Slashdot Mirror


Chip Firm Hit By 45-Year-Old Patent

JPMH writes "The Register is reporting that a Taiwanese chip foundry is being sued over two chemistry patents, one over 45 years old. The patents at issue were filed in 1957 and 1964, but are still in force because they were not granted until 1987 and 1992 respectively. The first patent, 4,702,808, details an apparatus and method for initiating chemical reactions by focusing "radiant energy, such as a laser" onto streams of particles. The second patent, 5,131,941 also details an apparatus and method for initiating chemical reactions, but this time radiation is used to provide the energy kick needed to get the compounds to interact."

46 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. With Friggin Laster Beams... by DASHSL0T · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Engineers,

    Somebody power up one of the lasers and aim at the plaintiff's attorneys.

    Thank you,
    Geeks for Tort Reform

    --
    Closing Windows. Opening Eyes.
    Linux-Universe

    --
    Freedom Is Universal
    Linux-Universe
    1. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why? The patents don't appear to be of the obvious "one-click shopping" type and the holders are initiating the action (rather than some company that bought the rights, a la PanIP). Clearly the work took a lot of research and specialized knowlegde, and the researchers were granted a patent for their work.

      Are you anti-patent in general or were you just exhibiting a typical slashdot knee-jerk response?

    2. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by nihilogos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea would be obvious to a thoughtful undergraduate student. Actually *doing* it, on the other hand, is an impressive feat.

      That's what so frustrating about the US patent system. So many obvious ideas which require little though have been patented, and when someone puts an enormous amount of effort into actually *implementing* something they get sued. No frickin way did the engineers who built that particular part of the chip plant read that patent. And they get sued by someone who couldn't have implemented it in a million years.

      I read yesterday that when the physicist Richard Feynman was at Los Alamos working on the bomb he was approached by some government legal advisor who said that they should patent any ideas they might get. Feynman replied that couldn't possibly keep track of all the ideas that crossed his mind, let alone write patents on them. The legal beaver replied that "just let us know about them" so Feynman said "OK, how about a nuclear powered submarine, a nuclear rocket, a nuclear reactor ... ". A few weeks later the guy came back and said "Submarine is taken, but the rocket and some other ones are still free ... " I think someone eventually wrote up the "Nuclear Rocket" patent for him.

      Imagine that, someone had patented a nuclear powered submarine propulsion system before anyone had even exploded an atom bomb.

      The point is so many of these patents are granted to people who haven't implemented anything when all the work is in the implementation.

      --
      :wq
    3. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those are what as known as submarine patents. The entity getting the patent purposely manipulated the patent process so that the patents were granted long after the application was filed, giving an effective patent lifetime far in excess of that normally granted by the patent system.

      Patents should be granted from the date of filing, not the date of issue. Submarine patents are a nasty abuse of the system.

    4. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 3, Informative


      It appears they didn't wait...it seems they've been fine tuning them for years (what, you didn't review the patents yourself?!?). From one of the patents:

      This is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 592,968 filed 3/23/84 now U.S. Pat. No. 4,666,678 and a continuation of Ser. No. 737,446 filed 10/29/76 which is a continuation of Ser. No. 05/165,445 filed 7/26/71, now abandoned and a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 05/012,082 filed 2/17/70, now abandoned which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 04/710,518 filed 3/5/68 now U.S. Pat. No. 3,566,645 which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 04/501,395 filed 10/22/65 (now U.S. Pat. No. 3,371,404) which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 03/668,561 filed 6/27/57 abandoned.

    5. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by drdale · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the way the Feynman story ends is pretty funny. The government advisor who had approached him got him to sign a contract selling his three patents to the government for $1 each; all of the other scientists signed the same contract. The government actually had no intention of actually paying the scientists any money; the $1 fee was just a legal formality. But Feynman insisted on getting his $3, and eventually the advisor paid him out of his own pocket. Feynman bought treats for all of the scientists with the money, and told them how he paid for it all. So then they all went to the advisor demanding their money!

      --
      This post is dedicated to all of those /.ers who do not dedicate their posts to themselves.
    6. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by e40 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The idea would be obvious to a thoughtful undergraduate student. Actually *doing* it, on the other hand, is an impressive feat.

      Bingo! I've decided that the powers that be want to leave the patent system as is not because it fosters innovation, but because it feeds the American tendancy to want something for nothing (which is why Lotto is so popular here). What is (most) every American's dream? Strike it rich and retire, even though this means that if you are rich many other people will be poor. I'm no communist, but this strike it rich mentality is just absurd.

      I would like to live in a world where doing something is rewarded, rather than being the first to think of that something.

    7. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

      More like common practive before 1997(?) when patent extensions were fixed, basically by revising a small part of your patent you could extend the filing deadline by 5(?) years each time, so by continuously modifying the patent you could put of granting of the application until the underlying technology was widespread and then go after people who in good faith believed they were using unencumbered technology. This is no longer possible because of reforms put in place specifically to stop this tactic, now a patent if valid from 1 year from the filing date with a one time extension of several years for patents in certain situations.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by kcbrown · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yeah, you're a communist. You think economies are zero-sum games.

      I have no idea what one (communism) has to do with the other (whether or not the economy is a zero-sum game).

      But the global economy, at any rate, is a zero-sum game, with two exceptions:

      • changes in the population
      • changes in productivity (the amount of production generated by an individual in a period of time. So making people work longer hours does not increase productivity because they're spending more time in order to accomplish more work, whereas having them tend a machine that produces ten times what they could do by hand is an increase in productivity)

      After accounting for those two things, the global economy must be a zero-sum game because money is a direct representation of human production. Were this not the case, you wouldn't get inflation (an overall increase in the prices of goods) as a direct result of printing more money.

      Now, the individual local economies are not zero-sum games, but that is only because they have external inputs and outputs, such as foreign trade and foreign investment.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    9. Re:With Friggin Laster Beams... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "But isn't getting filthy rich the American dream?", I recently had someone ask me.

      Well, no, it isn't. The American Dream (tm) is to own your own property and to make your living from it so you don't have to hire yourself out as a servant.

      Somewhere along the line The American Dream has turned into the idea that you hire yourself out as a servant ( or you're a worthless bum) so that you have the proceeds to buy lottery tickets in the hopes of hitting it rich by chance.

      That isn't the American Dream, that's the American Nightmare.

      KFG

  2. In other news, by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 5, Funny

    General Motors is suing competing manufacturers of the so-called `horseless carriage' for infringing their patent 236635849, which specifies a way in which the `wheel' - a flat, cylindrical object - can be used for the motion and transportation of people and inanimate objects.

    --
    "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
  3. Old stuff by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 3, Funny
    "being sued over two chemistry patents, one over 45 years old"

    Prior art that!

    1. Re:Old stuff by kmahan · · Score: 4, Funny

      And in other news the reaction of lightning and amino acids has been patented. All life is being requested to "pay up or die."

      --
      Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
  4. Amazing by tds67 · · Score: 4, Funny
    The second patent, 5,131,941 also details an apparatus and method for initiating chemical reactions, but this time radiation is used to provide the energy kick needed to get the compounds to interact."

    What? You mean Jiffy Pop popcorn wasn't the first one to patent this technique?

    1. Re:Amazing by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The second patent, 5,131,941 also details an apparatus and method for initiating chemical reactions, but this time radiation is used to provide the energy kick needed to get the compounds to interact."

      What? You mean Jiffy Pop popcorn wasn't the first one to patent this technique?

      Jiffy Pop was merely improving on the prior art of "popping popcorn via a giant space laser, thus thwarting the evil professor's plans."

      -a

  5. prosecution laches will hopefully kick in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This may be a death rattle for Lemelson's submrine patents. The dead "inventor" recently had suits thrown out on this issue. Basically, under prosecution laches, they are charged with gaming the system deliberately or without any reasonable reason. Fortunately, this old trick is harder to perform now that patent terms run from the date of filing (with some possible adjustments) instead of date of issuance.

    1. Re:prosecution laches will hopefully kick in by cybermace5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We had this discussion a week or two ago.

      Some people claimed that it would be advantageous to prohibit a person filing a patent, if they never would or could implement the invention of their own accord.

      To me that seems like a huge waste of resources. Sure, there are some people who will try to abuse the system. But others, people with bright minds that never quit dreaming up new concepts and technology, should not be forced to drearily forge out every invention they come up with. If that was the case, then the number of inventions any one person could come up with would be severely limited.

      A lot of concepts can be created out of thin air, but it takes a lot of research and feasibility studies before some major concepts can be implemented. A detailed patent is often representative of a lot of original work, and as such should be protected.

      Lemelson certainly was zealous about coming up with new ideas, and holding companies to patent law. He lost many cases, especially when the company was major and had infinite legal resources. But he did come up with many original ideas, and to a company with resources, buying rights can be a great deal. The inventor gets to eat, and the company has an original concept with major considerations worked out.

      This may not really be on-topic, but you seemed to have a lot of disdain for anyone who might have a lot of ideas but no resources to carry out those ideas.

      --
      ...
  6. Its Broke Fix it by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aside from the fact the Description of the patents makes them sound like a patent on FIRE and if its held up I want the wheel, isn't there enough out there to show our patent system is completely broken ?

    The primary purpose of the patent system seems to be allowing those that don't plan on developing technology, improving technology or doing any of the work needed to advance technology to practise legal extortion on those that do.

  7. Ok, now I understand! by downix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See, before the 1990's, patents took decades to be approved. They've now gone and made things work the other way, approving them too fast now.

    Can someone *PLEASE* find a happy medium between friggin fast and damned slow?

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  8. The patent system is broken beyond repair by mikeophile · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's how Syndia (and others) are able to keep their patents "on-hold" for an indefinite period until they see an opportunity to bash a company over the head with it.

    This quote is from Yale Office of Cooperative Research

    One somewhat sneaky but perfectly acceptable way of using continuation applications is to make sure that the disclosure of an original patent application is always pending. Because an unlimited number of continuation applications may be filed, the only requirement being that at least one application in the chain of continuation applications is still pending, it is possible to keep a chain of patent applications alive for a long period of time. This is useful when a technology field is crowded and there are several competitors, and when it's not really certain exactly what the competitor will try to bring to market.
    1. Re:The patent system is broken beyond repair by SquarePants · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can't do this anymore. Patents filed after 1995 run for 20 years from the date of FILING. There fore, the longer a patent is pending, the shorter its effective term. This practice, called "submarine patenting" was, in part, the reason. By the way, the inventor of thios patent, Jerry Lemelson, was famous for doing this (he is now dead)

  9. Re:deploy patents! by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You are partially correct the laser was "officially" invented in 1958 - however the maser was invented in 1953 (microwaves instead of visible light) The laser was at the time a predictable outgrowth - and was theorized to be possible. The patent in question mentions radiation in general, as well as lasers radiation. So while it seems amazing that somone could have that much foresight, its not improbable.

  10. Rest of quote by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Informative
    Competitors will often review the claims of an issued patent to determine how to make a competing product that does not infringe the patent, referred to as "designing around" a patent. In this case, the initial claims of the original patent may not be effective in maintaining the monopoly power of the patentee regarding the invention. By filing additional continuation applications whenever an existing patent application is to issue as a patent or whenever the prosecution of an existing patent application is to be terminated, an applicant can make sure that a continuation patent application claiming priority from the original application is always pending. Then, if a competing product is ever produced, the claims of the pending continuation application can be amended, or another continuation application can be filed, so that the claims clearly cover the competing product, ensuring that the product will infringe the new claims.
  11. Re:GOOD!!! by malocchio · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm bloody sick of SHIT made in turd world countries....

    Third world countries are defined as being export-only, pre-industrial nation states. If things werent made and exported from third world countries, they wouldn't be third world countries, now would they?

    Go read a book.

  12. Bread by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 4, Funny

    So far we have patents for Fire and the Wheel.

    I'm going to claim the patent for Baked Bread.

    I guess the first company I'm going to SCO is McDonalds. They have untill Friday to stop making hamburger rolls. Otherwise I'm going to revoke their license.

    Then after I take out the big guy, I'm going to go after Wonder Bread.

    --
    Huh?
  13. Rubbish, patents protect years of research! by wukie · · Score: 4, Informative

    You avoid any patents on anything you have dreamed up by PUBLISHING IT, even on the internet!

    No matter how stupid it sounds, put it in writing, crude drawings or both.

    Once you publish, it's PRIOR ART and unpatentable!

  14. Re:GOOD!!! by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The irony which you have to admire is that US citizens hate importing shit cuz they lose jobs. But US industry loves it because instead of paying a skilled labourer say 15$/h or whatnot they can get a way with "we won't kill your family today" as a wage in a third world asian country.

    What I don't get though, aren't US industry leaders also US citizens? So basically they steal jobs from their neighbours to support slave labour. And we admire these people as "famous CNN headshots" because???

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  15. Thats a lot of Pending by m0rphm0nkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been researching my own patent recently so this is interesting.

    Wow, so they managed to keep it pending for 40 or so years. Most impressive. I understand it's actually better to do it that way because once you patent the technology becomes available for reverse-engineering. I thought you could only keep it patent pending for about six years though.

    It appears that you can but that the legal ground is a little shaky. Current jurisprudence appears to indicate that this'll get thrown unless unless the chip company caves and settles.

  16. Re:Hrmm, how is this so? by SquarePants · · Score: 4, Informative

    I haven't read the article (my bad!) but a U.S. patent gives you the right to sue importers of infringing goods. I assume the two Taiwanese companies were importing their "infringing" chips into the U.S.

  17. Re:With a Friggin Deathgrip on Government by FFFish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ever notice that most of those people who are in power are ex-lawyers?

    Ever notice that contract language has grown increasingly more complicated over the years, as a means of ensuring lawyer income?

    Ever notice the increase in responsibility-declaiming lawsuits over the years, as lawyers take any bullshit to court as a means of ensuring their income?

    Ever notice that judges are allowing more and more of these cases, as a means to ensure their continued employment?

    It's the slow death of a society, crushed by the weight of a useless population of lawyers who can only feed off the harm they cause to others.

    We want to save ourselves, we gotta fire up those frickin laser beams already. Time for some BBQ!

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  18. and in related news by curtlewis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Another patent infringement lawsuit has been filed by Wonder, Inc. against Orowheat and Kilpatrick's. Wonder alledges that the firms violate it's patent which covers presentation and packaging of bread products that have been uniformly cut into what they call "slices."

    1. Re:and in related news by SquarePants · · Score: 3, Funny

      While on the subject, here is my favorite stupid patent:
      http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser ?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,080,436.WKU.&OS=PN/6,080,436&RS =PN/6,080,436

      That's right, they patented toast, really hot toast!

  19. You sound like the idiot by wukie · · Score: 3, Insightful
    One of the first rules for dismissing any patent is "lack of invention", followed very close behind is: the invention "must not be obvious".

    Where do people like you come up with such rubbish. These people who applied for the inventions were "way" ahead of their time. Look at the year of their filing. Unbelievable!

    Things are obvious to you because someone else did the hard work and showed it to you. Go and do something original just once in your life.

    It's the patent office's fault for taking so long to approve the patent that is the real problem.

  20. Re:Hrmm, how is this so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    As of recently, US = The World

  21. wrong patent number by CausticPuppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually the wheel was patent #2, not #23663589.

    Patent #1, of course, was "a method of rapidly oxidizing combustible materials using concentrated heat and oxygen."

    And the "wheel" came before patent #3, which was "A method and appararatus for creating regular rectangular subdivisions of a yeast byproduct-enhanced grain based matrix."

    --
    -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    1. Re:wrong patent number by red+floyd · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the "wheel" came before patent #3, which was "A method and appararatus for creating regular rectangular subdivisions of a yeast byproduct-enhanced grain based matrix."

      Wow! That sounds like the neatest thing since sliced bread!

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    2. Re:wrong patent number by clem · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the #1 patent wasn't "business model where sexual favors are exchanged for goods or favors"?

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    3. Re:wrong patent number by cpuffer_hammer · · Score: 3, Funny

      No that was going to be #0 but it was not accepted out for being to obvious. Though the inventor claims that the examiner was biased by favors of the compaction. The inventor then set out to create an other legal structure to protect the concept. Patent #0 was eventually given to a non-human entry for a advanced system for range finding, high speed communication, and illumination based on invisible waves moving at C. Though though there was some debate about the vagueness of the application.

  22. Jerome Lemelson "The Patent King" expose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    These patents were created by Jerome Lemelson "The Patent King" Fortune Magazine ran a very long article on his exploits two years ago:

    It would be appealing to view Lemelson as part of the great American tradition of the small inventor battling the rapacious corporation. Certainly there have been plenty of people who have seen him in this light. The distinguished writer Tom Wolfe once hailed him as a "genius" in a laudatory article. Two of the most prestigious institutions in the country, MIT and the Smithsonian, have allied themselves with his name. To many small inventors, Lemelson is a figure of heroic proportions.

    Lemelson may well have been a genius: He earned 558 patents (some came after his death), which leaves him four places behind the inventore-di-tutti-inventori, Thomas Edison. But his was a different kind of brilliance altogether. In truth, his most lucrative patents were the product of a masterful exploitation of the patent system, and they created a huge legal web that to this day ensnares corporations. Critics--especially the many businesses he has sued--portray Lemelson as the anti-Edison. They contend that he never invented the key technologies for which he had the patents. Even one of Lemelson's former attorneys, Arthur Lieberman, questions whether Lemelson was an inventor in the layman's sense of the word. Rather, he says, Lemelson would figure out where an industry was headed--and then place a patent claim directly in its path. "In many cases, Lemelson didn't patent inventions," says Lieberman. "He invented patents."

    The Lemelson litigation and licensing program--which has been masterminded over the past dozen years by a wily lawyer named Gerald Hosier--is unprecedented in its size and scope, and has become the leading edge in a wave of patent litigation. Even as personal-injury and product-liability suits--the bane of most large corporations--have been declining, federal patent lawsuit filings have increased 60% since 1993.

    ***

    Lemelson would grind down the examiners by submitting "jumbo" applications that stretched to more than 100 pages. "There's no way that you could read an entire application in the case of the jumbo applications," says Miller. Not only were they huge, they could be incredibly vague; some patent examiners began referring to Lemelson as "Black Box Jerry" because of his tendency to offer sweeping notions with very little technical detail.

    And then there were the delays. Until that 1995 law changed the rules, a newly issued patent had a 17-year life span--during which time nobody was supposed to be able to use the idea without paying for it. But a patent application could be delayed through something called a "continuation." During that process, applicants were permitted to amend, modify, or add claims to their inventions. As long as the inventor could persuade an examiner that the new claims were consistent with the original specifications, he could even go so far as to incorporate somebody else's technology into his own patent application.

    Nobody ever sought continuations the way Lemelson did. Some of his applications had a half-dozen continuations, each of which could add years to the process. Sometimes Lemelson would be informed that one of his patents was about to be issued--and respond by filing a continuation, inexplicably creating another delay.

    But as any savvy patent practitioner knows, his action wasn't inexplicable at all. Consider: Lemelson first submitted some of his key technological patent applications in the mid-1950s. But thanks to all the delays--delays often triggered by Lemelson's continuations--many of them weren't issued until the '80s and '90s. By then, though, Lemelson had amended them to include real products that had come on the market--which he could claim to have invented because he had applied for the patent back in the '50s! And because the patent only took effect when it was i

  23. Re:deploy patents! by DarkMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll go further than the above poster.

    If the patent mentioned lasers (albeint by description, rather than by name) in 1957 then by Jove, that's worth a patent.

    The advantages of using collimated and coherent light over other light sources in a chamical reaction are great, and certinally non-obvious back then.

    The only thing I don't like about this patent is the submarine laywering over it. The content is quite reasonable, if not somewhat out of date.

  24. prior art catch 22 by Sabalon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay...so if the patent is 45 years old (1958) but was patented in 1987, I see a big catch-22.

    If the patent does not start until 1987, then anything doing this from before 1987 should now be prior art.

    If anything from before 1987 is not considered prior art because the patent was created in 1958, then the patent should be enforced from that date, not the 1987 date, and therefore expired.

    Oh...sorry Government and sense...my bad

  25. How Did I Know Before I Even Looked? by Compulawyer · · Score: 5, Informative
    Somehow I knew who the inventor was on these patents before I even looked -- Jerome Lemelson. Lemelson is infamous in the patent world as the "king of the submarine patent." Back when Lemelson was active, he would file applications and delay prosecution until he had defendants to sue. He would then prosecute the patent and sue when it issued. Because patent applications are held confidential while pending, others using the technology claimed in Lemelson's patents would have no idea that the patents existed until issuance, thus the submarine analogy.

    These actions are almost universally seen by practitioners as abuses of the patent system, NOT as appropriate uses. Thankfully, in most instances current PTO procedure prevents these abuses. However, this type of prosecution tactic, even though it resulted in a patent issuing, still may not ultimately be successful because of a doctrine called "prosecution laches."

    Generally, the doctrine of laches applies to protect a defendant when a plaintiff has sat on its rights for too long. The doctrine of prosecution history laches, very simply put, states that a patentee who has delayed prosection for too long may not enforce its patent once it issues. I am not saying that this is the case here; that is for a court to decide. But I do feel the need to note that this doctrine was recently "revived" by courts after a long period during which the doctrine was never even discussed, much less applied.

    You may wonder who the patent holder was in the case that recently "revived" the doctrine of prosecution history laches. His name, I believe, is Jerome Lemelson.

    --

    Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  26. lemelson is a patent whore by borg · · Score: 4, Informative

    lemelson, the patent originator, should be well known to the slashdot crowd, but on the internet, institutional memory is an oxymoron

    the delay in patent filing is not due to USPTO ineptitude. rather, this is classic lemelson tactics:

    1. stake an overly broad patent claim
    2. when patent office declines patent on grounds of it being too general, rewrite it, trying to adjust claims such that it takes into account techinical innovations that have occurred since #1
    3. repeat steps 1 and 2 until the patent office grants you a patent: congratulations, you've just gotten a patent on someone else's work!

    for an example, google for "lemelson" and "machine vision." (here's a link for the google impaired.) briefly, lemelson patented the idea that some sort of machine could do quality inspection of items coming off of an assembly line. he had no invention, he had a wish. he ammended and ammended and ammended that patent for 30 years before it was accepted. in the meantime, laser bar code readers had been invented (by someone else), and he had changed the wording on his patent application to include that technological development. Viola! he invented laser bar code readers, ex post facto, and his estate went on a suing spree.

    FWIW, the USPTO changed the policies that allowed this in the mid 90s. still sucks.

    --
    Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
  27. For those who care by Theatetus · · Score: 3, Informative

    In case anyone is actually curious, US Patent #1 was issued to Samuel Hopkins in 1790 for a new apparatus and process to make potash.

    #2 was something about candles, and #3 was a flour mill

    The patent was signed by George Washington himself (government was much smaller back then; that same year, Washington and Hamilton personally reviewed the bids for the first ever Federal construction project, a lighthouse near Norfolk, VA).

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  28. troll modded to +5 amazing by sweatyboatman · · Score: 3, Funny

    yeah yeah. it's the lawyers' fault. they're the evil money grubbers. and everyone else is just in it for the satisfaction of a job well done. oh wait no.

    what about those fancy shmancy computer programmers. they made it so we need to hire an entire technical staff to run our business. before the programmers shoved their computers onto everyone's desk, you didn't need an IT department. Just keep your records in trusty books. Paper filing. that's always been the best way to do things.

    and don't get me started with the three letter acronym. RAM, CPU, LCD... it's their secret code they use to make sure we can't get rid of them. they're always scheming to get more money.

    email is just how they get you to buy antivirus software. But you don't need it. You want to talk to someone, call them. But the phone company's milking all your money away with their long distance charges and their hidden fees. So you'd better go see them in person. But you'd better walk because the airline and car companies all have their own weird language and strange charges...

    rant rant rant. woop dee doo. what else is new?

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  29. Re:deploy patents! by mpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the patent mentioned lasers (albeint by description, rather than by name) in 1957 then by Jove, that's worth a patent.

    The MASER was invented before then. The only difference between a MASAR and a LASER is the frequency of the EM radiation.

    The advantages of using collimated and coherent light over other light sources in a chamical reaction are great, and certinally non-obvious back then.

    It's long been known that "light" can affect chemical reactions. e.g. photography.
    The idea that monochromatic light would be best for catalysing a specific reaction probably crossed someone's mind as soon as the "photon model" was accepted.