Interwoven Patents Code Versioning

webengr writes "It seems like the USPO is pretty lenient when it comes to awarding software patents. CVS has been around for a long time, but now Interwoven has been awarded a new patent covering version control of web assets. The claims include, 'The use of a hierarchical file system and an object repository for representing and hosting content and its structure,' and 'The combined concepts of file history, versioning, comparison, and merging as it relates to content, provide an archive of all individual changes as well as collections of changes so they can be versioned and audited.'"

Comments

Re:The PTO has no incentive *not* to grant patents

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

The patent office can only do so much to protect you. They are not an all knowing database that claims responsibility to every bad patent. They give out patents, keep them on record, and do a "reasonable" search for prior art. Whatever the definition of reasonable is is irrelevant. The company who did the sueing, and did the patent getting is the fraudulent company, and should be the person paying for the defense if they lose.

If the USPO was liable for this, do you really want your tax dollars coming out of it to pay for a defense that was there because of a fraudulent company? I didn't think so.

If you apply for a patent and didn't bother checking for prior art yourself (or in this case, purposely ignore that prior art fraudulently) then you are negligent, and self responsible for all costs pertaining to protecting that fraudulent patent.

This is how the law works now. Changing it so the government is liable for fraud of another company is just fucking ridiculous. If you want the defense costs to be reimbused, why not try to come up with an idea that punishes the fraudulent companies, and not the innocent tax payers.

Re:New Rules

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

With all due respect, maybe YOU should find out how its done *now*. You just described, more or less, the exact opposite process one goes through in the US to get a patent.

The problem with your reasoning is that your wrong. The patent office does NOT search outside the patent database for prior art. In order for them to do that, they would be required to staff experts in any field that a patent could be obtained. They don't, and so they don't. The only way you can get your idea rejected is if it's 1) in the patent database already, or 2) its a really obviously been invented before to the secretary that files it (ie, a fork probably isn't in the database, but obvioulsy there is prior art if someone were to apply for a patent for a fork), or 3) if the idea isn't patentable. Prior art outside the patent registry is for the judge to determine in current US patent laws.

Writing two patents, and reading many has nothing to do with your knowledge of how the USPTO grants patents. Don't bitch about how they grant patents. It's not the secretary's fault. If you want to change it, go to your legislator. It's not the USPTO's fault.

Re:But this is basically how it works NOW...

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

As has been pointed out countless times, it is not the responsibility of the USPTO to search outside their database of already existing patents to find prior art. If you want them to, or think they should, maybe you should stop complaining about how the office is run, and start worrying about changing some laws.