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."
Here, here, here, and here. Washington Mutual owns all of them.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
I can understand patenting logos, designs, even shoe tread patterns.........but furniture layout?
Ok, I'm going to file for my own patent. I'll call it "Geek Apartment" and it will consist of empty soda cans, dirty laundry, an unmade bed, and between 6 and 14 computers in various states of assembly (all running however).
There's your fair warning, soon you'll all be paying me royalties, or cleaning your apartments.
"Lame" - Galaxar
I'm actually okay with this one. At least this is a patent on something physical, something that can be built.
A retail layout is more like a device to increase sales, than a business method is.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
This kind of nonsense will just accelerate the collapse of our intellectual property system. It won't be pretty, but maybe it will actually work if we need to start from scratch.
Patents convert free markets into control economies (fascism). Software patents are a particularly easy target, but actually all patents are pretty unethical and immoral in my book - why the fuck should anyone have a 20-year government-enforced artificial monopoly on the production of anything?
Furniture designers and architects file copyrights on their designs all the time. Wouldn't a copyright for a particular design be more appropriate. They really didn't invent anything new ... Dentists, doctors, DIY stores and fitness centres have been doing this for ages.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
So, they've copyrighted a way to eliminate tellers, huh?
No big deal. In my experience tellers and branch managers have thier hands tied by corporate policy and the FDIC anyway. There's no REAL level of customer service anymore. It's all just servicing the customer.
What's next?
Patenting farting in the tub for those who can't afford a real hot tub?
Sad, really.
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".
It's become like hearing about every murder in the newspaper. I know they happen, there's not much I can do about it, and hearing about it only upsets me. We all know the patent laws are screwed up here on slashdot, do we really need to hear about every new stupid thing that should never have been issued a patent?
AccountKiller
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.
Actually yes, yes we do.
Albuquerque PC
I;ve got mod points but rahter than mod you as an idiot, I've got to respond.
I am no fan of the USPTO, and think that some of their more recent patents have been ludicrous, but WaMu's patent is not what you are talking about. Did you even read the fucking article? (fuck acronyms)
Borders does not have a concierge (at least none of the one's I've been to). Neither does Waldenbook's, B. Dalton's, etc. Unless the register clerk counts, which they don't.
Yes, Borders has a coffee shop, but WaMu doesn't. Serving coffee and having a coffee shop where one can get a danish & coffee while reading a book, and serving coffee to someone while they wait to speak to someone else about opening up a loan isn't being copy-catting. It's called customer-service.
That, my friend, is what this patent is about. The woman who came up with this idea recognized that what really sets banks apart from one another is the level of service they provide. All banks have CD's, all banks have Money Market Accounts, but I sure as hell won't get offered coffee if I walk into a Wachovia. I might, if I walk into WaMu.
Personally, I don't like the new design. It reminds me of Starbucks -- not because of the coffee -- but because of the "chic'ness" and trendiness of the place. Plus, Starbucks reminds me of paying too damn much for a shitty cup of coffee.
Maybe that's why I bank with a credit union. I prefer to use the extra money I save each month off bank fees and increased interest in my savings accounts to brew my own damn coffee.
Can I expect to get sued by Amazon the next time I remodel to use "One-Turn(tm) Opening" doors?
How long until someone literally patents the kitchen sink?
Whatever it is I'm complaining about, I'm sure the Republicans did it. This is
Or has someone done it already, and I will have to pay a fee if I place a red candle in the northernmost corner of the living room?
why hasn't apple done this with their stores?
I bet they will, now. Washington Mutual is just the trend-setter here. They are pretty proud of the work they've done on this; it is a new thing for banks.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
England had Monty Python America has the USPTO
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I don't understand how the USPTO can give out this patent. The design of a store is typically protected by trade dress. The Supreme Court has explicity stated that you're not supposed to be able patent protection if something is normally covered by trademark law. Whomever approved this needs to be canned.
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
In the UK, the Nationwide(also a mutual) already has coffee and snacks, things to keep kids occupied and anything more complicated than a simple money transfer is carried out with a customer services adviser in a relaxed setting(usually at a table)
When do we get to hear about a patent awarded for " a method of refreshing spent oxygen in the blood stream of mammals".
---- Booth was a patriot ----
3 pieces of prior art spring to mind:
ATMs in convenience stores are quite common, at least here in NZ. (I assume "kiosk" means an ATM maybe with more functionality). Same combo of coffee/food/banking, just different owner.
Internet banking in coffee shops.
My friend's bank in Cambridge UK is combined with coffee shop, has a play area, and has ATMs inside. Also has human tellers.
Maybe the popcorn bit is novel?
Because theoretically they spent money/time/energy/[some consumable resource] developing it, and are due a reward. Granted, if it's easy to clone, then perhaps it shouldn't be granted patent anyway (since it would seem obvious). However, let's imagine a sample case:
Let's assume that after 10 years toiling away in your garage, you find out that sodium mixed with water is a good way to cure athlete's foot (hint: it's not). But somehow, you have made it so. Now, the actual process to make this miracle cure is rather easy, and thus easily cloneable. But, you spent 10 years of your life, several thousands of dollars buying pure sodium (And probably other false starts), etc.. Not to mention the personal danger you put yourself in by sticking pure sodium on your foot like an idiot. but in the end, you have managed to succeed, and you have your product.
Now, there are two possibilities.
No patents: You announce your product. Some other BigNameCompany decides "Hey, we're bigger than him. We can get our sodium cheaper", and makes a competing product that sells for 50 cents less than yours. You promptly go out of business, in addition to having lost all that money spent DEVELOPING the product.
With patents: You announce your product. You have x number of years to recoup your losses before you get competition using the same process. Now, if some other company develops a process that achieves the same end result, but doesn't use what you patented, they're free to do so.
Patents have to be non-obvious. Sticking sodium on your foot isn't that obvious to me. So I'd grant you one for this.
Clicking your mouse on a button to buy something is rather obvious (to me at least), and probably didn't take much research to come up with. Doesn't matter how many clicks it takes, it's still clicking, and everyone's been doing that. It doesn't take much brain power to say "Hey, people will buy easier if we make it so they only have to click once instead of 5 times!"
But yes, that's why patents exist: so that people have a reason to invent something. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of return on investment in to creating something, the only inventions made would be ones that help your company, or done by people who have the good of humanity at heart. Not many of these people are willing to spend millions of dollars to develop something for the good of humanity though, if they aren't reasonably assured that there'll be a return on that investment.
Let us know how your new USPTO acquaintances justify themselves.
...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 the fuck should anyone have a 20-year government-enforced artificial monopoly on the production of anything?
Well obviously this is intended to encourage research by offering a reward for new ideas, and to give an incentive to companies to release trade secerts. The problem is that patents are awarded for rediculous things (like the layout of a bank). There is no benefit to humanity if 20 years everyone has access to the wonders of washington mutual bank layout. The laws need to be changed to redefine what can and should be patented.
Alternatively, the length of patent protection could be scaled to the relative worth of the patent. Give Washington Mutual half a year for their "wonderful" idea, but if for instance someone comes up with a design for an effective fusion reactor they can have 20-30 years of protection.
The alternative is that monopolies can be formed in areas where no one can replicate the technology (certainly not the bank layout industry, this is just stupid).
I go into the bank occasionally to get rolls of quarters for doing laundry. Why we can't have ATMs that dispense the customer's selection of coins and bills I don't know. In the late 1970s I recall using ATMs in Japan that let you select the combination of bills that you wanted.
"Apple".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
if the people at the USPTO will ever figure out that half the applications are from a "thundering herd of dumbass", who never invented anything. They just want to steal, like liability lawyers.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I originally read "caned", and thought, "YES!"
(OK, it was funny to *me*...)
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
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.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
were talking about the USPTO prior art doesn't seem to matter
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
I'm filing a patent for my revolutionary "TV in the Bedroom" concept!
Ah, Offtopic.
I really should have elaborated. Although this doesn't seem like something that should be patented, it's not like this is some great idea. They probably would have been fine without a patent because the idea is ridiculous.
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100101
only 1 of the 3 washington mutuals in my area still have the traditional teller layout. the new design feels akward to me. when it is busy there are no defined lines to wait in. plus i've already left the bank with my money still in the tray that automatically dispenses it because it was low and out of sight.
I hold a patent on sigs...
IIRC, Abbey National (now Abbey) did this in the UK for a time.
There's plenty of proof of this in just these friggin Google summaries.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I hear someone actually patented Blue Jeans!
It is not about customer service. It is about keeping people occupied so they don't notice that there is only one fucking teller serving a queue of twenty people.
It's about increasing the profit margin by getting rid of people, who are expensive, and replacing them with things, which are cheap.
Anyway, it's actually about a fucking stupid patent office.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
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
Yes, that's something worth having. And perhaps worth patenting.
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100101
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
I'm sorry, but you don't understand what patents are for.
From the USPTO Website:
One could adequately assume that the Patent Examiner saw the method by which WaMu designed their retail branch facilitated the process of the retail customer depositing money or opening a new account more efficiently, and with greater customer-service.
By your same argument, the washing machine should never have been patented, because it cut costs and helped put an end to the household servant industry because now there was a machine that did the work of a person.
Or what about all the cotton-field workers who lost their jobs upon the creation of the Cotton Gin? (the first machine ever patented). Eli Whitney if I recall.
What about all the related people in the horse-carriage business who lost their jobs upon the creation and patenting of the combustion engine and automobile?
Let's face it, who actually goes into a bank branch anymore except to open up a new account? I've got a branch office for my CU in my office building, and the only time I ever go down there (other than to simply say hello) is if there's a problem with my account (which I could just as easily do over the web or phone - but since they're 500 feet away, why not go downstairs?)
You've set up a false dichotomy. There are many other ways for inventors to get a reasonable return on investment other than a 20-year monopoly grant that stops anyone else building on their innovation.
Here's one example: how about just giving decent tax breaks for inventors? Of course, businesses _already_ get huge tax breaks just by sorta existing, as far as I can tell, and also only pay the bulk of tax on revenue rather than income, but even so, more tax breaks would work IMHO. If one of the major justifications for patents is to "encourage disclosure of the workings of inventions" (and it is), then just give the tax break anyone registers the designs for their new product (and only give the tax break while the product is on the market...). This would give the advantages of patents (disclosure encouragement, incentives), without the restrictions on everybody else's freedom the current patent system brings!
And I haven't even mentioned the "myth of the lone inventor": Most patents are actually held by huge corporations, who then simply cross-license them with other large corporations to build cosy oligopolies and bar new entrants from the market (that is to say, prevent commoditisation). Patents are really about market control.
It's not patentable. The USPTO fucked up. Layers will make money from this. Film at 11:00. So what else is new?
Last I checked, the USPTO didn't have jurisdiction over Canadian patents.
I'm happy with the Washington Mutual branch here. I've never once seen "one fucking teller serving a queue of twenty people." there. There are usually two or three tellers serving a line of maybe 3 people max. The service there is actually very good. It's a very different atmosphere from most banks, which I like. And the Gameboy Advance and toys they have aren't just for kids, either, but the little chairs suck (ouch, my back).
As far as patenting it goes, I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I must admit the concept is very new and novel for banks. It's not just the arrangement of furniture, it's the whole deal.
This is ri God Damned diculous
What is your specific problem with this patent? Or are you just pissed off and venting "to the choir"?
Of all the patent stories on slashdot recently, this is probably one of the ones you should get least "pissed" about.
Screw it I'm going to get a patent for my messy room and anybody who has a messy room will have to pay me.
Ahh, see. You are being stupid. Is your messy room novell and/or a non-trivial improvement over a previous design? Is it non-obvious to people with industry knowledge?
Of course, the answers are no. Therefore, you would be rejected for a patent.
Ask yourself the same about the bank concept. Have you been to or heard of a bank that is designed as such? Do you think other people in the banking industry thought of this before? If you walked into this bank for the first time, would be apt to say "huh, this is an interesting idea"? Is this a non-trivial change from exisiting bank designs and layouts? Is this significantly different from how the banking industry has been operating for 300 years? Is this a different concept in the banking industry?
What I can't take anymore is people blowing off steam and sounding all dramatic and revolutionary even without considering the merits of the case.
My bank has been just like this for a long time
Bad USPTO! Bad boy!
BTW, what are you talking about as far as replacing people with things? They still have people working there. The arrangment of the lobby has nothing to do with employees. Have you ever been to a WaMu? I'm guessing not, given your use of the word "queue" to mean a line of people and the fact that they only exist (as far as I know) in the US.
The same thing in different industries or applications are often patentable, for very good reason.
For example, what is a dishwaser? Its and automated thing that throws water and soap at dirty things and then blows heat on it and then it's done.
Is that the same thing as an automated car wash that you can drive your car through? It throws water and soap and hot air at your car.
Same thing. Different application.
There are greeters, tellers dressed in colorful shirts who escort customers to the kiosks, a separate cash machine, plush olive and maroon- colored chairs and sofas, and funky blueberry-colored lights hanging from the ceiling.
NSF fees have increased to $500 coming and going, and customers will be required to provide five forms of picture ID to make a deposit. Interest on our SUPER-SOCCER-SUV-VALUE-PLUS-CD accounts is now a whopping ONE PERCENT (subject to Federal, State, Local and street-by-street taxes), and you get a free book of generic-bear-on-pastel checks!
Free checking is now only $20 a week, but you get two free deposits!*
*average balance of $15,000 required
Don't forget to ask about our interest-only mortgage where we own your house until your payments quadruple! Don't forget to finance a RIDING LAWN MOWER, DUMBASS!!! MAYBE IT CAN TOW A CAMPER!!!!
"Some people walk in, and they walk out. That's why we have a concierge there."
NO!! PLEASE DON'T LEAVE!!!
Sounds like a great idea. Confuse the customers, then PATENT IT.
The strategy behind the Occasio decor is not only to make banking fun, but also to make it more efficient.
Yeah? How about hiring more than three tellers so we don't have to order out for lunch AND dinner waiting to cash a check?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
The USPTO is one of the accredited reviewing offices with WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation), so the bank can now apply for a patent in Canada and it's granting is expedited.
There's plenty of "prior art".
The concierge is the same as WalMart's greeter (they even give the same description in their patent application - someone who greets the person when they walk in).
Lots of businesses have play areas for kids while their parents are busy. IKEA, for example, with their ball room.
And if you have enough $$$ in the bank, or you're applying for a big enough loan, they WILL serve you coffee when you come calling. And LOTS of companies give free coffee to people who come in to do business.
Another fuckup, pure and simple. These bogus patents debase the value of all patents, same as counterfeit money debases the value of all currency.
The Latin word "occasio" also means 'pretext.'
What you say is true, if properly applied, for widgets or perhaps even drug trials where the profits are realisable in a business time frame.
It is not true for ideas and inventions where the profits may or may not exist and are way off in the future - i.e. those based upon scientific research or artistic endeavors. That is why we have a different model to drive basic research. Believe me, if politicians didn't believe that funding NIH was the only way to cure cancer and prolong their own lives they would not funnel billions into something that gives no campaign contributions.
The problems arise when the two models collide, as they do when we talk about intellectual property. Unfortunately what is good for encouraging better widgets can stifle creativity in science and art and that is not good for profits or humanity...
However, if I took a washing machine and, without any mechanical changes whatsoever, tried to patent it as a money-laundering machine, I would not have a valid patent :-)
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.
You just gave three examples of complex mechanical inventions. None of them trivial. You are comparing it to an arrangement of items. Nothing new. In fact, this arrangement doesn't even really do anything.
Proof by analogy is usually flowed. Yours is flawed moreso.
Oops. Time to go slice my wrists :-(
With all her newfound experience with the legal system, when she gets out of the joint she'll be in a perfect position to patent everything she did in her magazine. If you can make $500 million patenting browser plug-ins just think how much you could make patenting do-it-yourself window treatments and floral arrangements.
I under stand that the USPTO is getting a little out of hand, but this pattent seems specific enough as to not be much of a threat to other businesses. I mean, just lay your teller kiosks out in a diamond pattern and you have a differnt design. This being said, I still don't think that the design concept of a building should be copyrighted.
--- and from the sfgate article: --- In describing concierge stations, the patent says, "The concierge makes eye contact and greets each new customer. The inventors believe that such a personal greeting with each person entering the bank may deter theft." oh yeah, well it would go like this: potential robber thinks - "i'm going to rob this bank" potential robber walks in and is greeted with eye to eye contact and a personal greeting potential robber thinks - "awww shucks, they're nice, i can't rob this bank" it just sounds ludicrous i can see the principle in action for walmart, the gap etc.... places that use this to good proven effect, but for a bank?
"Last I checked, the USPTO didn't have jurisdiction over Canadian patents"
You're right, but, in general, prior art anywhere in the world (subject to some limitations) can prevent the grant of a patent in the U.S., event hough U.S. doesn't have "jurisdiction" over patents and art elsewhere.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"You can't patent a concept - only its implementation. I don't think I can wash a car in a dishwasher. Different implementations. :-)"
However, if I took a washing machine and, without any mechanical changes whatsoever, tried to patent it as a money-laundering machine, I would not have a valid patent
That's not necessarily true. You CAN patent the new implemenation, if it is not anticipated or described in the original patent.
However, the original patent holder could very likely prevent you from practicing your new patent, so it may not do you any good...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
It just so happens that one of my web hosting customers has a very similar layout, and has had it since before August, 2000 when they registered their domain name through me.
They are a bank, and use electronic tellers (basically an electronic drive thru kiosk) for their tellers, cookies, coffee, lounge areas and toys.
The financial advisors are still at normal desks.
Having the money behind a pheumatic tube does not hurt the throughput any, and is a HUGE cost savings on insurance because there is NO MONEY a wood-be robber can grab. It's all in a locked room. Unless they have trained attack ferrets to go through the tubes... a guy with a gun is only going to get what's in the people's wallets.
The company that was pushing the kiosks came up with the ideas for the layout.
This bank is definately not the first one doing it, nor were they the first customers of the kiosk company.
So there is definately prior art...
Aside from that, the patent is stupid. Someone might make a case for an overall decor style (similar to the Aqua Mac thing, or the iMac format) but the physical placement of furniture and features of the lobby is not something that is inovative and it wasn't new when the patent was filed.
... they don't want you stealing the pens.
If you read the actual patent, the claims -- especially the one independent claim -- are so poorly written that you would probably need to sit down with a lawyer to figure out how to infringe this patent. The scope of the independent claim is so narrow, it would be hard NOT to design around it, if you wanted to open your own Wa-My like surroundings in your own home.
The only purpose of this patent, as far as I can see, is to show off to the investment community that "hey, we're developing IP assets, our stock should be worth more." This patent is so narrow as to be almost uninfringeable, and was probably written that way specifically because there is so much prior art out there.
While the "one-click" patent, and a lot of biotech patents, may very well be a sign that the USPTO is going crazy, this patent certainly isn't. It's worthless, so why not grant it -- the fees they pay can be used to examine some really good patents...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Maybe that's why I bank with a credit union. I prefer to use the extra money I save each month off bank fees and increased interest in my savings accounts to brew my own damn coffee.
I did some research on banks and credit unions where I live (New York metro) and concluded that Washington Mutual and Greenpoint Bank offered the best value to a regular guy like myself. Almost every bank, except for the biggest few, beat my employer's credit union hands down. Washington Mutual and Greenpoint have some very nice interest-bearing checking accounts. My local credit union doesn't pay any interest on checking, lousy rates on savings, and though their fees are low, this is offset by the annual membership fee. This trend is only going to get worse, with more and more credit unions being consolidated and merged.
Unless you're lucky enough to have a well managed, profitable credit union, your best bet is to choose a small or medium bank. Forget the big players, some of which are already close to their maximal size (controlling close to 10% of all deposits with FDIC-insured banks), since they tend to charge high fees to ordinary customers.
Marklar: marklar
So, if I took a car wash, and used it to wash, say, trailers, without any mechanical differences in the device that was patented, I haven't created a new implementation. I've used the existing implementation of the patented device for a new purpose.
The problem is one of language. The patent office uses the concept of "implementation" differently from its everyday use. Mind you, nowadays they're using the concept of a "patentable device" strangely too.
This patent was granted as "a financial transaction processing system". I guess I should similarly patent Saturday Night Specials and muggings as "financial transaction processing systems" and get some of the guys from the wrong side of town to help enforce my patent.
I'm talking about the trend of making banks into "relaxation centres". I'm in the UK. I have never been to Washington Mutual. But several years ago we started seeing traditional banks mutate from business-like environments into "pleasant spaces".
In Scotland, the Bank of Scotland was the first to go this way, getting rid of of tellers behind a counter and replacing them with tables where you could "sit down and relax".
At the same time, there are fewer and fewer staff in the banks. Queues get longer, but you're not supposed to mind because it's a "nicer environment".
It's a bank. I want to go in, conduct my financial business quickly and efficiently and get out. If that was what the banks were working towards then I could say they are for customer service. But they're not. They just want to distract you from the annoyance of waiting to be served.
Of course, some of the less high-brow banks just got rid of the staff without making the atmospheric adjustments. I've seen queues out the door when it's been at it's worst. (Clydesdale Bank, can you hear me?)
If it hasn't gone this way yet in the states, then I'm surprised.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Ok, the fact that thier video requires Real Player to view speaks volumes to my geekness. Anyone worth their salt wouldn't instal that piece of spyware to save their favourite auntie! Sorry but that doesn't instal a lot of faith in me. At least use quick time as ir's "Apple" (I am a Mac user BTW) and very trendy at present. At the very least that goes along with the Starbucks look they managed to patent for banking. I think I'll stick with my credit union thank you very much. I really can't remember the last time I had to go into a bank anyway.
As one of the droids that installs the servers (OS/2, yay!) and teller tower workstations (XP, locked down within an inch of its life) just let me opine that the primary advantage of the new WaMu Occasio branch design is that the money is just about nowhere to be found. You hand over your cash to the teller and it disappears into a slot just like a Reno blackjack dealer. You won't be changing your mind after that. To get your withdrawl money after your transaction with the teller, you amble over to a large vault on the floor, swipe your card, enter your pin and then the cash spits out into your hands. The tellers never have any money!
We had some clown try to stick up one of the branches here in Seattle and after he finally figured out that there just wasn't any money around to take, all he ever got was some heavy attention from the local constabulary who nabbed him down the road after he tried to hit up some other bank.
I'm guessing that the "unrobbability" is the pantentable part of all this, but I could be wrong. What do I know -- I don't explain'em, I just install'em. And from a geeks point of view, they are clean designs. And having a safe place to stash the rugrat for ten minutes ain't bad either, lemme tellya!
There used to be a tax break for being a real mutual loan association, but that disappeared under Reagan, and most of the mutuals "privatized", screwing the depositors out of their equity ownership.
beat the rush.
Gues what mcDonalds will want to do, the patent the design.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here is a patent for you...
Patent Kiosks that allow the patrons to interact (via webcam) with an OUTSOURCED bank teller that is actually located somewhere in Bangalore.
That way even more jobs that require local interaction can be outsourced. And it's good for the economy.
Obviously... the "2. ???" should be replaced thusly...
1. (whatever)
2. Win stupid, confusing patent
3. PROFIT!!!
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
It's more than just protecting the inventor from others. The main purpose of the patent is to give inventors the incentive to invent AND share their inventions so that others can build upon them -- it's the making of things public so that others don't have to constantly "reinvent the wheel" that promotes "science and the useful arts."
You can always invent something and keep it secret -- no patent required, and it'll remain "yours" until someone steals your secrets. A patent makes a deal with the inventor -- you get to decide who gets to practice your invention for 20 years (actually, 20 years from the date the patent was filed, not issued, subject to even more restrictions that can effectively shorten the period), but you have to tell the public enough about your invention so that they could make it themselves, and then improve upon it. That's the bargain the Government is making -- you let the public know, and we've got your back. For a while, at least.
For an example, look at Coke. Coke's got this secret recipe that they've had for, what, 100 years or so? Nobody else can make Coke because they don't know how -- which means Coke has a monopoly, and, in principle at least, the price for a can of Coke is higher than it would be if there was competition (I know Pepsi is competition, but bear with me here). Had Coke patented their secret formula, they would have had it exclusively for 20 years (actually 17 years from issue date, back in those days), but then the public would have known the secret recipe, and once the patent expired, their would be competition and maybe even someone would have developed an "advanced" Coke based on the formula.
But, Coke forgo the patent, and kept it secret. So, that means no competition, and nobody has been able to use the secret recipe to develop an advanced Coke. On the other hand, trade secrets can only be protected if they are, in fact, secret. If the secret recipe somehow gets out, Coke would not be able to keep others from making it.
So, while protecting the "sweat of the brow" of the inventor is certainly a positive aspect of patents, the trade of government protection for public disclosure is how patent "advance the useful arts."
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"So, if I took a car wash, and used it to wash, say, trailers, without any mechanical differences in the device that was patented, I haven't created a new implementation. I've used the existing implementation of the patented device for a new purpose."
But that's because the implementation for washing trailers would ikely to be found to be an obvious "improvement," not because different implementations can't be patented.
If you had, say, a patent for a plastic box, if I found that your plastic box could be used to, say, catalyze a chemical reaction, I could patent the method of using a plastic box for catalyzing a reaction. If my patent were otherwise "patentable subject matter" and not anticipated by your patent, the fact that I am using your patented box without any modifications doesn't mean that I am unable to obtain a patent.
It does mean that I could possibly get sued for infringement by you if I actually tried to use your box to catalyze a reaction, but it would prevent me from getting a patent.
I think the disconnect comes in the previous example because a washing machine to car wash may not be far-fetched enough to avoid "anticipation."
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Actually it brings in money in every minute sub-step of the process. You'll have difficulty finding the specifics on the USPTO site (sorry, I didn't bookmark when I was perusing it a while back), but getting a patent or a trademark isn't just a matter of filling out one form and paying one fee - there are literally hundreds of different forms involved and a separate filing or processing fee for each.
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've had accounts with them for 10 years. I actually found the service to be pretty good.
That being said, this is one of the dumbest things I have heard of in regards to patents. Bad idea.
The bank, on the other hand, was granted a patent for a "system to handle financial transactions". They included in the application the concept of having a greeter "to help discourage theft". I guess too many people were stealng those cheap pens, even though they're chained down.
They admit they stole most of the ideas for the layout elsewhere (other retail establishments). They even name some of them. And they're quoted as admitting they're in the same business in the article - serving retail customers. No inovaton there.
Even the patent attorney quoted in the article takes it (the patent) as a joke. It's just not a very funny one, which just goes to show lawyers have no sense of humour.
It's like this joke:
Washington Mutual did not develop this in order to sell it to others, like an invented consumer device, or a manufacturing plan or process, but to differentiate themselves from other banks. The patent will be used against any other bank (and who know what else) that comes up with a more family friendly / self-serve design, either to get windfall funds or to shut down the competition.
The whole point of rethinking the ambiance surrounding the selling of hamburgers and fries, deposits and withdrawals, sneakers and athletic wear, car washes, or the environment of any interior where someone goes to purchase services or goods, is that the return on investment is an increase in traffic, customers and sales.
On the selfish -- how dare I not get on board the whole government-abetted maximal economic exploitation for every idea juggernaut -- side, I work for interior designers. God help the industry if furniture manufacturers patent some conceputalizaton of the hospital waiting area (so only one person can sell a certain arrangement of ganged chairs and side tables.) In any regards I do not relish that we may need patent attorneys to sign off on our drawings.
On Monday I guess I need to memo my co-workers and urge them to welcome our new patent-wielding interiors overlords.
..all he ever got was some heavy attention from the local constabulary..
Say- when did they move Seattle to Blighty?!!
At least you can bill 'em $400/hr for happiness production. Add an extra 1 hr for slitting your wrists.
"Using my plastic box to catalyse a reaction, because it is not an obvious or otherwise anticipated use, could be a non-infringing patentable process. I wouldn't be able to stop you even if I tried, because, as long as you're purchasing my boxes, you haven't infringed by making them yourself. Now, if you decided to make those same boxes yourself, you'd get nailed."
Good point about the first sale doctrine. But if we change the hypo just a bit -- say that you have the patent on the box, but refuse to make them yourself or license them, so it is a purely defensive patent -- then you would have a situation where I would get a patent that I couldn't pratice. I guess that's the point I was trying to get at.
"Even the patent attorney quoted in the article takes it (the patent) as a joke."
I noted i another post somewhere else on this topic that, in my opinion at least, the only reason for this patent at all is just to say "look mom, we're building our IP portfolio." I guess someone thought this was patentable subject matter, and not barred by prior art -- but if you look at the claim language, the patentability "window" must have been extremely narrow, as the claims are so narrow as to be virtually uninfringeable (is that a word).
"It's just not a very funny one, which just goes to show lawyers have no sense of humour."
Some lawyers have a sense of humor. It's just tough to be in a profession where a few hundred thousand bad apples ruin it for the rest of 'em.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
This occurred fairly close to Yankee Candle's headquarters, at a mall in Enfield, Connecticut (about an hour away). If I recall correctly, the smaller store changed its layout rather than fight it out in court, and I think it eventually went out of business, but I don't live there anymore so am not certain.
I'm guessing that the "unrobbability" is the pantentable part of all this, but I could be wrong
As you noted earlier, the Vegas style cash cage is prior art on that score...
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
This is slashdot, where grammar rules don't (rule, that is), and ain't is too (a word).
Seriously, when even patent attorneys go on record (as they did in the article) as seeing this as nothing more than a joke, it says a LOT about how useless the USPTO has become.
There are laws against frivolous lawsuits. What's needed now are laws against frivolous patents.
Funny... my main accounts are with Bank of America, and they, right at the front door, have a greeter to show you where to go. At the little island counter where you fill out deposit slips is a fresh pot of coffee. And between the tellers and the desk folk, there is a waiting area and a children's play center. Prior art?
Not really, just a stupid patent issue.
My deepest hope is this is the proverbial straw, and an overhaul of the USPTO becomes necessary.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Washington Mutual even has toys (Ken and Barnie style dolls) with action gear... I think they call them "action tellers".
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.
A friend of mine used to bank at Washington Mutual for a long time. One day, he strolled into the bank and saw, to his horror, that instead of a traditional bank with teller windows and whatnot, there were these retarded kiosks scattered all over the place and rotated every which way.
The outcome of this "innovative" business practice? He immediately closed his accounts and took his money to Wells Fargo, where a bank still looks like a bank.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people had similar responses to this change. This is mostly for psychological reasons: When you go to Disney Land, you want the experience to be exciting. On the other hand, when you go to the bank, where you store your financial assets that you work hard to earn, you want the place to be as unexciting as it can be. Excitement means the bank is unstable and is going to lose your money, leaving you in the streets. Lack of excitement shows stability, maturity, confidence, and security. I believe this is what most people want when they choose a bank. Not a bunch of weird kiosks turned every which way.
A play area for children isn't a bad idea, because kids always get restless and start running around, causing all kinds of noise and whatnot.
Oh yeah, and one more rant on Washington Mutual. My mother had a bank account there. One day, she deposited a bunch of checks. The bank took the money, but did not increase her accounts. No matter how much proof she produced, they refused to credit her account, claiming that what she produced was not good enough proof. In effect, the bank had stolen her money: About 300 dollars of it. She closed her accounts there and went to a different bank. Ever since that event, and more so after my friend told me about the kiosks, I have been staying as far away from Washington Mutual as I can.
I'll kick in a "me too" on that one as well. They're definitely one of the friendliest and most inviting bank environments I've been in lately. Combined with their free checking accounts, I've moved accounts from other "normal-style" banks there over the past year.
And no, the service isn't slow. Quite quick, actually. At most banks, they have the classic "teller window" and maybe one or two slow tellers serving a whole like of people. At WaMu, they adjust the available tellers to meet demand, and the line is never very long.
As far as play areas, that actually does make sense. You see, banks do have services that require waiting a bit, and then interacting with a desk-person for a while (opening accounts, setting up financial services, loan processing, etc.), and that idea lets them bring the kids along.
Just yesterday there was a WSJ (printed version) article describing a trend where high-end tax dodge specialist are patenting particular and specific tax strategies taylored for wealthy clients!
What is good about this is that we are now entering into the ludacris stage of the current fashion of patenting everything that walks - which means reform will be close at hand - or at least I hope.
My wife's ecommerce store has a shopping cart that gives 5% discount if the customer just happens to be using a Mozilla browser. Maybe she should apply for a patent will she still can...
Yes, we do need to hear it, if for no other reason as to have more information to spread to others. There's not going to be any change in the system until enough people get upset about it. The rich and powerful people who could change it easily are too busy profiting off of it, and the common masses are underinformed and too busy worrying about more immediate issues.
Our culture in general is not forwards thinking enough to fix any problems before they become a disaster. As unintuitive as it sounds, often the easiest way to right a wrong is to bring on the crisis as soon as possible.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Many people have argued that patents and copyrights have actually hindered the advancement of technology, social issues, and culture over this past decade since the increase of punishment for violating these rights. A common example is Mickey Mouse; Disney has had him copyrighted and patented up the wazoo, and many artist complain that Disney sues over anything even resembling a mouse. Now if Washington Mutual patents a bank design this could slow the advancement of bank design forever!
Reading this patent, I can't help but wonder if this isn't part of a larger attempt to get the USPTO to patent such absurdity that it ends be being destroyed in the courts and/or by congress pushing through some kind of "reform". Now we see that they aren't just allowing through idiotic software patents, but are willing to diversify into other domains.
I'm starting to think there's reasons this should be allowed (although I'm far from convinced it meets the inobviousless test).
First, the patent in this case is very narrowly defined and specific. It's not going to be much if any use in sueing a competitor except where the competitor deliberately copies a lot of details exactly rather than just borrowing broad ideas, so presumably the bank wanted it for another reason, like it gets added to their IP portfolio and that's reflected in their stock price. That's not good, but it is essentially harmless except just possibly if it misleads ignorant investors.
Second, the design is supposed to improve function in concrete, measurable ways. This principle at least is in keeping with patent law, in that patents are generally about quantifiables.
If you read some of the instructions for running an IHOP franchise, there are all these incredibly minute details, such as painting a particular mark on the floor and training your watresses to stand exactly on that mark when they call out an order to the cook. Supposedly, the cook has a better chance of hearing the order if it comes from exactly the same place every time, and so fewer ordwers get garbled, etc. Normally, manuals like this are protected by copyright. A copyright doesn't stop another company from rewriting part or all of that manual and using it as part of their business model or selling it to franchisees - only a particular expression of ideas is covered by copyright, not the ideas themselves. Copyrighting a process manual doesn't give that much real protection, as it is just the sort of thing that can be expressed in substantially different terms while still remaining essentially the same in application or construction. So I can see why a company would want to use a method that would give some protection against an exact swipe.
Who is John Cabal?
Around 1998 or so (I could be wrong on the exact year), NCR Corp had a very similar concept called The Virtual Branch.
Granted, it did not have pop corn and kid play zone, but it was too close to what this article is saying.
The idea is to have a branch without real people serving customer in it. It would all be ATMs, Kiosks and Video links to a call center.
Of course NCR being an ATM and Kiosk company with strong presence in the financial industry, it made sense to propose such a setup, since it meant more sales of the products they make.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
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.
If we can boycott Amazon for One Click, we can boycott WAMU, too.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
"In another embodiment, the teller towers are arranged in a circle, semicircle, elongated circle, or oval."
What's next, patenting the concept of overhead cover?
"In another embodiment the roof will be formed of woven vegetable matter, or dried grass and mud."
If the process gets any looder why not just patent
the action of firing a neuron and cover all possible premuations of thought, then close the USPTO.
~G
...when it gets down to fundamentals, do what you have to do and shed no tears. Dr. Matson in Tunnel in the Sky
I can have the good of humanity at heart and dump a million dollars in to research and testing and eventually bring the cure to cancer to market. Like other people said, there's two parts of patents: I can now keep this secret, and hope no one else figures out how I did this. In all likelihood, HOW I did it will have to be documented anyway (it has a health risk). I might, however, be able to patent it, and then license it out. This way, I make money, and hopefully recoup my losses.
.. oh well. It's rather obvious to me that putting someone on the door of a place will deter theft, that providing a play area for kids makes it easier for parents to come in, and that providing a locked money box, a computer, and a teller makes it easier to do your banking. This patent is stupid, in my opinion, but not all patents are.
People can break even on inventions and then donate the rest of the money. Or, they can keep some for themselves. Does it matter if people have the good of humanity at heart? no. Humanity will benefit by this invention, if patented, within 20 years. The ability to patent it made it feasible for someone to do this. They thought they'd make the money back, so they did it, patented it, put it on market for the 20 years, and then everyone else makes a generic ripoff. If they didn't patent it, they'd think to themselves "Well, we can do this, but we'll spend 10 million dollars on it. When we're done, anyone can recreate our work for about an hour spent in a lab reverse engineering it, for total cost of 1,000 dollars. We won't ever be able to sell for less than them, and make all our money back, so why bother?"
Corporations exist to make money. Patents help them do so. They also help everyone else, because after that 20 years, everyone has a chance at it.
Note, there's also restrictions like the generic drug laws (so my cure for cancer is a bit out there anyway), and if something like this could save lives, I'm not sure they'd let one company go out of control with it. Resonable cost, maybe, but they'd be regulated up the wazoo anyway.
So, let's go with a non-medical example: the automobile. GM makes a brand new car fuel system that takes in regular air, spits out regular air, but somehow generates power in doing so. Everyone would benefit from this immensely, but the process for doing it is extremely complicated, and they spent a billion dollars on inventing it. They now have the following options:
a) Keep it secret and hope that no one else figures out how to do it. Two outcomes: No one else figures out how to do it (good for GM), or Honda buys a car, gets their smartest people on it, and within 1 year has it reverse engineered, for only $1 mil cost (bad for GM)
b) Keep it secret, and not bring it to market. Well, congrats, that money's wasted.
c) Patent it. No one else can make one for 20 years, so they have time to make their money back. after 20 years, everyone can make this car that doesn't need fuel. Everyone benefits. Some later than others, though.
Patents really do help -- IF APPLIED PROPERLY.
I don't think this one is proper, but
Patents, by themselves, are a good concept. Just often abused.
The local Bank of America banch has a security guard telling you to use the ATMs. If you want another banking service, you have to find another branch.
Amber
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
whorish?
Is this, then, what the USPTO is willing to present itself as? When a corporation (or an individual with lots of money) can simply patent something this ludicrous (as it seems)--a floorplan incorporating many time-tested, market-driven arrangements, something is patently stupid going on in DC.
I guess (ignoring that the USPTO usually rejects patents on lewd, sexual, or indecent devices, or until a few years ago did so) someone will step up and patent "Marathon 69", coupled with:
--sound effects,
--a physical apparatus to alleviate lockjaw,
--a bathing-assistant which keeps the bed or floor as dry as possible
--a defecant remover, disinfector and decomposer/composter/reconstitutor with rapid nutrient turnaround,
---(put something here)
Please add to the list...
David Syes
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Getting a patent for the idea of serving popcorn?
Are the movie theatres going to have to make payments to these people?
C'mon...a patent is supposed to be for inventing something serious and useful. This is not patent material by any stretch.
But since we're in the mood, let me be the first girl to patent the blow job. Yes, I invented it and it is now my intellectual property! So pay up. Credit card payments are billed to:
Christian Missionary Support Services, Inc.
This is no more absurd than putting a play pen in the corner of the store. Now, putting a play pen for senior executives who came up with this idea (or the Patent Office bozos who approved it), that would be a patentable idea.
I hearby patent the patenting of simple things that shouldn't be patentable within a reasonable system of patenting. I will now sue Apple, Microsoft, and Washington Mutual for patenting such things. Next, I will get a job in the US Patent Office and then patent the process of giving patents to patentors of patenting patents that shouldn't be patentable with a decent system of patenting. I will then quit my job and sue the patent office for allowing those patents to get through.
You already have enough ammunition of stupid patents to use to spread to others. More and more being added to your arsenal accomplishes nothing.
AccountKiller
My wife had a Washington Mutual account. We closed it because their customer service was crap and there were service charges for everything that the credit union does for free.
I bet you have to swipe your ATM card and suffer a service charge when you put your kids in the play area, etc.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
We have one of these Washington Mutal branches near us.
Thanks to the USPTO, other bank's customers will be spared this abomination, at least for a couple of decades. This is the dumbest idea for a bank layout I can imagine, except, possibly for card tables on the sidewalk.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
I'll chuck on another "Me Too" here. And I groove on the fact that they don't charge money for a non-WaMu customer using a WaMu ATM. That doesn't help ME any, but it buys them some goodwill from me anyway.
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Back to the subject. Hmmm, yes - how do you generate income/revenue from an invention then?
I'd be interested to see a worked example of how, with an income of zero (as it would be under your 'system'), a "tax break", would be worth anything other than zero.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And every day, I find the answer is "Yes!" Thank you, Slashdot!
You must think in Russian.
Didn't McGrease (I mean McDonalds) essentially do this already with their Playland design? Not sure if they have ordering kiosks though, so maybe it doesn't count.
- Rob Wilco
See enclosed Patent:
A secure location to house computer equiptment consisting of multiple computers in lockable enclousures, optional raised flooring, independant climate control.
Multiple levels of physical security and independnt electrical grid for emergencies. I dub this concept a "data center"
Now send this to USPTO, then sue the USPTO for patent infringment long with the gov, that should get their attention.
Sigs are for the weak
The Rabobank in my parents home town in Zuidhorn (The Netherlands) has had a similar system for at least 15 years. There is this vacuum tube system that transports the money. One for incomming and one for outgoing trafic at every tellers desk. Only the money directly involved in a transaction either deposit or withdrawl is in the main area with the tellers desks.
I believe it's more or less universal here. As a result bank robbery is virtually non existent here, but money transports occasionally get hit.
This might give you an idea www.lendprojectmanagement.nl/ ref6.htm
on how it looks.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
There is so much misinformation about patents being circulated that I suppose it is not very surprising that a reporter quoting "experts" would wrongly assert that the Washington Mutual patent is the first patent for a design of a retail store/presence. However, this wrong assertion is inexcusable in this case, because a pointer to the contrary evidence appears on the front page of the patent itself. In other words, he didn't RTFP. (And I think the term RTFP should be cited often in discussions about patents here.)
The "References" cited on this or any patent are NOT references SUPPORTING the patent (as would be the case for footnote or endnote references for a journal article). They are references cited by the Examiner either to TEAR DOWN the patent or LIMIT ITS COVERAGE. A "patent reference" is a reference that happens to be a patent. Therefore, if one were looking for a previously-issed patent for a retail store/presence, one might surmise that a good place to start might be the list of patent references on the front cover of the Washington Mutual patent.
The very FIRST patent reference cited (at least in order by patent number), U.S. Patent No. 1,242,872, can be downloaded from either the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (http://www.uspto.gov) or from the European Patent Office (http://www.espacenet.com). However, this patent is so old that nobody would have thought to digitize the text when it was issued, so it is available only in image format. It takes special software (in Windows, at least) to view the pages from the USPTO, and not everyone in the States knows about the EPO (which needs only Adobe Acrobat Reader), so my guess is that the reporter never looked at this patent. If he had looked at it, he would have discovered that the USPTO issued a patent for a Self Serving Store to one "C. Saunders" on October 19, 1917 on an application filed on October 21, 1916.
In other words, a patent on a retail/store presence was both filed and issued in the United States during World War I and the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. And that fact would have been apparent had the reporter just bothered to check the patent references cited against the Washington Mutual patent.
Quoting Claim 4 of the 1917-issued patent:
That sounds an awful lot to me like a design of a retail store/presence.
I've been inside one of these. The tellers stand at floating mini-kiosks instead of being inside a secure area. Instead of handing you cash, they hand you a receipt with a code to type into a machine that gives you cash. The tellers all have gigantic smiles and tons of patience and understanding to help the confused customers who expected to walk into a bank. It's actually pretty funny. Turns out we walked in the back door and couldn't see the line on the other side of the mini-kiosks, so we couldn't figure out where to wait without walking around the store a bit.
As with software patents, this is a make-work project for lawyers and a complete waste of time for the rest of society. I'm going to go to a branch, do a little twirl, sit down on one of the strategically placed chairs, eat some brand name popcorn and blow a huge fart. Then I'll patent the fart smell and my new routine.
...or someone who's willing to form a Political Action Committee and put their money where their mouth is? Is that not what I just finished saying? If you don't have the money to buy senators and congressmen through influence, your opinion and your vote do not matter. Corps, groups which pool their finances, and the very rich are the only ones who get listened to by government.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
One more thing - what if I invent a super duper weapon, but I have a change of conscience and become one of those tree-knitting yoghurt- hugger types? Surely I'm within my moral rights as a hippy to withold a license for this evil creation?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."