Posted by
Hemos
on from the COMMON-SENSE!-AMAZING! dept.
msassak writes: "Wired is carrying a short
piece on a new patent bill introduced that hopes to cut down on "obvious" patents. It would also give the public the chance to challenge a patent before it was granted."
Pretty sweeping reform of IP law needed
by
Greyfox
·
· Score: 3
While this sounds like it'd be a good start, some pretty sweeping reforms to IP law are going to be necessary before we can really start taking advantage of our early information age economy. Protections for both the artist and the consumer need to be enumerated and balanced. The law needs to be a little more explicit on what constitutes "Fair Use."
I'd hope they'd do it right and protect my right to choose to exclusively use Linux if I want to, and keep it feasible for things like Linux to be created. If our current state of affairs had existed a decade ago, some company like Digial Convergence would have sued Linus for some imagined IP violation and that would have been the end of Linux.
Contract law also needs to be taken down a notch. I'd like to see a "Portions of a contract which require you to surrender rights guaranteed by the constitution shall be unenforcable" rider quietly added to some bill or other. That'd at least eliminate some of the more blatant abuses of software licensing and would fix some annoying crap in the Real World as an added bonus.
Still and all, it's a very good start.
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Some things that are easy in real life are hard to do on the internet. Sometimes it takes some truly novel ideas to get them to work on the new medium. I can't think of a good example just now.
In general, implementing things on the internet is easier since the restrictions on a VonNeumann machine are less than the restrictions of the real world. But problems come in when you try to make something work with existing software. For instance, being able to do PCAnywhere-like things within DHTML. I think that's pretty darn clever, and maybe almost patentable.
Sometimes the implementation details for "X on the internet" is quite a bit harder than "X in the real world", and if the method in which it's implemented on the internet requires significant novel ideas, then I don't see why the implementation details can't be patented (if one believes that fairly novel ideas are patentable). --
Get a copy of the Bill HERE.
by
Taz1672
·
· Score: 3
http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/bmpiapage.htm
'nuff said
Yes, they should be enforcing current laws, but they are not. So what's in this bill, if it were to become law, is good. Note these good points:
"Boucher said the bill would "create the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable."
"Boucher also said that the bill could amend application procedures by adding "new protections to the beginning and end of the current process," allowing the public to submit "evidence that the claimed invention is already in use."
"The bill would also establish an "opposition procedure" at the conclusion of the process, "so that the public at large would have one additional opportunity to challenge the award of a business method patent short of having to file a lawsuit," said Boucher.
Common sense, all. But in government, common sense usually requires some laws being thrown around.
________________
Reading the article, I noticed some red flags to this bill. It's only reforming buisness practices, not inventions. Would this even apply to shopping carts and 1 click purchang? I think this need ALOT of clarification before we start cheering. They may be able to stop more priceline style patents, but without knowing more this could be a lot of election year hoopla.
Remember that this year IS an election, these guys may just want to coast along on this proposition, then poof...
Rep. Rick Boucher has a summary of the bill as well as the full text here. He was also on of the proposers of a recent bill that would make sites like my.mp3.com legal, and a few years ago he proposed giving tax credits to maintainers of widely used open-source programs. I wonder if he reads slashdot.
Exactly. The patent office has not been doing their job properly.
If you look at this bill, you have to realize that it only covers business practices and not patents in general. Why would they create a bill with such a narrow emphasis? To me, it looks like a few business (without patents) got upset and decided to line the pockets of these congressmen to get this bill passed.
--
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Write your Congressman - very important!
by
LordNimon
·
· Score: 5
Most of the stories posted on Slashdot are pretty useless, and some stories are so lame that everyone wonders what the Editors were thinking. But every now and then, a real gem appears. This story is one of those gems.
Fellow Slashdotters, the time to act is now! This is no joke (please don't mod this post as funny). If you ever wanted to make a change in the world you live in, if you ever felt powerless that greedy corporations were stripping you of your rights, here is a golden opportunity for you to fix things.
Why? Because this bill is very important. It needs to get passed. But it takes people like you and me to pass it. How? Like this:
First, read the bill. You'll make a fool out of yourself if you don't do this first. Unfortunately, as another posted noticed, it's not currently available on Thomas, so you'll have to find another source or wait.
Send a letter to Representatives Rick Boucher and Howard Berman. Tell them that you applaud them for submitting the Bill, and that you support it wholeheartedly. Tell them that you're going to write your local Representative (if neither Boucher nor Berman is your Representatives) and Senators, asking them to approve the Bill if it comes before them (or whatever the exact phrase is). It's late at night for me now, so I'll be posting my letter as a reply to this post, once I write it.
Write your Representative and Senators. You can find their web pages here and here.
If you want, post your letters as a reply to this post, for other people to use as a guide.
About 1-2 weeks after writing your Representative and/or Senators, call them. Ask them if they've gotten your letter and heard of the Bill. Make sure you've thoroughly read and understood the Bill yourself before you call!. Ask them what their position is. If you think they don't agree with it, try to change their minds. Tell them that this Bill is so important to you, that it is the first time you've written and/or called a Congressmen (if it's true).
Spread the word! Ask your geek neighbors to do the same as you have.
If 10% of the people who read Slashdot were to follow this advice, that Bill will become Law. --
-- And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I've got a better idea
by
Robert+Link
·
· Score: 3
Instead of writing or calling your Congressperson, write or call your candidates for Congress (and for Senate, if you happen to have a Senate election this year). It's very unlikely that this bill will go anywhere this session; Congress is already having trouble getting through its current agenda before the close of the session. So, it's really the next Congress that will decide on this issue. Call your candidates' campaign office and tell them that you care about this issue and that it will be a factor when you vote next month. Ask them what their position is, and if possible pick someone who will vote the right way.
This ONLY covers buisness models. One click purchacing and shopping carts are NOT COVERED AT ALL.
To file a notice of prior art will cost you $200. You have to pay them to do thier job. To file an appeal not based on prior art will cost you $5,000 ouch.
This is a lousy way to start reforming the patent system. All patents need a probationary period after granting to determin scope and possible prior art. After probation another review along with all documentation will be addressed and final pantent award made. It's that simple. Why try and make a special exception for buisness models? And the bill had no refrence specificly to internet patents.
That really suck, and I thought we might be dealing with some intelligance here.
It's easier if you think about it this way
by
DragonMagic
·
· Score: 5
Instead of thinking of it as the analog-version of an internet technology, think of it, as the bill supposedly states, as the analog-version of the business method.
So it's not one-click technology... Bezos' patent is instead one of using a way to keep track of a repeat customer using a database so that the person can just shop there again and again by just choosing what they want to buy and using that way of keeping track to supply the shipping and billing info. Bezos uses a cookie for the digital world. In the analog world, businesses use Customer Numbers or Account Numbers, and the databases are either real computer databases or folders with all that customer's info.
A method to find the best price by comparison shopping online? I seem to remember that one can call AAA and get similar info for hotels.
Again, don't think of it as "How is this computer technology similar to something in the analog world", but as "How is this online business method similar to something in the analog business world"? Then you'll easily see where we can pull prior art.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Analog equivilent of 1-click
by
SuperKendall
·
· Score: 3
Drive-thru window, order a #1 combo. That's pretty close.
Vending machine that only dispenses one product. (not so close).
Gasoline - give the cashier money, pump gas, get back change. This seems closest, as you are following about the same process - give business access to funds, select product and boom! it's paid for.
In fact "pay at the pump" is probably even closer.
For Priceline, what about auto brokers? You go in and can say what you're willing to pay for a car. Then they go through many dealers, and find a car you'll like. They negotiate with the dealers, so it's a two way process just like Priceline is.
Also, I'm no expert on auctions but I imagine there are already auctions that operate in a similar manner to Priceline - a price for some service is defined, then companies agree to provide that service for the given fee.
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What does it mean to be "OBVIOUS" ?!
by
Taco+Cowboy
·
· Score: 3
You said:
"The law already says that obvious stuff
is not patentable."
The above sentence makes lots of sense to you and me, but to a lawyer or any person who are in the legal profession, words like "obvious" is not enough.
You have to be as specific as possible, detailing exactly what you mean by "obvious", in the legal arena, in order to make your case.
Therefore, the question here now lies on what "OBVIOUS" really means.
Let me take an example:
The way the "one-click" amazon.com patent works
is OBVIOUS to many of us, but to the legal staff
amazon.com has hired, they could argue the
contrary.
I do share you view that a new bill is not needed, but some EXPLAINATIONS (in the form of amendment to the existing patent laws) are urgently in need.
We have seen the effects (many of them negative) of not having EXACT EXPLAINATIONS on many terms, and people who have axes to grind can manipulate the whole notion to their advantage, and that is what has given us so much miseries - not only about the patents, but also copyrights and issues regarding free speech and stuffs.
-- Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
How easy is it to find analog world equivalents?
by
tetrad
·
· Score: 3
According to Wired, this bill "create[s] the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable."
So let's play a game: choose a patent you don't like, any patent....
Ok, the Amazon 1-Click. What is the "analog-world" equivalent of one click? Is there is one...
How about Priceline? Is there an "analog-world" equivalent? Not really...
I don't see how it could possibly *not* pass. IANAP (politican), but, I mean, it's all good. There's nothing bad about it. Assuming no conflict of interest in a majority in the House or Senate, this bill should definitely pass. It is about time someone listened or did something about these ridiculous patents. For a while there, I thought it was going to go on forever, another testament to the ailing US government.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
What really should be done...
by
cr0sh
·
· Score: 3
This bill sounds like it will be a step in the right direction, but I feel that more could be done, specifically:
1. Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business methods (and possibly naturally occuring things - like DNA/genes).
This actually used to be the way it was - but not anymore, for some reason. All was (mostly) well before the commercialization of the internet, then suddenly business methods done in the real world for years could be patented merely by adding "using a network" or similar language to the patent application.
2. Disallow large organizations (companies, conglomerates, corporations, non-profits, etc) from patenting, holding patents, or being assigned rights to patents after the fact. Only allow individuals to patent inventions, and only allow the individuals to license the patents to larger organizations.
This would help return the system back to allowing "the lone inventor" to actually invent things, be able to patent them, and then profit from the patents (hopefully spurring him to invent more!). As it is today, companies can build large patent portfolios and use them defensively and offensively, like they were weapons in a war.
3. Lower the costs for patenting, and streamline the process.
What? You want them to do what? Yes - you heard me: Make it easier to get a patent. Right now, even for a simple patent, one nearly has to go broke just to afford the lawyers and various fees needed to patent an invention (take a look into it someday - I have had several good ideas that I would love to patent, many are improvements on existing products - none are in the computer sector - but I can't afford it on my salary. Most people can't). I have a friend who patented 3 inventions - and it has since cost him well over $75,000! One of the inventions is something you probably see almost everyday: In some pickups (I have seen them in Toyotas and Dodges), they have a little drink holder - in front of the air conditioner vents - to keep hot drinks hot in the winter, cold ones cool in the summer. My friend patented that device in the mid-'70's. He hasn't seen a dime from anyone, because he can't afford to fight the automakers. In fact, it isn't only the automakers, but other companies are making ones that clip on to the vents (his patent covers all these options). It doesn't matter much now, since the patent is expired - but I hate to see people getting screwed like this.
4. Hire competent patent examiners, or allow for an outside agency(s) to act/provide competent patent examiners.
This one is pretty self-defining.
5. Provide a working model or implementation of the idea to the patent examiners.
This requirement got dropped a long time ago, but it should be reinstated. Requiring a working implementation or model would show 100% that the individual patenting the device KNOWS what he is doing - plus it would show the validity of the device for patenting. In addition, it would eliminate the ability to patent things which don't quite work now, but someone gets working later, then they fall under scrutiny because this "ye-ole-ancient" patent is there blocking them.
Those are my ideas. Please expand on them, or tear them apart. I would very much enjoy seeing what everyone thinks...
There doesn't seem to be anything in Thomas, probably because it hasn't been assigned a bill number yet...
-- "I came here to kick ass and chew
bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum."
MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Add trade-secret-ability requirement to patents...
by
khym
·
· Score: 4
The original justifications for patents
(at least under the U.S. constitution) was that
inventor might keep their inventions as
trade secrets, and the public would never get
the knolwedge that the inventor had found.
With patents, the inventor gives away that
knowledge in return for a short term monopoly.
Thus, in addition a bill that says "these
here things are obvious", also add a bill
saying that patents can only be awarded to
things that could have been kept as trade
secrets, if the inventor had chose to not
patent it. This would take care of a great
deal of the stupid software patents out there.
Amazon could never have used "1-click buying"
without revealing it to the whole world; same
goes for their business-associates patent.
Of course, if it's already in the consitution,
why bother writing any new laws? I don't know
much about the history of government and law
enforcement, but it seems to me that if a
particular law or point of law has been
forgotten about, it's easier to pretend the
old law never existed and pass an new law
saying the same thing, rather than try to
breath new life into an old law.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a
member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
-- Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd hope they'd do it right and protect my right to choose to exclusively use Linux if I want to, and keep it feasible for things like Linux to be created. If our current state of affairs had existed a decade ago, some company like Digial Convergence would have sued Linus for some imagined IP violation and that would have been the end of Linux.
Contract law also needs to be taken down a notch. I'd like to see a "Portions of a contract which require you to surrender rights guaranteed by the constitution shall be unenforcable" rider quietly added to some bill or other. That'd at least eliminate some of the more blatant abuses of software licensing and would fix some annoying crap in the Real World as an added bonus.
Still and all, it's a very good start.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why do we need a new bill? The law already says that obvious stuff is not patentable.
The bug is in the implementation, not in the specifications.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In general, implementing things on the internet is easier since the restrictions on a VonNeumann machine are less than the restrictions of the real world. But problems come in when you try to make something work with existing software. For instance, being able to do PCAnywhere-like things within DHTML. I think that's pretty darn clever, and maybe almost patentable.
Sometimes the implementation details for "X on the internet" is quite a bit harder than "X in the real world", and if the method in which it's implemented on the internet requires significant novel ideas, then I don't see why the implementation details can't be patented (if one believes that fairly novel ideas are patentable).
--
http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/bmpiapage.htm 'nuff said
- "Boucher said the bill would "create the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable."
- "Boucher also said that the bill could amend application procedures by adding "new protections to the beginning and end of the current process," allowing the public to submit "evidence that the claimed invention is already in use."
- "The bill would also establish an "opposition procedure" at the conclusion of the process, "so that the public at large would have one additional opportunity to challenge the award of a business method patent short of having to file a lawsuit," said Boucher.
Common sense, all. But in government, common sense usually requires some laws being thrown around.________________
________________
Private Essayist
Reading the article, I noticed some red flags to this bill. It's only reforming buisness practices, not inventions. Would this even apply to shopping carts and 1 click purchang? I think this need ALOT of clarification before we start cheering. They may be able to stop more priceline style patents, but without knowing more this could be a lot of election year hoopla.
Remember that this year IS an election, these guys may just want to coast along on this proposition, then poof...
--
The shareholder is always right.
If you look at this bill, you have to realize that it only covers business practices and not patents in general. Why would they create a bill with such a narrow emphasis? To me, it looks like a few business (without patents) got upset and decided to line the pockets of these congressmen to get this bill passed.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Fellow Slashdotters, the time to act is now! This is no joke (please don't mod this post as funny). If you ever wanted to make a change in the world you live in, if you ever felt powerless that greedy corporations were stripping you of your rights, here is a golden opportunity for you to fix things.
Why? Because this bill is very important. It needs to get passed. But it takes people like you and me to pass it. How? Like this:
If 10% of the people who read Slashdot were to follow this advice, that Bill will become Law.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
-rpl
This ONLY covers buisness models. One click purchacing and shopping carts are NOT COVERED AT ALL.
To file a notice of prior art will cost you $200. You have to pay them to do thier job. To file an appeal not based on prior art will cost you $5,000 ouch.
This is a lousy way to start reforming the patent system. All patents need a probationary period after granting to determin scope and possible prior art. After probation another review along with all documentation will be addressed and final pantent award made. It's that simple. Why try and make a special exception for buisness models? And the bill had no refrence specificly to internet patents.
That really suck, and I thought we might be dealing with some intelligance here.
Instead of thinking of it as the analog-version of an internet technology, think of it, as the bill supposedly states, as the analog-version of the business method.
So it's not one-click technology... Bezos' patent is instead one of using a way to keep track of a repeat customer using a database so that the person can just shop there again and again by just choosing what they want to buy and using that way of keeping track to supply the shipping and billing info. Bezos uses a cookie for the digital world. In the analog world, businesses use Customer Numbers or Account Numbers, and the databases are either real computer databases or folders with all that customer's info.
A method to find the best price by comparison shopping online? I seem to remember that one can call AAA and get similar info for hotels.
Again, don't think of it as "How is this computer technology similar to something in the analog world", but as "How is this online business method similar to something in the analog business world"? Then you'll easily see where we can pull prior art.
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Drive-thru window, order a #1 combo. That's pretty close.
Vending machine that only dispenses one product. (not so close).
Gasoline - give the cashier money, pump gas, get back change. This seems closest, as you are following about the same process - give business access to funds, select product and boom! it's paid for.
In fact "pay at the pump" is probably even closer.
For Priceline, what about auto brokers? You go in and can say what you're willing to pay for a car. Then they go through many dealers, and find a car you'll like. They negotiate with the dealers, so it's a two way process just like Priceline is.
Also, I'm no expert on auctions but I imagine there are already auctions that operate in a similar manner to Priceline - a price for some service is defined, then companies agree to provide that service for the given fee.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You said:
"The law already says that obvious stuff
is not patentable."
The above sentence makes lots of sense to you and me, but to a lawyer or any person who are in the legal profession, words like "obvious" is not enough.
You have to be as specific as possible, detailing exactly what you mean by "obvious", in the legal arena, in order to make your case.
Therefore, the question here now lies on what "OBVIOUS" really means.
Let me take an example:
The way the "one-click" amazon.com patent works
is OBVIOUS to many of us, but to the legal staff
amazon.com has hired, they could argue the
contrary.
I do share you view that a new bill is not needed, but some EXPLAINATIONS (in the form of amendment to the existing patent laws) are urgently in need.
We have seen the effects (many of them negative) of not having EXACT EXPLAINATIONS on many terms, and people who have axes to grind can manipulate the whole notion to their advantage, and that is what has given us so much miseries - not only about the patents, but also copyrights and issues regarding free speech and stuffs.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
So let's play a game: choose a patent you don't like, any patent....
Ok, the Amazon 1-Click. What is the "analog-world" equivalent of one click? Is there is one...
How about Priceline? Is there an "analog-world" equivalent? Not really...
I don't see how it could possibly *not* pass. IANAP (politican), but, I mean, it's all good. There's nothing bad about it. Assuming no conflict of interest in a majority in the House or Senate, this bill should definitely pass. It is about time someone listened or did something about these ridiculous patents. For a while there, I thought it was going to go on forever, another testament to the ailing US government.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
This bill sounds like it will be a step in the right direction, but I feel that more could be done, specifically:
1. Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business methods (and possibly naturally occuring things - like DNA/genes).
This actually used to be the way it was - but not anymore, for some reason. All was (mostly) well before the commercialization of the internet, then suddenly business methods done in the real world for years could be patented merely by adding "using a network" or similar language to the patent application.
2. Disallow large organizations (companies, conglomerates, corporations, non-profits, etc) from patenting, holding patents, or being assigned rights to patents after the fact. Only allow individuals to patent inventions, and only allow the individuals to license the patents to larger organizations.
This would help return the system back to allowing "the lone inventor" to actually invent things, be able to patent them, and then profit from the patents (hopefully spurring him to invent more!). As it is today, companies can build large patent portfolios and use them defensively and offensively, like they were weapons in a war.
3. Lower the costs for patenting, and streamline the process.
What? You want them to do what? Yes - you heard me: Make it easier to get a patent. Right now, even for a simple patent, one nearly has to go broke just to afford the lawyers and various fees needed to patent an invention (take a look into it someday - I have had several good ideas that I would love to patent, many are improvements on existing products - none are in the computer sector - but I can't afford it on my salary. Most people can't). I have a friend who patented 3 inventions - and it has since cost him well over $75,000! One of the inventions is something you probably see almost everyday: In some pickups (I have seen them in Toyotas and Dodges), they have a little drink holder - in front of the air conditioner vents - to keep hot drinks hot in the winter, cold ones cool in the summer. My friend patented that device in the mid-'70's. He hasn't seen a dime from anyone, because he can't afford to fight the automakers. In fact, it isn't only the automakers, but other companies are making ones that clip on to the vents (his patent covers all these options). It doesn't matter much now, since the patent is expired - but I hate to see people getting screwed like this.
4. Hire competent patent examiners, or allow for an outside agency(s) to act/provide competent patent examiners.
This one is pretty self-defining.
5. Provide a working model or implementation of the idea to the patent examiners.
This requirement got dropped a long time ago, but it should be reinstated. Requiring a working implementation or model would show 100% that the individual patenting the device KNOWS what he is doing - plus it would show the validity of the device for patenting. In addition, it would eliminate the ability to patent things which don't quite work now, but someone gets working later, then they fall under scrutiny because this "ye-ole-ancient" patent is there blocking them.
Those are my ideas. Please expand on them, or tear them apart. I would very much enjoy seeing what everyone thinks...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
From Rep. Boucher's web site:
There doesn't seem to be anything in Thomas, probably because it hasn't been assigned a bill number yet...
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
The original justifications for patents (at least under the U.S. constitution) was that inventor might keep their inventions as trade secrets, and the public would never get the knolwedge that the inventor had found. With patents, the inventor gives away that knowledge in return for a short term monopoly.
Thus, in addition a bill that says "these here things are obvious", also add a bill saying that patents can only be awarded to things that could have been kept as trade secrets, if the inventor had chose to not patent it. This would take care of a great deal of the stupid software patents out there. Amazon could never have used "1-click buying" without revealing it to the whole world; same goes for their business-associates patent.
Of course, if it's already in the consitution, why bother writing any new laws? I don't know much about the history of government and law enforcement, but it seems to me that if a particular law or point of law has been forgotten about, it's easier to pretend the old law never existed and pass an new law saying the same thing, rather than try to breath new life into an old law.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.