Slashdot Mirror
Scientific American On Bad Patents
dltallan writes: "Scientific American has a short article in which Gregory Aharonian presents his picks for the four worst patents granted. I like the patent for training with manuals (1998)." The Bustpatents site is worth spending some eye-rubbing time on.
- Documented Research and Development
- Resource Usage on R&D documented
- Professional Acceptance of Patent (Maybe a part of the USPO acts as a mentor program(?)
- Possible Prior Art and Explanations why it is not (I really like this one)
- Penalties for Obvious Patents
- Business Models and complex sociological functions unpatentable
- Physical patents require working model
- Web related patents with comparable real-life applications unpatentable (Amazon One-click)
And the list goes on and on"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
This is a downright horrible idea.
1) With the way the system currently works, patents aren't easy to overturn, even with substantial prior art.
2) Everything and anything would be patented (things even more rediculous), and the USPO would have to spend more time overturning all the senseless ones. At least they're disalloqing some of the patents at the moment.
My 2/5 of a nickel.
--ravyn
___
I'm an exhibit on the mounted animal nature trail.
While this article is really funny to read, it just shows the problems that are now going on at the PTO. There are two main problems - the first being what this article points out - that the agents are not doing enough research to make good judgement. It makes you wonder how much of a background in these particular fields the patent agents have?
The other problem is that the PTO has gotten to the point where people are actually rewarded for issuing as many patents as possible. This is a system that really has to be reviewed. It has gotten the PTO to the point where they basically pass EVERYTHING and then let the courts throw out the frivilous stuff. What a waste of time, and even more money since court costs can be astronomical.
This doesn't even raise the problem of issues like people patenting something in HOPES that it becomes an industry standard and only when it is well entrenched - THEN do they say - I HAVE THE PATENT!!! Um, isn't the whole idea that anyone can come up with idea prove that the need for the patent is dumb?
While the PTO was origionally started as a great idea, over the past two decades things have just gotten out of control. Software and Business Methods are something that are just so unreasonable to patent that the PTO needs to either go back and decide:
1- this is something that will have to be SERIOUSLY researched before a patent is issued, OR
2- These are just things that CAN'T be patented
Good luck to them, because either way, they have a big problem facing them.
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
Personally, I find that to be rather a bad idea. I think up interesting things all the time, and I think I should be able to patent them, even if I haven't got the capital to build a working model or anything like that.
Maybe the burden of proof could be higher or something for a corporation rather then an individual. But I don't really see a reason for not allowing people to patent something if it wasn't difficult to come up with, I mean sometimes the most useful things are 'obvious' in retrospect and their genesis consisted mostly of a flash of insight and a quick jotting down. I read a report on a guy who made most of his money coming up with new kinds of condiments containers. Those things do make your life better, and might not even ever be developed if the person who thought them up didn't think they could make money off of it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
IMHO one of the core issue with those IP problems is the notion that everything must be owned by someone. I suppose it makes kind of sense, if everything is owned, then money will be made out of everything.
When there will be a patent on the process of "a mother singing to help her children sleep", we will know for sure that we are slaves.
From the article: "Three-Dimensional Presentation of Multiple Data Sets in Unitary Format with Pie Charts"
Gah, and you thought Marketing was the only group that made up complex phrases to describe something so obvious.
It appears to be commonplace for patent applicants to use overcomplicated language and jargon in an attempt to convince patent examiners that something is original.
The best way to stop this would be to have a rule that if an application can't be understood then at least that application is void, possibly any future application for something similar is also voided.
Another important thing is that the "obvious", to people skilled in the relevent area, may well not show up simply because people don't put obvious things in journal papera. Because doing so would be redundant.
In the software/internet field, I think that the main problem is not that prior art is not found -- in a new field it may not exist -- but that the obviousness criterion is not tested.
IANAL, but AIUI, in order to be patentable, an invention must be both novel and non-obvious. But read this interview in which the Director of the US Patent Office demonstrated quite clearly that he did not understand the difference between these two concepts.
It appears that the US Patent Office believes that obviousness can be ascertained by determining whether there is any prior art. Of course obviousness is much harder to prove conclusively. But until they understand that an invention has to satisfy both of these criteria separately, we will continue to get more ridiculous software and e-businness patents.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
We don't need to automatically accept patents, we just need the review part. How about this:
Patents are first checked by the patent office for validity. If the patent passes that phase, then it goes on public display as a provisional patent. The person attempting to get the patent must post a bond of, say, $5000. Anyone can submit a challenge to the patent by paying a fee equal to the difficulty in reviewing their challenge. The first person to invalidate the patent by showing prior art, or any other method approved by the patent office, gets paid the $5000. If no one comes forward for a year, then the patent is presumed valid and non obvious, and the money is returned.
Each of us is an individual. And the name of that individual is Clancy Jones - Clancy Jones #185