Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Testing Patented

Posted by timothy on from the mmm-obviousness dept.

An anonymous reader writes "For those who think that online testing is an obvious idea, please be advised that the USPTO recently issued U.S. Patent No. 6,513,042 for online testing to two Ohio inventors. According to an article in NEOhio CrainTech, "As of last week, Test Central Inc. in Cleveland owns the U.S. patent to conduct testing via the Internet and, in essence, owns the online testing business.""

4 of 48 comments (clear)

  1. looks like you can patent anything these days by ibbie · · Score: 3, Funny

    *runs and patents slashdot trolling before it's too late*

    --
    The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
  2. I'd like to patent... by MacAndrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd like to patent online cheating. Licenses will come dear.

    I used to wonder if my professors could be replaced by a VCR, perhaps even year to year with material that hasn't changed. But at some point the learning experience must be compromised, however great the financial savings.

    Regardless ... this sounds as bright as the one-click purchase patent. Can't these people just compete on quality of service?

  3. Phew! Good Thing... by Atomizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good thing they forgot to add a Cowboy Neal option to their tests.

  4. Prior Art by Teppy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, we had this at CMU back in the late 80's.

    Which brings me to a funny story. There was this one "logic" class that was taken almost entirely online, tests and all, except for some optional lectures. I was dating this really dumb girl at the time ("blonde, all the way to the brain stem"), who just didn't get *anything* about the class. And she kept going to the professor and complaining that it was too hard, and it didn't make sense, and so on.

    So I think she ended up with a D for the class, which was probably generous, and she went to complain one final time. At that meeting the professor *admitted* to her that the whole thing was a sham. It wasn't a logic class at all. It was in reality, a giant psychological test to study how people react under extreme stress. And she was one of the subjects. She was vindicated! She knew it all along!

    Now I knew the professor, and he was a really cool guy, with just a bit of a mean streak. Of course CMU wouldn't let a professor conduct a covert semester-long psych experiment on students. (And a math professor at that.) That guy must still laugh about the story he told to this poor girl. I know I do.

    Anyway, my point was... oh yeah, the prior art thing.