with the word 'hybrid' in the patent title. There are 792 patents. Similarly, there are many patents that are granted not long ago too.

While there are benefits to trademarking "arbitrary" terms, you can indeed trademark ordinary English words. An example of some English words that are trademarked are "Camel" (cigarettes) or Target (store) or Apple and Macintosh (computers). You can even trademark a single letter, like the letter R although that includes a design... here's a boring one: the word "seen".

While there are benefits to trademarking "arbitrary" terms, you can indeed trademark ordinary English words. An example of some English words that are trademarked are "Camel" (cigarettes) or Target (store) or Apple and Macintosh (computers). You can even trademark a single letter, like the letter R although that includes a design... here's a boring one: the word "seen".

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

By 2006, the government and Return Mail were talking about licensing options and a formal pilot program.

That is the part I'm not certain about because it is vague. What process was he using in negotiation? What was the deal/option he wanted? Was it appropriate? Also, a similar system does NOT mean it is a copy of a patent. If the system has only partially similar to his patent claims, then his patent is not covering the system. Business method has specific steps to execute especially in his patent. So the system may or may not be infringing his patent.

I haven't read the patent, so I have no idea what the patent covers.

Here is the application of the patent -- U.S. 2003/0191651. And here is the patent itself -- U.S. 6,826,548.

I haven't read the patent, so I have no idea what the patent covers.

Here is the application of the patent -- U.S. 2003/0191651. And here is the patent itself -- U.S. 6,826,548.

Do note that those are all specific and well defined instances, not generic.

Every trademark is a specific and well defined instance of a particular means of source identification (name, logo, color, sound, trade dress, etc.) coming to be associated, via actual, continuous use in commerce, with the goods or services of the mark holder. None of them are generic, because then they couldn't be trademarks.

Also, the "CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE" word mark is limited to it being written in uppercase in a certain typeset

This is false. The above referenced mark has mark drawing code 1 for "typed drawing", which is an archaic (pre-2004) but legally identical form of standard character mark. Standard character marks are often displayed by the USPTO in all caps, but "the owner of the mark is not limited to any particular depiction of the mark", including case, font style, size, color, graphical adornments, etc.

Look, it sounds like you're not big on Chooseco's arguments, and I'm not either. But it does neither you nor anyone else any good to spout demonstrably untrue stuff.

Trademarks are for branding in written content, not spoken.

This is false. A trademark can be anything that is source-identifying for goods or services. It can be a color (see "UPS brown"), a scent (see the "flowery musk scent" of Verizon stores (ew)), or, yes, a sound (see the "Intel inside" chimes). Here's a whole page the USPTO dedicated to sound marks.

The phrase, "choose your own adventure" is not trademarked because that is impossible.

This is also false. It's not just possible to trademark phrases, Chooseco has held a registered US trademark for the CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE word mark in books since 2004.

Trademarks are for branding in written content, not spoken.

This is false. A trademark can be anything that is source-identifying for goods or services. It can be a color (see "UPS brown"), a scent (see the "flowery musk scent" of Verizon stores (ew)), or, yes, a sound (see the "Intel inside" chimes). Here's a whole page the USPTO dedicated to sound marks.

The phrase, "choose your own adventure" is not trademarked because that is impossible.

This is also false. It's not just possible to trademark phrases, Chooseco has held a registered US trademark for the CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE word mark in books since 2004.

Trademarks are for branding in written content, not spoken.

This is false. A trademark can be anything that is source-identifying for goods or services. It can be a color (see "UPS brown"), a scent (see the "flowery musk scent" of Verizon stores (ew)), or, yes, a sound (see the "Intel inside" chimes). Here's a whole page the USPTO dedicated to sound marks.

The phrase, "choose your own adventure" is not trademarked because that is impossible.

This is also false. It's not just possible to trademark phrases, Chooseco has held a registered US trademark for the CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE word mark in books since 2004.

Trademarks are for branding in written content, not spoken.

This is false. A trademark can be anything that is source-identifying for goods or services. It can be a color (see "UPS brown"), a scent (see the "flowery musk scent" of Verizon stores (ew)), or, yes, a sound (see the "Intel inside" chimes). Here's a whole page the USPTO dedicated to sound marks.

The phrase, "choose your own adventure" is not trademarked because that is impossible.

This is also false. It's not just possible to trademark phrases, Chooseco has held a registered US trademark for the CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE word mark in books since 2004.

Trademarks are for branding in written content, not spoken.

This is false. A trademark can be anything that is source-identifying for goods or services. It can be a color (see "UPS brown"), a scent (see the "flowery musk scent" of Verizon stores (ew)), or, yes, a sound (see the "Intel inside" chimes). Here's a whole page the USPTO dedicated to sound marks.

The phrase, "choose your own adventure" is not trademarked because that is impossible.

This is also false. It's not just possible to trademark phrases, Chooseco has held a registered US trademark for the CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE word mark in books since 2004.

That was along the lines of my thought process when I saw the headline..

"Why would Netflix copy the official choose your own adventure logo/title?!?"
"Wait, did choose your own adventure even *have* a logo?"

A quick check on ye olde bookshelf and sure enough, no logo, and their title is simply white text in an orange/red oval border.

So I went to look it up, it being the actual registered trademark.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=4889435

That phrase, in that font, in that typeset, in an oval, in all caps, and either one full line or split over two lines as "choose your / own adventure"
That's the trademark.

Details:
Mark Drawing Type: 3 - AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WHICH INCLUDES WORD(S)/ LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S)
Description of Mark: The mark consists of the words "CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE" in a stylized format all contained within an oval.
Color(s) Claimed: Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
Design Search Code(s): 26.03.21 - Ovals that are completely or partially shaded

So I haven't watched this episode of black mirror. Does that exact mark get displayed within the show anywhere? I'd be shocked if netflix would be that dumb.

But as you said, just using the phrase to refer to the actual book series, is perfectly legal and required by law.
You are required to use a mark when referring to a product the mark applies to, forbidden from referring to the product as anything else but the mark, and forbidden from using the mark to refer to any other product.

Netflix won't pay much, if anything, to Chooseco.

Chooseco has no IP granting them exclusive rights to the concept of a choose your own adventure. They have copyrights over the individual works, but that only applies to those specific works. There is no patent for choose your own adventure books because they've been been around since the mid-70s, well before our patent system was completely subverted. Chooseco is just hoping to get a few bucks with the threat of a lawsuit. If it goes to trial, Chooseco will lose.

IBM, on the other hand, actually got a patent on choose your own adventure movies in 2003 (well after our patent system was subverted and anything could be patented if you added "on a computer" to it).

It wouldn't surprise me if Netflix reveals that they licensed IBM's patent prior to making Bandersnatch. If they didn't license that patent, then IBM is the company that Netflix should fear a lawsuit from.

Why should they be limited?

This is an excellent question.

I own no patents of my own, but I have been instrumental in the R&D process that led to more than one in the course of my job-duties. I'm also very critical of our (as in US) IP laws in general, and am still pretty unhappy about the state of affairs regarding the ever increasing barrier of entry regarding bringing novel inventions to market, creation and decimation of intellectual property, and the existence of patent and copyright trolls. Maybe I'm just a tech guy with an axe to grind, but from where I sit, our entire IP system is completely captured, and quite clearly runs counter to its original mission.

I can't see how granting any single entity such a vast array of monopoly powers over technology is useful in the promotion of industrial and technological progress in the United States. It seems to me that a great majority of granted patents are buried in the interest of protecting big business, or held onto in the hope of suing some other inventor, or are added to some not-inventors portfolio for rent seeking or business class destruction of the completion. (which I understand is kinda of the point, but not on the scale we have today)

In the case of IBM, I would expect some new products to really blow my socks off, or some novel new tech to change the way we do business computing to surface a little more frequently than it does, considering the large amounts of novel discoveries and inventions they have been discovering every single day for years.

The USPO is run like a business. Operating 100% on the proceeds of filing fees. They collect this fee regardless of the applications outcome. They will never just reject an application. Knowing how much work a single patent application generates, and seeing a single entity walk away with this many successful applications really begs the question.... how many are rejected? How many times have these applications been thrown out on grounds of complete absurdity? How many absurd applications slip by, and how often?

Fun fact, granted patents have to be public, or the system wouldn't work. Have a look.

I see the utility, and hope to one day own a few patents of my own, but come on... Rounded corners?

I propose a percentage based patent tax based on revenue or profit, or a "use it or lose it" kind of system. The former would discourage abusing the system with huge amounts of worthless applications in the hopes that even a single one gets through, and the later pretty much completely destroys patents trolls, and actually promotes advancement.

It still doesn't matter, because the consumers are paying the bills. They get to decide.

Eventually, you'll put a label on it.

I would argue that consumers also needs to be protected from misinformation. If consumers are falling for fake cancer treatments wrapped with convincing rhetoric, then various agencies -- whether state-operated, independent panels or journalists -- with expertise in the relevant fields should have a voice in the public discourse. You seem to be implying that consumers should be unaware of the science and motivations behind decisions, which I find to be extremely dangerous for a society.

Oh, but it does. I don't want to support companies that would patent basic foodstuffs. I don't believe patents should even be allowed for basic foodstuffs. So I can act upon that information by not buying Chiquita bananas.

Well, patents on foodstuff have existed for over a century, so your original focus on GMO companies seems misguided, as the first modern transgenic plant (which is the technology that typically gets called GMO) didn't exist until 1983. Anyone in the US can get a 20 year patent on a plant they invented or discovered, provided they can reliably reproduce it, among a few other criteria. If you disagree with the concept of patents then advocate changing patent laws instead of going the roundabout way of labeling specific technologies and companies for the tangentially related industry practice of seeking patent protection while they commercialize their product, to get back their R&D spending.

There are limits on trademarks, just not an explicit end-of-term.

Firstly, keeping trademarks current requires paying for renewal every 10 years. There are tons of dead trademarks. You want Compumax? How about Doomsday Turtle? There's millions of 'em.

Secondly, the onus is on the trademark holder to prevent their trademark from becoming genericized. This gives a lot of power to the public. "Aspirin" is no longer an enforcable trademark in the US now, even though Bayer didn't abandon their claim to it.

You're wrong. Windows is a tradermark - see http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNum.... And before saying that this is only related to the specific logo - no: "Standard Character Claim: Yes. The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color." And Microsoft does not claim "Microsoft Windows" to be a trademark, even unregistered: https://www.microsoft.com/en-u... (and they don't need to, since that is just two registered trademarks in a row).

And we all know math can't be patented either.

No, "we all" do not, and you're a fool if you believe so to begin with. Math itself cannot be patented. Applications of math can be patented.

It's not like any of this is hidden, you just have to research and read:

[T]he Court has also emphasized that an invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980-81 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981)). See also Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 1349, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (âoeThat a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction.â). Accordingly, the Court has said that an application of an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon may be eligible for patent protection. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 175 USPQ 673, 675 (1972)).

...then it will be about making patented children under license with annual renewals...

No, it really won't. That's before I even have to remind you that people cannot be privately owned any longer.

And we all know math can't be patented either. That is why math "on a computer" is never licensed.

...then it will be about making patented children under license with annual renewals...

No, it really won't. That's before I even have to remind you that people cannot be privately owned any longer.

Correct link to patent application: VEHICLE ODOR REMEDIATION

The Packers actually filled for opposition against Titletown Brewing Co.'s use of that mark.

captcha: notified

I have to respectfully disagree. The patent itself is the motivator to invent better and novel ways of doing things. Without the patent, we would likely not have a great many awesome things we have today. The short(er) time-frame of a patent allows the market to change things after the creator has had his day.

What bothers me is the way that tech giants go about applying for them. I'm no expert,and this is purely observation from the outside, but it really seems like the giants apply for patents on every little thing, prior art be damned, and if even one out of 1000 sticks, the filing fees and lawyers salaries spent on the other 999 become a drop in the bucket. I would see a reasonable daily limit on patent applications from a single source if I had my way.

That paper was a great read, thank you. Tons of great points, and the parallels cannot be argued, but I still standby the fact that patents are necessary to secure the motivation to realize inventions and bring them to market. While this system does create a lot of problems in the same way that land and property rights do, patents expire, at which point those problems go away, and the invention becomes part of our collective culture.

I'll sing a different tune when they start granting monopolies on space toiletpaper rolls, and zero-g dishwashers and the like. Patents on things like rounded corners, and "-----on a computer" infuriate me, but they can be challenged in court if the said patent is all the way silly, and they also expire eventually.

The other thing I like about patents is that the functions and methods of the invention become searchable public knowledge, and can be read in full, so a person can build one for personal or educational use without asking for permission or paying licensing to the holder (under certain circumstances) This goes a long way down the "encouraging useful arts" road as far I'm concerned.

I heard somewhere that the formula for WD-40 was never patented for that reason, and remains a trade-secret to this day.

Right... because any meaningful amount of people are going to do that, or even know what the heck it means.

Go find a random person on the street. Tell them you want to communicate with them steganographically. You'll get a blank look if you are lucky, and slapped if you are not.

Steganography can also be detected. But worse, the tools can just be made illegal under penalty of incarceration if you are found with them.

This is not a solution except in the fantasies of a few nerds.

/whoosh

It's called Imaginary Property to show the absurdity of how broken the current legal system is.

Due to your profession's excessive greed you guys are even patenting Math !?!?!?! Worse, the fucking algorithm is even named, Carmack's Reverse, after the person who independently discovered and shared it. Yet assholes like you think it is OK that a company can "own" another man's original and independent thought -- preventing the idea from being implemented.

The fact that you defend patents proves that you are nothing more then a leech upon society when your profession patents bullshit like "a single click for buying", illegal numbers, TWO prime numbers (512-bit and 1024-bit) (WTF???), or even a fucking minimal web page!?!

Your (blatant) greed is a cancer upon society and I will continue to call out your Imaginary Property bullshit while you continue to "justify" and provide excuses for a corrupt system based on flim flam definitions.

> But feel free to explain how the law does not define property,

ALL (Legal) Laws are ARTIFICIAL contracts. Physical property can't be copied and shared like "Intellectual Property." Gee, maybe you should pay more attention to the principal author of the Declaration of Independence when he said:

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." -- Thomas Jefferson

Hijacking the term "property" and trying to refine the "definition" of Property in context of "Intellectual Property" to be treated the same way as physical property is nothing more then a charade for plutocracy propaganda. You produce nothing of "value" except what you can profit from the work of others -- without inventors you would have nothing to patent! Pretending that you think you "own" an idea doesn't make it so regardless of how much legal intimidation you try to use. Someday you will realize it is better to share knowledge instead of hoarding it and profiting off of artificial scarcity. Children hoard, Adults share. It sounds like you missed that kindergarten class? /rhetorical

> whereupon I shall be freed to appropriate that vehicle that you use to get to work.

I walk to work. Maybe you should stick to facts instead of conjecture. How LONG have you been practicing law again???

Now kindly please fuck off when you realize there are more important things then money.

/whoosh

It's called Imaginary Property to show the absurdity of how broken the current legal system is.

Due to your profession's excessive greed you guys are even patenting Math !?!?!?! Worse, the fucking algorithm is even named, Carmack's Reverse, after the person who independently discovered and shared it. Yet assholes like you think it is OK that a company can "own" another man's original and independent thought -- preventing the idea from being implemented.

The fact that you defend patents proves that you are nothing more then a leech upon society when your profession patents bullshit like "a single click for buying", illegal numbers, TWO prime numbers (512-bit and 1024-bit) (WTF???), or even a fucking minimal web page!?!

Your (blatant) greed is a cancer upon society and I will continue to call out your Imaginary Property bullshit while you continue to "justify" and provide excuses for a corrupt system based on flim flam definitions.

> But feel free to explain how the law does not define property,

ALL (Legal) Laws are ARTIFICIAL contracts. Physical property can't be copied and shared like "Intellectual Property." Gee, maybe you should pay more attention to the principal author of the Declaration of Independence when he said:

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." -- Thomas Jefferson

Hijacking the term "property" and trying to refine the "definition" of Property in context of "Intellectual Property" to be treated the same way as physical property is nothing more then a charade for plutocracy propaganda. You produce nothing of "value" except what you can profit from the work of others -- without inventors you would have nothing to patent! Pretending that you think you "own" an idea doesn't make it so regardless of how much legal intimidation you try to use. Someday you will realize it is better to share knowledge instead of hoarding it and profiting off of artificial scarcity. Children hoard, Adults share. It sounds like you missed that kindergarten class? /rhetorical

> whereupon I shall be freed to appropriate that vehicle that you use to get to work.

I walk to work. Maybe you should stick to facts instead of conjecture. How LONG have you been practicing law again???

Now kindly please fuck off when you realize there are more important things then money.

From U.S. Patent 9,692,838, assigned to Facebook, Inc. for Generating business insights using beacons on online social networks:

"In particular embodiments, authorization to access or view content deposited at one or more beacons 310 (e.g., by a user, social-networking system 160, or third-party system 170) may be based on conditions set by the creator or depositor of the content or by another entity. A restrictive condition on access to certain content at one or more beacons 310 may include membership in a specified group. For example, authorized group members may include, by example and not by way of limitation: members of a certain social club; users who have purchased access rights to the particular content; direct connections of a particular user node or concept node in social graph 200; users having phone numbers with a certain area code or prefix; registered users of a downloaded mobile device application, other suitable conditions, or any combination thereof. Restrictions to access may additionally be based on user-specific information, including but not limited to: demographic attributes of the user (e.g., age, gender, nationality, race, ethnicity, and/or locality);"

Which means you can target an ad toward African Americans if you want. If you have a product that is marketed to African Americans, why would you want to pay for clicks from others? If I am selling Bibles, I might want to target my ad to Christians and not have it pop up on everyone else' view.

Just because a feature can be abused does not mean it was created with evil intent.

From U.S. Patent 9,692,838, assigned to Facebook, Inc. for Generating business insights using beacons on online social networks:
 
"In particular embodiments, authorization to access or view content deposited at one or more beacons 310 (e.g., by a user, social-networking system 160, or third-party system 170) may be based on conditions set by the creator or depositor of the content or by another entity. A restrictive condition on access to certain content at one or more beacons 310 may include membership in a specified group. For example, authorized group members may include, by example and not by way of limitation: members of a certain social club; users who have purchased access rights to the particular content; direct connections of a particular user node or concept node in social graph 200; users having phone numbers with a certain area code or prefix; registered users of a downloaded mobile device application, other suitable conditions, or any combination thereof. Restrictions to access may additionally be based on user-specific information, including but not limited to: demographic attributes of the user (e.g., age, gender, nationality, race, ethnicity, and/or locality);"

I've only been doing this for a couple od decades. I'm sure that this will be good.

[First,] You can't patent things

The USPTO explicitly disagrees with you ("35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define 'things' or 'products' while the first category defines 'actions' (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed)."). You can, in fact, patent things.

"[Second,] You can't patent ideas

Good thing that I didn't mention patenting ideas. I mentioned patenting a genetically modified plant. Which, again, you can, in fact, do.

"And thirdly, you can't patent the obvious.

Merely calling something obvious does not make it so. How do you propose to do it? With what gene, inserted where within the genome, using what promoter, via what vector or editing process?

"A general incentive does not make obvious a particular result, nor does the existence of techniques by which those efforts can be carried out." In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed.Cir.1995). Trying "each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful" is not a disqualifying sort of "obviousness," and neither is "explor[ing] a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

It might be possible to patent the specific process of copying the genes from one organism to another (if it's novel enough), but not the result and not the idea of doing so.

Yes you can (see claim 24). And the Supreme Court of the U.S. will even let you enforce the patent.

I've only been doing this for a couple od decades. I'm sure that this will be good.

[First,] You can't patent things

The USPTO explicitly disagrees with you ("35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define 'things' or 'products' while the first category defines 'actions' (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed)."). You can, in fact, patent things.

"[Second,] You can't patent ideas

Good thing that I didn't mention patenting ideas. I mentioned patenting a genetically modified plant. Which, again, you can, in fact, do.

"And thirdly, you can't patent the obvious.

Merely calling something obvious does not make it so. How do you propose to do it? With what gene, inserted where within the genome, using what promoter, via what vector or editing process?

"A general incentive does not make obvious a particular result, nor does the existence of techniques by which those efforts can be carried out." In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed.Cir.1995). Trying "each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful" is not a disqualifying sort of "obviousness," and neither is "explor[ing] a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

It might be possible to patent the specific process of copying the genes from one organism to another (if it's novel enough), but not the result and not the idea of doing so.

Yes you can (see claim 24). And the Supreme Court of the U.S. will even let you enforce the patent.

Patent examiners only look at prior patents for prior art.

You mean, like electronic journals (not the slashdot kind)? Yeah too bad USPTO doesn't have any of those. Well not many. Just a few:

"The Scientific and Technical Information (STIC) provides examiners access to Non-Patent Literature (NPL) through multiple electronic tools purchased from various publishers.... NPL encompasses all the TC subject areas and includes electronic books, periodicals, conferences, standards, dissertations, and much more. STIC currently subscribes to 78,000+ electronic journals and over 359,000 electronic books in full text."

Yep, it's a real shame they only look at patents as prior art. Except, you know, thousands upon thousands of other sources. A real shame.

I'll just leave this here... USPTO prior art electronic search resources

Patent examiners only look at prior patents for prior art.

You mean, like electronic journals (not the slashdot kind)? Yeah too bad USPTO doesn't have any of those. Well not many. Just a few:

"The Scientific and Technical Information (STIC) provides examiners access to Non-Patent Literature (NPL) through multiple electronic tools purchased from various publishers.... NPL encompasses all the TC subject areas and includes electronic books, periodicals, conferences, standards, dissertations, and much more. STIC currently subscribes to 78,000+ electronic journals and over 359,000 electronic books in full text."

Yep, it's a real shame they only look at patents as prior art. Except, you know, thousands upon thousands of other sources. A real shame.

I'll just leave this here... USPTO prior art electronic search resources

So the US is in a first to file mode now and prior art doesn't mean a thing to invalidate a patent. Only a previous patent can.

Where did you get the idea from? Why do you think that prior art wouldn't be involved in invalidating a patent at all? In contrast, prior art has a huge part in invalidating both applications and granted patents.

I am guessing you meant prior art may not be used in patenting process because it is supposed to be voluntarily disclosed during the process by the applicant. However, examiners may still be able to discover other types of prior arts, which could result in rejecting the patent application. Also, applicants need to disclose non-patent literatures (articles, studies, research, etc.) related to the patent as well. As such, applicants can't simply ignore this type of prior art or their application may be rejected.

I suggest you to read this blog about prior art and granted patents. The author wrote it in a way that is much easier to understand for a layman.

That's ridiculous. You had up to a year to file before Obama changed that if you were the inventor. Now, Obama changed the rules to first to file so that has destroyed the concept of the small guy using patents to protect their work.

The change of rules have nothing to do with little guys, so you should stop trolling and/or dragging politic in. The little guys can still get patents if they understand the patent system. There is Provisional patent filing which gives 1 year of protection of the invention, and the cost is minimal compared to a patent filing. It is also to give inventors some times to test their inventions/products in the market before they try for a real patent. Thus, you have no idea about patenting but want to blame someone you don't like. Stop it already!

Cost only a few hundred dollars to register. Any project of any reasonable size should be filing them.

What I find more to the point, what is the long term support of this? Say I make an innovative piece of software, however it was outside Microsoft scope, 19 years later will they still help me protect my patent?

In patent, you pay maintenance fees at each mark year (3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years of patent life time starting from the filing date). If they (MS) are paying all the maintenance fees (including year 11.5), then your example would have no meaning because they definitely will help you protect your patent at 19th year. If they don't pay but you do, then your example is still null because they won't care if anyone infringes your patent because they aren't the one who is being financially damaged (but you). Besides, they just use your patent as their safe harbor if anyone is trying to sue them on the similar technology of your patent.

Or say I want to license it to an other company say Apple? In that mess of legalese will I have the right to do so? And what is to say the Current Nice Guy image of Microsoft regresses back to Bully Microsoft that we seen with Gates and Balmer.

That would depends on how they "license" your patent. If they put their name as an "assignee" of the patent, then you are very unlikely to be able to license your patent to someone else by your own but rather have to go through them. As a result, you won't be able to license it to someone else (you know why). If they don't put themselves as assignee, then you are very likely to license it to whoever you want. However, I'm quite sure that they will take advantage and want you to sign other legal things because they want to restrict you on how you can license your patent. Why would they want competitors to get the same benefits from your patent when they help you to get the patent?

Years ago Steve Jobs submitted a patent for operating system level modal ads. I don't think more needs to be said regarding how Apple considers its customers.

Among other disclosures, an operating system presents one or more advertisements to a user and disables one or more functions while the advertisement is being presented. At the end of the advertisement, the operating system again enables the function(s).

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

However looking at that website I randomly took US 7,082,257, which it claims expires 18th December this year for expiration. Hum checking on the web it was filed 12th April 1996, which means as it was filed after the 8th June 1995, it expires 20 years after filing which was 13th April 2016. There are lots of false claims by people holding patents on their expiration dates.

I'm not an IP lawyer, but if you follow the link to the USPTO from google's page, and then click images you get this: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D... Which shows that the patent has an extension of 616 days. It is itself a continuation of another patent that was filed on April 11, 1997 in the US (and is based on a Japanese patent filed on April 12, 1996, which is where you got your date), just under what I believe is the 1 year limit when filing for a US patent based on a patent in another country. April 11,1997 + 616 days + 20 years = Dec 18, 2018, so that's where they got the date. For the one I was referring to (US8594204), it had an extension of 2985 days = 8 years (which is why it looks to expire in 2023).

So, who are you trolling for ?

Reality? I'm a patent attorney. The way you described it is not how it works. It's not how any of this works. I don't care if you're pro- or anti-patent, but you should have the basic facts right.

In the past any inventor who could produce documentation proving they invented something could gain priority over one filed by some who learned of the invention and had their legal team rush out a patent.

... provided they also filed for a patent application, as "secret" invention has never been protected, even under first-to-invent. And now, under first-to-file, an inventor who can produce documentation proving that they invented something can still gain priority over an earlier application by someone who learned of the invention from them and had their legal team rush out a patent. It's called a derivation proceeding.

Under "first to file" open science is basically dead, as any group collaborating openly online is at perpetual risk of having their work patented by anyone who learns of it and files before they can.

Under "first to invent", open science was similarly dead, because no company worth their salt would let inventors collaborate openly online about new inventions without having filed at least a provisional application, since they would lose their ability to file in most overseas jurisdictions.
Or, conversely, open science is just as alive as ever, if you want to collaborate and not obtain patents. Obviously, the changes to the patent system don't affect unpatented inventions given to the public domain.

This has massively stifled online collaboration

I'm sure you have a citation?

as important inventions made in private now result in the inventor taking out a loan and going dark for 5-7 years while they wait for the USPTO to get around to their application.

Not at all - the inventor files a provisional application, at a whopping $140 for a small entity or as low as $70 for a micro entity, and then can freely discuss their invention openly.
Furthermore, even if they wait and file the full non-provisional application, they don't have to wait for "5-7 years" for the Office to get around to the application - heck, it's going to be published in 18 months anyway. But their priority is secured, and they can start discussing it immediately.

Also, forgive me for making an assumption, but this is Slashdot, so... are you primarily discussing software and computer patents? Or pharma? Because the former would be obsolete in 5-7 years, and no one files an application and then sits on their thumbs for that long without doing anything. Pharma, with its various clinical trial requirements, has a much longer term... but even then, they're doing public trials, so it wouldn't make any sense to "stay dark" for 5-7 years.

It has also emboldened corporations to accelerate preexisting efforts to file as many patents as possible on anything promising.

That does not seem to be supported by the numbers. If it was true, we would expect to see more files post-AIA than pre-. But we don't. In fact, the numbers have been pretty steady relative to the economy as a whole.

The commons, like most public resources, are being privatized, and patents are a major drag on nearly every aspect of innovation.

Again, this doesn't seem to be supported by the statistics. It is an opinion, and perhaps a popular one among people on Slashdot who haven't got any patents, but it's one based in prejudice and blind faith, rather than evidence. So, I guess if anti-patentism is your religion, then there's really nothing I could say to change your mind.

So, who are you trolling for ?

Reality? I'm a patent attorney. The way you described it is not how it works. It's not how any of this works. I don't care if you're pro- or anti-patent, but you should have the basic facts right.

In the past any inventor who could produce documentation proving they invented something could gain priority over one filed by some who learned of the invention and had their legal team rush out a patent.

... provided they also filed for a patent application, as "secret" invention has never been protected, even under first-to-invent. And now, under first-to-file, an inventor who can produce documentation proving that they invented something can still gain priority over an earlier application by someone who learned of the invention from them and had their legal team rush out a patent. It's called a derivation proceeding.

Under "first to file" open science is basically dead, as any group collaborating openly online is at perpetual risk of having their work patented by anyone who learns of it and files before they can.

Under "first to invent", open science was similarly dead, because no company worth their salt would let inventors collaborate openly online about new inventions without having filed at least a provisional application, since they would lose their ability to file in most overseas jurisdictions.
Or, conversely, open science is just as alive as ever, if you want to collaborate and not obtain patents. Obviously, the changes to the patent system don't affect unpatented inventions given to the public domain.

This has massively stifled online collaboration

I'm sure you have a citation?

as important inventions made in private now result in the inventor taking out a loan and going dark for 5-7 years while they wait for the USPTO to get around to their application.

Not at all - the inventor files a provisional application, at a whopping $140 for a small entity or as low as $70 for a micro entity, and then can freely discuss their invention openly.
Furthermore, even if they wait and file the full non-provisional application, they don't have to wait for "5-7 years" for the Office to get around to the application - heck, it's going to be published in 18 months anyway. But their priority is secured, and they can start discussing it immediately.

Also, forgive me for making an assumption, but this is Slashdot, so... are you primarily discussing software and computer patents? Or pharma? Because the former would be obsolete in 5-7 years, and no one files an application and then sits on their thumbs for that long without doing anything. Pharma, with its various clinical trial requirements, has a much longer term... but even then, they're doing public trials, so it wouldn't make any sense to "stay dark" for 5-7 years.

It has also emboldened corporations to accelerate preexisting efforts to file as many patents as possible on anything promising.

That does not seem to be supported by the numbers. If it was true, we would expect to see more files post-AIA than pre-. But we don't. In fact, the numbers have been pretty steady relative to the economy as a whole.

The commons, like most public resources, are being privatized, and patents are a major drag on nearly every aspect of innovation.

Again, this doesn't seem to be supported by the statistics. It is an opinion, and perhaps a popular one among people on Slashdot who haven't got any patents, but it's one based in prejudice and blind faith, rather than evidence. So, I guess if anti-patentism is your religion, then there's really nothing I could say to change your mind.

actually I wonder if this might count as prior art to open the tech to other manufacturers...

Nature doesn't count as prior tech, but if this discovery leads to other people being able to make a similar product, then there will be competition and everyone will win.

The name [Vantablack] comes from the term[s] "Vertically Aligned NanoTube Arrays". If you used nanotubes which were aligned in some other fashion, you probably wouldn't interfere with Vantablack's patents, if any. I'm not aware of any actual patents on Vantablack; WP also says that Vertically aligned nanotube arrays are sold by several firms, including NanoLab, Santa Barbara Infrared and others. I don't even see a patent on the process! There are several patents on the use of Vantablack, but that is not the same thing.

Is Vantablack actually patented? Or is it just a trade secret?

There are laws.

A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services.

Source: https://www.uspto.gov/trademar...

The article is about how apple tried to keep some clothing manufacturers from using "Steve Jobs" as a clothing line with a capital J with an apple stem stuck on the top of it that is the exact same style and relative size and position of the apple logo. The logo (the J) also has what appears to be a bite taken out the right hand side in the same style and shape is apple's logo.

A 2-year old would say that a shirt with that brand (Steve J Jobs) with the J logo could (and even extremely likely) to be confusing as whether it was made by apple or a clothing division of apple, but the EU court ruling that the logo doesn't infringe is just beyond stupid.

Simple test... When I say Steve Jobs while discussing this clothing, do you honestly believe that there is no confusion about what I might be talking about? There are even exemptions for "famous" marks, and I would say "Steve Jobs" is pretty famous.

-The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by fees -- and the agency gets more fees if it approves an application.
-Unlimited opportunities to refile rejected applications means sometimes granting a patent is the only way to get rid of a persistent applicant.

Contrary to point #1, and as shown in point #2, the agency gets more fees if they reject an application and allow applicants to refile the rejected applications - really, not so much "refiling", but filing a "request for continued examination" and a fee. Specifically, the issue fee paid when a patent application is granted is currently $960. But if an application is rejected and "refiled", then the request for continued examination fee is $1200 for the first RCE and $1700 for each one after that. Plus the agency will still get the issue fee, if the application is eventually granted.

Point 2 is also misleading (or ignorant, hence their use of "refile rejected applications" rather than "pay a fee to continue examining the same application"). The rejected application isn't simply being refiled over and over - the applicant makes amendments, narrowing the claims. Like, maybe originally, it was a patent on "a car", and then they amend to "a car, comprising an electric engine," and then "a car, comprising an electric engine, a gas engine, a drivetrain, and a three-axis planetary gear wherein a first axis of the gear is driven by the electric engine, a second axis of the gear is driven by the gas engine, and a third axis of the gear is connected to the drivetrain," etc. Since the applicant has to pay those high fees every single time, the only person they're harming is themselves.

-Patent examiners are given less time to review patent applications as they gain seniority, leading to less thorough reviews.

This is the one point that's actually correct. There's some efficiency gained through experience, but that may mean going from 20 hours to examine an application to 15. Not 20 down to 5.

-The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by fees -- and the agency gets more fees if it approves an application.
-Unlimited opportunities to refile rejected applications means sometimes granting a patent is the only way to get rid of a persistent applicant.

Contrary to point #1, and as shown in point #2, the agency gets more fees if they reject an application and allow applicants to refile the rejected applications - really, not so much "refiling", but filing a "request for continued examination" and a fee. Specifically, the issue fee paid when a patent application is granted is currently $960. But if an application is rejected and "refiled", then the request for continued examination fee is $1200 for the first RCE and $1700 for each one after that. Plus the agency will still get the issue fee, if the application is eventually granted.

Point 2 is also misleading (or ignorant, hence their use of "refile rejected applications" rather than "pay a fee to continue examining the same application"). The rejected application isn't simply being refiled over and over - the applicant makes amendments, narrowing the claims. Like, maybe originally, it was a patent on "a car", and then they amend to "a car, comprising an electric engine," and then "a car, comprising an electric engine, a gas engine, a drivetrain, and a three-axis planetary gear wherein a first axis of the gear is driven by the electric engine, a second axis of the gear is driven by the gas engine, and a third axis of the gear is connected to the drivetrain," etc. Since the applicant has to pay those high fees every single time, the only person they're harming is themselves.

-Patent examiners are given less time to review patent applications as they gain seniority, leading to less thorough reviews.

This is the one point that's actually correct. There's some efficiency gained through experience, but that may mean going from 20 hours to examine an application to 15. Not 20 down to 5.

To target YouTube Red, they should trademark RedTube

Too late.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/...