Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Others, File "Stealth" Patents
bobwyman writes "Microsoft and others seem to be filing large numbers of "stealth patent applications" that hide the identify of the "assignee", or owner, of a patent application even though the legal principle of 'Duty of Candor' may legally require them to disclose their interest in the patent. Concealment of patent assignees permits a number of opportunities for fraud in the patent process while also making it more difficult to study patterns of application activity and 'inventiveness.' If not already illegal to conceal assignments, there should be laws written to make it illegal in the future."
I can understand how the duty of candor is generally important, and admire the forensic work of the wuthor, but don't understand how using a shell assignee is significant. Companies do this sort of thing to keep competitors in the dark, and I don't see how it is fraudulent.
... can anyone explain how this is significant? How can it be used to conceal prior art? Ideally, shouldn't the examiner be blind to the identity of the applicant/assignee, to avoid bias? It just seems like an academic Q.
So
"Inventiveness" is one of the last words I associate with Microsoft. While we're on the topic, and off topic, any predictions for the year Microsoft goes out of business or gets bough out? I'm thinking 2022.
Often it seems that Microsoft is not a software company that is sometimes abusive, but is an abuse company that sometimes supplies software.
For example, Microsoft keeps control describes ways in which Microsoft has made Windows XP more difficult for the customer.
Earlier on Slashdot today there was an article about Microsoft deliberately trying to sabotage the Opera browser.
What needs to happen is someone like the FSF or EFF need to set up a patent application for something about as generic as the pattent lawyers can think of. Then add every neat trick in the linux kernel and other free software as claim. Provide a database of "prior art" since the patent office can't disclose what you tell them is prior art, I would recomend finding a way to send them a copy of google's archives as a source for prior art. Once this nonsense has happend, it will be impossable for the patent office to issue a patent on it or any other software or business methods patent for at least a decade while they try to fiugre out whats going on. It will cost a bit of money (there may be a charge per claim)
Whne I was a student working at a goverment office, one of the long time engineers told me that changing the goverment was like tring to stop a boulder rolling down a hill, you can't stop it but you can nudge it in a better direction. The problem is this nudge will cost a fortune but is worth it.