Slashdot Mirror
USPTO To Reexamine Eolas, SBC Patents
theodp writes "The USPTO Director has ordered reexaminations of the infamous Eolas Distributed Hypermedia Method (discussed earlier(1) on Slashdot) and SBC Structured Document Browser (discussed earlier(2) on Slashdot) patents. Maybe this will inspire Tim O'Reilly to get that killer piece of 1-Click prior art off his bookshelf!"
... has this happened in the US ?
...
If this can be duplicated for other patents, could this a possible route to pointing out how futile software patenting is ? I'd guess that if the USPTO had to constantly re-examine s/w patents they might be more leery of granting them
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
If you lisence Amazon's 1-Click patent, do they give you an SDK to help understand this advanced and innovative technology?
Ñ'
And what if they did? It's a patent that, in all likelihood, never should have been awarded, so it really doesn't matter much to me who got the USPTO to examine it as long as it and bad patents like it are thrown out.
Seriously people, you have to stop cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is a good thing!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The Patent Office is a government agency. Like all government agencies, it lwill do whatever it takes to sustain itself and grow. Their growth strategy has been to collect fees and issue patents, often without much regard for prior art and common sense.
Trying to stop the growth of USPTO is like trying to stop the sun from rising. Perhaps there is a way for them to collect additional (even higher) fees for re-examining questionable patents. Considering all the garbage that is out there, they is quite a bit of work to be done and a captive market to pay for it. I think the Patent Office needs something to do. Pulling the plug on misguided patents would be a worthwhile effort. All we need for patent reform is a way to align the inevitable collection of fees with the policy goal of protecting only those truly innovative ideas that cost big money for R&D.
I make you wonder what would have happened if it had not been MS. If MS had the patent and Eolas was being sued, the bet the patent office would have let the court decide if the patent should stand or not, which is the normal way they behave.
James
there's something to be said for limited application resubmissions.
the current malicious patent application process is to submit as broad and vague a patent as possible (particularly in software) and resubmit over and over, narrowing it down only as much as the particular examiner requires.
(not all patent applying company's do this - but the ones who do, -always- do).
at some point there should be a mechanism to prevent such obvious and disingenuous 'gaming' of the system.
the patent idea is supposed to be cooperative: a limited monopoly for an inventor in return for public disclosure of the invention (provided it meets the qualifications for being patentable), with the intent of enriching the public domain.
the business practice of filing patents for litigation purposes (sue your competitors out of business because they can't even afford to -defend- themselves) - is equal parts sickening and maddening.
Patent litigation should have to go through a review process at the USPTO to determine fitness of the claim (paid for by the sue-er, reimbursed by the infringer in the event of guilt).
instead we wind up having vague patents that are pushed across a reviewer's desk as fast as possible, being enforced in a court of law that does not and should not have the technical expertise to determine veracity of the claim.
If there was an internal USPTO review process prior to litigation - then they'd have the authority to revoke, suspend, or demand more specific clarification of overly broad patents that slipped through.
but for some reason there's never a call to restructure the procedures for established government bureaus. even when disaster strikes, and the problems hit the forefront, the solution always seems to be simply to create yet-another-layer of bureaucracy.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I doubt everything will be reviewed, but if there is a single review of a software patent then there is precedent for more reviews, and hopefully a message to all that patents aren't to be handed out like candy. Unfortunately the General Powers and Duties of the USPTO according to law are 1) to follow the policy of the secretary of commerce, 2) to issue patents, and 3) to disseminate patent information to the public. There is nothing in the general duties about ensuring the patent is "first art".
IAALS.
You dont have to be a billionare to force the USPTO to reexamine a patent. Its called inter partes re-examination, ANYONE can file for it, and all you need to do is submit prior art (or even just an argument) that says the patent was granted in error. Its not cheap though, it can cost a few thousand dollars depending on the scope of the reexamination, but it is an affordable option for a company faced with litigation by an over-broad patent.
From the patent:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
There are no drawings provided.
Thank goodness, no drawings provided!
From the bottom of the uspto page (no pun intended):
METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT
Wiping your ass with moist toilet paper was actually patentable. Non-techies might be more interested to hear that absurd patents are not just limited to the technology realm.