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."
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.
________________
-- ________________
Private Essayist
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
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.
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
- "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
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
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
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.