Slashdot Mirror
Speak Up On Software Patents And WIPO Rules
Jim Madison writes: "Today, the Department of Commerce's United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is soliciting public comment in a Federal Register notice on the databases it uses to find prior art relevant to its examination of software-implemented business method patents. We've discussed this topic ad naseum, so here's an opportunity to make sure that policy-makers understand our perspective. Maybe slashdot mgmt. could even forward the top rated comments to them directly!"
And an unnamed reader points out that tomorrow is the due date for comments on the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, which "has some crazy suggestions such as reserving domains using pharmaceutical names and bolstering the claims of commercial entities against 'cybersquatters.'"
There is a well established method for determining what is a truly novel and worthwhile contribution: peer review. The academic journals and conferences do it, and the basic principle is that the best people to evaluate a particular submission are those who actively do work in that area. It operates under the assumption that it is the professional responsibility of people to be willing to review and comment on the work of others. The right to do this could be guaranteed under law just like jury duty is protected from employers retaliation.
:-) By having people who are truly skilled in the specific art evaluating the patent applications, it would be much less likely for truly obvious things to get blocked by trivial patents. The knowledge that the patent applications are going to be subjected to such strict scrutiny would probably be enough to discourage some of the most egregious attempts to patent obvious things. This would make the volume of applications much more manageable as well.
If we must have a patent system, then it seems necessary that the patent applications be peer reviewed by real practicioners and academics in their fields and not just by the underpaid patent clerks at the PTO. They're not all Albert Einstein!
Any additional costs imposed by this system could be recovered in the form of higher patent fees. At the current time, the US patent fees are a small fraction of the attorney fees that most of us have to pay to prepare the patent.
Well, they requested public comment on the DMCA also, more than once, and did it work? We are dealing with too strong lobbies. Anyhow, if you are American, you better shout. Loud. This is a battle fought in every country. It only happens to be your time of action this time.
If you want to protect your family's financial interests in the event of your unexpected death, you should take out life insurance like everyone else, NOT look to the government to subsidize your family by granting them an unearned copyright monopoly at the public expense.
I would disagree with (4) for a different reason however. If copyrights expired upon an author's death, this would provide an incentive for rival publishers, and targets of copyright infringement lawsuits to murder successful authors.
Or, alternately, zero-click shopping. Here's how it works:
Each item on the screen has a "buy it now" icon next to it. By moving the mouse pointer over the icon, you automatically purchase the item.
The only drawback is that one must be very careful in moving the cursor around the screen.
. . . any response to a request for comments about databases addressing the subject matter for patentability would be taken seriously at all?
Look, the USPTO has absolutely no say at all as to the scope of patentable subject matter. None, nada bupkis. Zero.
The United States Patent Act provides in Sections 101, 102 and 103 the criteria for patentability, and the USPTO has no authority to deviate from that. Not one inch. Nor are they given authority to interpret the statutes independently of the United States Judiciary.
The only time they deviated from statutory requirements recently, regarding examination of means plus function language, the Commissioner had his a** handed to him in an unequivocal swat on the derriere.
So, give these guys a break. They don't decide whether or not to examine software patents -- their only rule they applied (it was a no software patent rule!) was held improper in the Supreme Court case of Diamond v. Diehr.
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have spoken, and theirs is the authoritative decision. The only way they can be overruled is by an act of Congress.
So leave these poor bureaucrats alone. Your remarks about the propriety of granting software patents will AND SHOULD fall on deaf ears there.
On the other hand, if you were inclined to do something usful or constructive, you could help them out by proposing decent databases from which to examine present applications, and thereby improving the quality of examination.
The law requires that a patent be granted for an invention unless USPTO can establish, typically based on prior art references, that the invention is not new or that it is obvious when viewed in the context of what is already known in the technology. Additionally, the invention must have a concrete, tangible and useful result, and how to make and use the invention must be disclosed.
What if someone were to discover something they thought would be relative towards future improvements in technology, would they be denied a patent should they not be able to demonstrate its use?
Sorry to say but I see the office is doing one of a few things, 1) trying to avoid doing the proper jobs they're already paid to do 2) looking to pass blame should they be criticized for something in the future. Could be they just don't understand technology enough, and with all the crappy patent suits around their looking around for an answer which could be a bad reason, for reasons following.
Suppose programmers at IBM set out to comment on things which would typically affect the scale to IBM's interest. Wouldn't be fair now would it. Or if it were Microsoft or someone other company, contractor. Personally I think what they should do is have an educational institution of Professors, and students come up with a resolution to their problems, on both the technological side of things, as well as a legal aspect of it to avoid future scrutiny.
Leaving it up to the community in my eyes is a bad idea, since humans being humans will generally tend to have biased views whether they realize it or not.
Want Root?
What exactly is "our" perspective? I'd be willing to bet that your opinion and mine differ greatly.
has some crazy suggestions such as reserving domains using pharmaceutical names and bolstering the claims of commercial entities against 'cybersquatters.Am I the only person who doesn't like the idea of some script kiddie going in and reserving every trademarked name as soon as the new TLDs arrive? "First come, first served" is a terrible way to run anything, because some punk kid gets everything in the first fifteen minutes and then ransoms them. Yeah, it's real funny when it's Microsoft or Verizon, but what if it was VA Linux?
Got Rhinos?
I demand that you stop using the word "proactive".
Got Rhinos?
It's clear that any government office in the US is managed by older men and women, most of which probably don't know much more than how to turn a computer on and get email. These are the people making decisions that affect us technologically savvy people and our jobs. Lobbyists tell them what they want to know, and as we've seen with RIAA and other large groups, they get their way even if they're not telling the truth.
What the government needs, including USPTO, is people that specifically deal with technology - people that understand this stuff like many of the fine people that use Slashdot everyday. We can't know everything about all the patents for technology, but we might have better insight as where to start.
I've only used the USPTO databases (rather, the public accessible databases) a few times - just for curiosity's sake - but I know that the information dealing with technology can be gotten. You just have to know what you're looking for. Joe Smith who uses AOL might not understand the technology behind the patent pending technology, so he's not going to know where to start. Now, CowboyNeal sees the technology and investigates it further (or perhaps already knows about it because of the fast-paced Slashdot News service) and know exactly (or close to) where to start looking.
This isn't a be-all, end-all solution, but it's something the government definitely needs to think about as a whole. We need people that understand technology making policy on technology lest we patent and put a stop to everything technological so that no one can innovate ideas based on current innovations or use technology to better this world (like multilingual DNS).
Having a combined 10 patents and patents pending, I think I have some perspective on this.
The best change to the prior-art system would be to open up potential patents for examination by the public before they are granted, and give some limited public comment time for identification of prior art in the public domain. (Please note, prior art not in the public domain is a whole different kettle of fish, I won't go into here.)
That said, such a change in the system would certainly exceed the authority of the USPO to do on its own. It would have to be done as an act of Congress.
Within the limited scope of just database management issues, I think the USPO could reasonably argue that Web Search Engines are extremely useful in finding prior art, and that at the very least, these should be consulted prior to issuing any patent.
There are actually a host of other data gathering mechanisms that aren't http based that the USPO could also use as data sources for prior art. I think these could be adopted within the normal bounds of federal administrative guidelines.
Okay, I'm generally pretty cynical, but there was a UK request for comments six or so months ago. I spent a few minutes filling out thier questionaire and, eventually, their patent office issued their official recomendation and my name was on the list of contributers. Pretty cool.
Of course, there are differences.
I guess if I get around to commenting on this I'd push for a database that allowed the very least amound of flexibility in how a business method patent could be interpreted. In other words, don't let companies fish for related applications for thier (IMHO) bogus business applications.
Second, make sure that the database links to whatever databases already exist in the patent office so that any application that comes through that is basically a copy of some "real world" patent but has the words "computer, internet, wireless, or web" attached to it is immediatly tossed out the window.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Add a Update to this posting and invite the following:
Users can submit a comment, as AC or under there normal account, with a Subject of "petition"
Then each user adds there comments they wish to be included.
Each user signs his/her name && address (city/province/country would suffice). Possibly including some credentials (education/experience/knowledge/position-at-work)
Then our faithful editors will do a "select body from comments where topic = '%this_story%" and subject = 'petition'" (or somesuch). Our Editor friends can then print out these comments, collectively write a thesis outlining the major points against the USPTO land grab, a description of Slashdot (its purpose/history/reputation/etc). Append our 'petition' comments and fire it off to the USPTO..
I know were not supposed to take this site too seriously, but all 'preaching to the choir' that goes on here I believe is not very productive. This could be an opportunity for Slashdot's forums to actually try and amount to something - other than our amusement. Not everyone will take the time to write a major article and mail it to the USPTO - we know that... but based on the responses that this article will likely illicit, maybe we can get the Slashdot editors to agree to do something constructive on our behalf...
I will reply to this message below as an example to be included.
I just had a great idea. I'm going to patent "1/2-click shopping". Here's how it works:
Next to the book, CD, erotic video, or marital aid the customer wants to buy, there will be a "buy it now, damn you!" button. When the user clicks the icon, the Javascript on the page will use the onMouseDown event to submit the form, instead of onClick.
Suck on that, Jeff Bozos!
I take drugs seriously.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
I guess I need to turn up the voltage.
Bzzzzz I will not use buzzwords Bzzzzt
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Either some tech-savvy people should be assigned to these review these patent applications, or we should have a Geek Jury Duty that randomly chooses professional techies to do reviews for either prior art or just plain idiocy (i.e. one click patent), and force them to swear to secrecy lest they lost all bandwidth for life.
Software is nothing more than fancy math, really. And the USPTO established long ago that math could not be patented. The first "software" patent was issued on a chemical manufacturing process that included a software program on a computer to control the process.
Unfortunately, the validity of software patents was never successfully challenged, and here we sit with morons like Amazon patenting one-click shopping. And the USPTO thinks that if we can somehow find a better database to prove that someone else had one-click first, they'll somehow improve?
Here's a database suggestion for them: Google.