Slashdot Mirror
EFF Runs Patent-Busting Challenge
markclong writes "Every year numerous illegitimate patent applications make their way through the United States patent examination process without adequate review. The problem is particularly acute in the software and Internet fields where the history of prior inventions (often called "prior art") is widely distributed and poorly documented. As a result, we have seen patents asserted on such simple technologies as One-click online shopping (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.), Online shopping carts (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314.), The hyperlink (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662.). The EFF is hosting a patent busting project to fight the most egregious abuses of the patent system."
Nope, nothing is new. The primary link is the same. The additional links are taken from the prior discussion.
I'm not sure why you were modded redundant.
Anyone notice that the EFF announced that they were going to be challenging bogus patents 2 days after PubPat announced that they had submitted a request to have Microsoft's FAT patent re-examined?
US patent system does not want to spend the time/money
The problem is that Congress won't give the USPTO the money it requires to do its job. This is on its way to changing with the new fee bill H.R. 1561, but it may take some time. It is still largely a step in the right direction.
I got called for a job once when some friends had a patent and wanted me to dummy the technology in Flash - they already had the patent(?!), which I scrolled through, and some fun double talk about the technology. I said this was the 'Artist conception of flying car' patent. We haven't built it, but we want to sue you if you figure it out.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
The employess are on very tight schedules as far as how long they can spend on each patent. If they don't meet a certain production requirement, they will be fired. The office as it currently stands puts a large focus on production over quality, although they are starting to focus more on quality (without giving any breaks to the production requirement, which probably isn't going to work).
Read the POPA (Patent Office Professional Organization) newsletter for the last new years (issued bimonthly) to get a better understanding of what the USPTO is doing from an employee's point of view.
Even though the application was only 200, it's the invention date that matters, specifically, the "reduction to practice" of the patent, or when you figured out how to actually make it work. The applcaiton date is generally the presumed invention date, but the inventor can file an affidavit stating that he concieved of the invention some time before. Also, how do you prove that the tulane prior art was invented before the Microsoft app?
I've actually read this MS application, and it is VERY narrowly worded. Take a look at 35 U.S.C.S. -
102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Is this article a duplicate of an article from nearly two months ago? Or is there some specific news about this patent-busting project? The blurb didn't seem to help.
0 0
the public call-for-submissions ("contest") part of the project was launched yesterday. the post wasn't very clear about that...
contest:
http://www.eff.org/patent/contest/
press release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_06.php#0016
Nope - I got an emailed press release about it yesterday, June 10th at 2:21pm. The blurb is a bit vague, but it's got more details in this one.
My understanding is also that patent examiners can't even do Boolean searhing on their own patent database.
Not true. The patent office's search system is incredibly nice compared to others that I have seen. They can use: AND, OR, NOT, WITH (same sentance), SAME (same paragraph), ADJ# (second term is # of words after first term), NEAR# (first term is within # of words of second term) as well as limiting the searches to certain sections of a patent, the database, a certain inventor, company, date ranges and a whole bunch of other fun stuff. If you've ever used the INSPEC search engine it is pretty similar. I only wish there was a internet search engine with half of the features of the patent office's.
There is a wiki page on How to improve patents here.
If your add to the page, remember to add a how not a just a what.
Knud
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1900.htm
h tml
Something similar to this is in place. Apparently, with the sheer volume of patents that are applied for, not every application gets commented on appropriately. Its much easier to bust a bad patent BEFORE it's granted though.
I don't know of any services that send out notice of pending patents, but the USPTO has a searchable database of pending applications at http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.
*Ack*.
"covers", not "discovers".
May we never see th
I just like to point out that Mr. Keogh applied for his patents to highlight the fact that so many bogus patents are allowed to stand.
Not to try and grab royalties from wheel users.
So show him the respect he deserves for standing up for common sense instead of trying to sound righteous about his nefarious act.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69