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!"

Comments

I've always wondered

[levik]

If you lisence Amazon's 1-Click patent, do they give you an SDK to help understand this advanced and innovative technology?

Re:Hmmmm, other motivations....

[goldspider]

"Not to be entirely cynical but what are the odds that Microsoft had a little bit to do with the review by the USPTO."

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!

Re:Pattent System

[*weasel]

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.