Slashdot Mirror
Washington Mutual Patents the Bank Branch
ewhac writes "Okay, so it's not a bank branch per se, but a particular kind of bank branch -- one that has play areas for kids, serves coffee and popcorn, and has kiosks instead of teller windows. Washington Mutual has dubbed this branch design, "Occasio" (a generic Latin word meaning, "favorable opportunity," and which has probably been trademarked). The San Francisco Chronicle reports that it may be the first time the USPTO has awarded a patent for the design of a retail store/presence."
I was hoping to one day contract an architect to design a house that perfectly suited my family's needs. It would suck to have to get a patent attorney to check for prior art on my "invention".
with an ATM machine.
KFG
This is a complete perversion of the concept of Intellectual Property. The US Consitution allows things like patents and other IP "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Recent patents granted by USPTO are just absurd, and do not fulfill the original intent of the Consitutional basis for IP in the US.
The box said, "Requires Windows XP or Better"...
So I installed Linux.
England had Monty Python America has the USPTO
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
if you can patant this why can't you patent a desk layout. I'll patent the peticular setup where you have the mouse on the right of the keyboard and a monitor in the front and call it "productive arrangement A" followed by variations for multiple monitors and case locations. Then following on lessions from various software companies I won't really SELL the use of the patent..I'll lease it for a nominal monthy fee. And then if you ever take a picture of your desk I can sue you for trade secrets :D
...somebody suggested that the USPTO be closed because everything that can be invented has been invented. It should be closed today because it's willing to grant patents on the wheel.
No, patents are about excluding competition. While maybe it is a new thing for banks to offer such levels of service, should ANY bank have the government-enforced right to arbitrarily stop other banks doing so? That's just stupid, and you, the consumer, lose.
Why is it nonsense? It is a unique take on a banking environment and is very different from anything else out there. At first glance, it does seem silly, but upon closer examination, it appears apt.
A blog like any other.
Washington Mutual is my bank, and I've been to one of these (in Foster City, CA). It's pretty cool. You still have to deal with tellers (at least at the one I was at) but more stuff is automated and the atmosphere is definitely better than a normal bank.
I'm a fan of things like self-service checkout at the grocery store. I figure I can usually do what I need to do faster if I do it myself. For banks, this would be great if it means that they would be open later, or on Sundays. This bankers-hours crap is annoying.
I mean, c'mon, the USPTO makes the majority of its money these days on providing and renewing patents. It makes nothing on investigating or refusing them.
So really, the fact that they'll patent anything under the sun should come as no real shock to anybody.
You want to fix the USPTO? Fix how they get funded.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
At Borders or Barnes & Nobles, I have books to go browse while I drink coffee.
Is Washington Mutual's service so damn slow and so damn bad that I need to put my kids in a playpen and sit around drinking coffee??
I'm thinking yes.
If a bank branch can be patented, maybe MacDonald's can patent fast food chain stores. If you ask me, this whole patent thing is really stupid.
Oops. Time to go slice my wrists :-(
Lets look at it another way. If you ask "Is this tolerable?" then there is always an argument that it is, and the system will just continue to get worse, but we will get accustumed to it, and each successive change won't look that bad.
We should instead be asking "Is this necisarry or benificial to society?". That is the whole purpose of patents - to provide individual incentive so that technology progesses quicker than it would otherwise. So ask yourself - did this invention require a large investment to discover that can only be recouped by granting a monopoly on it's use? No. I'm sure discovering the invention itself did not require any substantial investment. Implementing it will but those are normal business costs and don't need to be protected as everyone who implements this idea will have to pay them, not just the inventor.
Do the benifits of having the plans to this invention out in the open, as opposed to it being kept as a trade secret, overweight the detriment of having to wait 20 years to use those plans? No - this is a concept whose details are obvious once implemented and thus there is no chance for the inventor to hoard this idea as trade secret. In other words, the plan will be in the open regardless of whether it is patented or not, so it does not benifit society to wait 20 years for what it could have now.
Would the inventor still have invented this as quickly if patent system did not exist? Yes, and not only that but I am sure the bank would also have implemented the idea even if they couldn't patent it. This patent does nothing to benifit society so there is no reason that a sensible patent system should allow it.
The environment became patentable when the US government was sold to the corporations through campaign contributions.
You and your vote don't matter to them anymore unless you've got the finances and clout to smack them with a serious lawsuit. Thanks to electronic voting which has no reliable paper trail, the embarassment of the Florida election recounts will be a thing of the past. Now they can just change the history records to ensure the talking head of choice has the presidency.
Looks like William Gibson was right about more than he should have been.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Ever since congress and the courts allowed the patenting of "business processes", things have been getting nuttier and nuttier. Business will be nothing but battling lawyers.
Table-ized A.I.
> And kiosks for getting money in a bank does seem novel to me.
They even have a novel name for them..."ATM".
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
I know I must be hitting a few nerves when someone has to resort to implying I'm crazy rather than defend a situation. Oddly enough, my post history would seem to be that of a rational person.
I supppose I could have recently gone insane and not noticed.
I think it's more likely you're just willfully blind to the fact that America stopped being a real democracy quite some time ago. The vote is a sham to keep select people in a visible position of power, while the corp financing pretty much dictates what actually happens.
Got a stubborn senator or congressman? Just threaten to shut down that particular plant or office in their voting district, and you have approval. Presuming, of course, they didn't respond to offers of campaign contributions if they'd support a particular pet bill.
Or are you actually naive enough to think politicians are honest, or that they care about anything beyond the next election and their personal payback after they "retire" from office?
If they can help the people without risking a vote or financing, sure, it's good publicity. But when it comes down to their career or what's good for the citizens and the country, you don't matter. You are only one vote, and it's all about keeping the majority, not your particular vote.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I know I must be hitting a few nerves when someone has to resort to implying I'm crazy rather than defend a situation.
Prone to illusion of persecution, specifically.
I think it's more likely you're just willfully blind to the fact that America stopped being a real democracy quite some time ago
America never was a 'real democracy', it founded as a 'republic' or 'representative democracy'. In contrast with (what I take you to mean by) a 'real democracy', we choose representatives to act in 'our' interests. However the constituency (county, congressional district, state, etc.) being represented usually have a variety of conflicting interests. When a rep steps up to the plate on any given issue, it's going to make some people all warm and fuzzy inside and it's going to piss some people off.
Now if you're a rep trying to decide what slant to take on an issue, are you more likely to listen to some ranting dork in bubble wrap, or someone who's willing to form a Political Action Committee and put their money where their mouth is?
You are only one vote, and it's all about keeping the majority, not your particular vote.
Yeah, that's pretty much the notion of democracy. The majority wins, with certain checks to built into the system to protect the minority, such as the bicameral legislature and Electoral College. Whether those checks are insufficient or give too much power to a minority of people is another debate altogether.
The vote is a sham to keep select people in a visible position of power, while the corp financing pretty much dictates what actually happens.
Corporate interests do indeed have a lot of influence and, amazingly enough, they represent a lot of people! However, there are a lot of groups that similarly have a lot of power without being aligned with corporate America or having an enormous warchest of money (the ACLU is one example, although I believe they are more focused on working with the judicial than legislative branches of government).
Bottom line, just because the majority is against you doesn't necessarily mean that they are controlled by some dark master. It could mean, however, they are actually committed to their views and are willing to spend resources to gain support for them, rather than just bitching on a chat board.