Slashdot Mirror
The Grinch Who Patented Christmas
theodp writes "The USPTO has reversed its earlier rejection and notified Amazon that the patent application for CEO Jeff Bezos' invention, Coordinating Delivery of a Gift, has been examined and is allowed for issuance as a patent. BTW, Amazon was represented before the USPTO by Perkins Coie, who also supplied Bezos with legal muscle in his personal fight against zoning laws that threatened to curb the size of his Medina mansion (reg.) before the City of Medina eventually gave up on regulating the size of homes (reg.)."
A patent on coordinating the erection of a tree for holiday purposes...
Seriously folks, corporate america ownz the government.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
But if the required information can be found from other sources (as the patent describes) then the gift giver has supplied sufficient information.
So the patent doesn't apply to any possible situation.
were actually about his Santa-killing spiked chimney.
Yet another way for cam girls to get presents without exposing their address.
I've actually patented the opening of gifts. So take that, Bezos!
Things are heating up!
The concept of taking an order and then figuring out the address has been common in business practices for years. It is called get the cash then figure out how to meet the delivery. I ring them to get working on a major order, I then call back to confirm delivery instructions. I do this with hardware, or computer gear, or flowers. Flowers are typically a gift, so that would cover the prior art idea.
Most computer systems have the ability to modify the delivery address after the original input. Wouldn't this be prior art?
You requested access to our archives, which requires registration. Please sign in or register below for unlimited access to our sites and services. Not on Bugmenot (ugh!)
Seller: "Where's it going?"
Undercover patent police: "Melbourne"
Seller: "That's in Australia isn't it?"
UPP: "I'm really not sure..."
Seller: "Okay, I'll just check on the map..."
UPP: "Got you, you evil evil patent infringer."
Username: 67pnmoil
Password: 67pnmoil
Dinomite.net
... so ... what you're trying to say is ... trees can get erections?
It would be cool for a group of developmental psychologists to get together, do a really brilliant job organizing what they already know about the best techniques for raising children and training day care personnel, and then set up a company to patent them all Once their research eventually made it to the front page of nature, people would want to use it, but discover that they could only do it if they made their day care into a franchise. It might help get people's attention, especially if the day care patents are far more legally sound then this garbage, plus it might make some developmental psychologists and their financial backers very rich.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Why dont we try to patent "Protecting Intellectual Property from Theft"... They'd probably let it go through, too...
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
I'm sorry, does Bezos actually have a clue about doing things, or is all he knows how to game the patent and legal system?
Officially, I'm now boycotting Amazon.com and will recommend to all my friends to do likewise.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Better yet:
;P (I do not condone piracy. I'm not a narc. I like buying and owning things as long as they are worth it.)
Patent the concept of protecting copyrighted and patented materials from the useless and redundant moniker of "Intellectual Property". Information wants to be with me.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
What the hell does the size of Bezos' home have to do with a patent? That's right, NOTHING! We have something in this country called liberty and if Bezos owns land and wants to build a house that uses 99.9% of it, he should be able to build it. City councils dictating to folks about the style and size of private homes is over the line. Safety standards and building codes are fine within reason.
Oh, and the patent sucks, Bezos is a jerk...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
So, when will we stop issuing patents for using a computer to do EXACTLY the same thing that was previously done without it?
Now, if we'll let Jeff patent using a computer for exactly what was done without it, the 1995 publication of doing exaclty the same thing in the electronic world should act as prior art. From rfc1801
VERY innovative JeffDon't get me wrong. I haven't got shares in YuleCo, and I can't afford a one-day end-user licence, so I couldn't have a legal party. I'd briefly considered buying from one of the budget competitors like XmasTym, or a spinoff from a non-specialist like Coca-Crissmas, but the idea of doing it on the cheap was just depressing. I wouldn't have been able to use much of the traditional stuff, and if you can't have all of it, why have any? (XmasTym had the rights to Egg Nog. But Egg Nog's disgusting.) Those other firms keep trying to create their own alternatives to proprietary classics like reindeer and snowmen, but they never take off. I'll never forget Annie's underwhelmed response to the JingleMas Holiday Gecko.
So, after reading the patent, as I understand it, I am allowed to look up a Zip Code for my personal enjoyment, but if I do it for a web client sending a package to someone, I have to licence the right to look up the freeken zip code !!!
Un Friggen Believable..
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
I hate the patent crazyness as much as anyone. But why so many stories about Amazon's patents in particular? Amazon is a relative lightweight in the patent scene. IBM walks to the patent office with a stack of patents every single week. I'm sure you can find plenty to pick on in their applications.
Not to mention that Amazon is often on the receiving end of patent aggression. If you look at Amazon's most recent 10Q, you'll see that Amazon is currently the defendent in five patent infringement lawsuits.
Pinpoint, inc. is suing Amazon for patent infringement related to site personalization.
Soverain Software is suing Amazon for patent infringement of four of their patents, including a "Digital Sales System" and "Digital Active Advertising."
IPXL holdings is suing Amazon for infringement of a patent titled "Electronic Fund Transfer or Transaction System."
BTG International is suing Amazon for infringement of a patent titled "Attaching Navigational History Information to Universal Resource Locator Links on a World Wide Web Page."
Cendant Publishing is suing Amazon for infringement of a patent related to recommendations.
If you despise patent aggression, Amazon is not your poster child for patent abuse. Not even close. Amazon is taking a lot more than it's dishing out.
Disclaimer: I work for Amazon, but of course do not speak for them.
Can always just claim eminent domain and confiscate their houses to put in Wal-Marts. Given the size of their houses, they won't even have to tear them down and build new buildings, just gut the interiors.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
That there is not one person at the USPTO that has the common sense that God gave a pissant. I seriously doubt that any one of them could either: poor piss out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel, or find their ass with both hands on the best day they will ever have?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Hey, the Stalin defense isn't as bad as Amazon's One Click Patent, therefore the Stalin defense is good in every possible way!
The real issue is there is no real penalty for patenting aleady used things. I think for each and every "instance" of prior art, there should be a fine of $500. If there are numerouse instances, then I think the patent holder should be guilty of fraud and thrown into jail...
As with most of these biz model or software patents this one seems trivially easy to get around. It seems like *any* type of human intervention anywhere in the process and it's no longer "a computer system" as required by claim 1. So have the whole process automated as described by the patent, but have some minimum wage flunky approve of one step in the process by hitting a return key. Now you're outside the scope of the patent. I'm sure there are more creative ways of getting around this patent, but it doesn't sound like too big of a deal.
And, no, this patent does not prevent you from looking up receipients' addresses or zip codes or calling them. You, yourself, can do anything you want. If you write code to completely automate the process, then you need to read the patent and figure out what step you'll do differently to be outside the scope -this shouldn't be too taxing. Process patents generally are pretty weak and the burdon will be on Amazon to prove someone is infriging (not the other way around).
B: Amazon (or at least it's founders) were involved in a failed orginazation that offered rewards to root out bad patents.
Amazon used work done by this organization to obtain yet another bad patent. I gotta admire the chutzpah and sheer size of their nads myself. It in the chutzpah department it even outdoes MS pulling IE for the Mac because "we can't compete with Apple on their own platform" or even "MS will now offer antivirus and spyware protection....".
... "when the gift giver did not provide sufficient delivery information."
This patent is only for contacting the individual to determine more information. So on the other hand, give a name and city, and they'll figure it out.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Patent offices are hardly champions of justice, reason or let alone invention. They are paper pushing businesses in whose best interest it is to relax the conditions for what is considered patentable.
Sure, the problem begins with patents themselves (esp software and pharmaceutical patents) but this can be stemmed at the level of the State even allowing Patent Offices to operate as enterprises (with marketing divisions, lobbyists, investment incentives) in their own right.
And further down, at the level of the patent holder - if we are to live with these absurd monopolies on ideas called sofware patents, then lets ensure that those granted patents have licenses to drive them without hurting other humans. At is stands patents are actually killing people (pharmacs), and when they are not doing that, they are truncating innovation through discouraging improvement upon existing technologies, ideas, bodies and things.
It costs alot to register a patent but it costs alot more to research potential breaches. This is the slow but psychological violence of patent monopolies.
What I would like to see is legislation that would prevent abusive companies like Amazon from launching such Denial of Service attacks on the USPTO, our economy and us as tax payers. Such abusive companies are filing thousands of ridiculous patent applications and counting on statistics to have a few of their riduculous patent applications slip through and get approved as well as to have initially rejected patent applications reversed. In the end those silly patents will get overturned and rejected, but it will cost us all a lot of time and tax payers' money.
There should be a law mandating that if a legal entity files more than a certain number of patent applications within a certain period of time (say, more than 5 within 30 days) and either more than a certain number of patent applications filed by that same legal entity within a longer period of time had been rejected (say, more than 5 rejected in the last 180 days) or the percentage of all the rejected patent applications ever filed by that legal entity exceeds a certain percentage (say, more than 25% rejected), then such a legal entity is only allowed to file no more than a certain number of patent applications per month (say, no more than 3 per month).
Nah, by then you simply pay the thinking fee using taxes.
were actually about his Santa-killing spiked chimney.
The legal aspects of patenting Santa Claus' delivery of gifts is pretty low -- I am against it. I would still like to see these kinds of delivery improvements to all shipping services, so that I could actually send a gift to someone I did not know. So my comment is only about the idea of a service, and not really about this Grinch in particular.
A few years ago, I had problems with the refund policy at Future Shop, a Canadian company that is a little like Best Buy. In a fit of blind rage, I smashed the defective software cds they refused to refund me for. With this service, I could have sent a piece of the cds to each executive at the company with a note about their horrible customer service and I could have had the PLEASURE of knowing my message WAS RECEIVED by the people in question.
I don't know about Christmas, but it would be nice to be able to trust a shipping company to actually find out where people are so you can remind them of their responsibilities.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I look at this patent and it is so absurdly unoriginal that it should warrant rejection. Given that this patent was accepted, it amazes me that the concept of a Forum/Messageboard hasn't been patented already. And that's just one idea.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Maybe I'm too out of the loop, but does anyone have a list of big, generic, all-purpose online bookstores with good quality? With a global reach of course, since I'm not in the USA.
At the bottom of this article, nicely sums up my view of things. :)
What we need is either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.
In the UK its quite common to provide only house number and postcode. The address is then 'looked up' via a geocode against an additional database. In some instances the user only has to provide a partial postcode.
This has been done for years.
There is nothing original in this patent at all!
canm get around anti-spam and telemarking no call lists so long as they give you some gift. Like address labels or an online greeting card or...
...
just so long as they pay Bozo
software patents are acts of fraud against the general population of the human inhabitants.
I can think in abstract terms therefor I must be infringing upon someones patent..
invalidation of the patent system...
I've used text stripping algorythyms to look for and obtain information in an email that may include a story about how grandma's fruitcake didn't get delivered last year. Maybe I can patent that and stop this ridiculous patent by overcharging for use of their own system.
But then again, Yahoo's basically got no tech staff, so maybe they'll have it first.
"Unfortunatley the courts have set the burden of proving obviousness so high that it becomes difficult to reject something as being obvious."
Except it only gets to court *after* the patent office has already passed it according to its own rules and its being challenged in court.
The patent office could define obviousness anyway it chooses that fits the necessary criteria of 'invention' (i.e. something new) and 'not obvious to a practictioner in the field'.
Not many people can compete with amazon on the scale that it does business. I believe that its secret is its supply and distribution chain. The can offer things for a lot cheaper than retail (compare best buy online with amazon one day) as well as have it out the door immediately. For instance, I ordered a digital camera for $180 that was retailing for $300. The order was shipped from Kentucky (guess they have more than one distribution center) and arrived at my house 2 days later. Shipping with two shippers involved was only $20. Amazon had it at their wharehouse docks on Sunday, before Fedex and UPS could pick up the order.
So, to summarize, Amazon is pretty cheap and gets their stuff shipped fast. Why wouldn't I keep buying from them? I agree that they didn't have much of a business plan when they started, but the factory production line styled assembly of people's orders was fairly innovative at the time and allowed the company to scale fairly well. Remember that a lot of dotcoms just didn't scale well and were never designed to get the kind of traffic in orders and sales that they ended up getting. It should be no suprise that they all failed where amazon succeeded because Bezos saw the growth possibilities and planned accordingly.
For what it's worth, amazon should have gone out of business a long time ago, but thanks to some questionable investing, they had enough liquidity to stay afloat in the red for the what, 2 or 3 years that it took for them to hone their business model into something that actually works and is profitable. Many dotcoms just didn't have the budgeting expertise necessary to keep themselves afloat to make their ideas work. They all blew their wad early and the Vulture Captitalists all started circling.
So, I wouldn't go and say that amazon did the same thing that all the other startups did and, even if I am wrong and they did, they were successful eventually which is something that none of those failed startups can ever claim.
zosxavius photography
...infringing upon bozo's patent.
about a year ago I go a notice from the USPS in regards to what they claim my official address is.
Interesting enough it was different than what I had been using for over a decade, even different then what the postal carrier was used to (these guys are pretty good at figuring out the correct address for incorrect and incomplete addresses).
Hell, this official postal address is even different that what the street name sign reads.
From: Hudson Crossing Road
TO: Hudsn Xing
the placement of the apartment number is different than anything I have ever used, Where originally mail was delivered directly to each building so the apt. number was a dash number following teh address number.
and the additional 4 numbers following the 5 digit zip...
The point is, prior art can be found within the USPS or any other carrier that using automatic sorting of mail.
Just because you can automate something that was otherwise being done manually, does in no way present innovation.
Automation itself has tons of prior art, for it is the fundamental principle and goal of teh whole field of programming.
The USPTO is near completely invalidated itself. But instead pass its task onto courts playing the who has the most money monopoly game.
Quick someone patent patentnopoly (monopoly the board game but based upon patenting natural laws, physical phenomenon, abstract ideas, mathmatical algorythims, etc...).
I now feel bad about having bought two books thru amazon used books. I'll never buy anything from amazon again. Just like I no longer by music unless I buy it directly from the artist.
At least, that's what they left me to think since I ordered a couple of books in February I am still waiting for and they changed at least three or four times the delivery date for them.
Maybe they are just waiting for the patent that will enable them to change the calendar days at will in order to synchronize everything perfectly.
Achille Talon
Hop!
This is the only thing that corporations, especially clueless, greedy corporations like Amazon will understand. If it affects their bottom line by removing money they don't deserve, then they'll be encouraged to take remedial action. In this case, it might entail buying a few clues as to what innovation is really all about.
I've also been walking the floors of the EP the last few weeks and have had the pleasure of speaking at various conferences where the likes of Francisco Mignorance (who both drafted part of the proposed legislation and now lobbies for it on behalf of the BSA), and Simon Gentry (who's C4C pretends to be on behalf of "creative people" but is actually a pure PR play) also took part.
The pro-patent lobby in Europe is very well funded, organised, and appears to control much of the legislative process itself.
For example, at the last SME roundtable discussion there were three representatives of real technology SMEs, a handful of MEP's assistants, and over 12 lobbyists, claiming to be small firms, but after the meeting, leaving together with Gentry. One of those occasions when I wish I'd had a camera phone.
I've uploaded a short statement that is aimed at MEPs and their assistants. We'll be distributing this to assistants. Anyone who wants to help (early Monday morning, Brussels) please drop me a line.
We've also made a satirical site that attacks the big business interests behind the push for software patents.
Finally, there is a demo in Strasbourg on Tuesday morning, and the FFII is organising busses from most of Europe.
If you can spare the time, put on a suit and tie and get yourself to Strasbourg for 8.00am on Tuesday.
A large and visible demo will help focus MEP's minds. They will probably vote on Wednesday and unless a near-miracle happens, by the end of the week we will be facing the US situation in Europe.
My blog
OK, I read the text of the patent. It is complete and utter hogwash. It's another one of those 'something+computer' or 'something+Internet' schemes. I know I've called for stupid patent action before, just to make a point, but maybe it's time for something more drastic. Let's take every non-computer, non-Internet patent in the USPTO database, liberally sprinkle the words "computer" and "Internet" in the body of the text, then submit them for patent.
There is prior art here. In fact, it's basically what UPS, FedEx, Airborn Express does already if there's a problem with a delivery. It's basically how the Post Office handles undeliverables. They contact the recipient based on additional information in their database, including home phone, business phone or e-mail.
Just look at the opener to the "invention's" background: The Internet comprises a vast number of computers that are interconnected for the purpose of exchanging information. Various protocols, such as the HyperText Transfer Protocol ("HTTP"), have been defined to aid in this exchange of information." You gotta be kidding me! Remember when you were in grade school, and there was always that one kid who opened his report with "Webster's defines 'x' as...'? That's what this sounds like to me. You know what Bezos and crew invented? They invented a way to transmit bullshit over the Internet.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I disagree, here's why
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(a) he 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"
"A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED a"
These are subjective things 'known' 'used' 'disclosed' 'described' determined first by a patent examiner. The judicial branch only becomes involved later, when they are faced with the situation where the patent officer has already effectively accepted that it is not "KNOWN OR USED" or "DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED " and are taking a challenge.
So the Judicial branch make their interpretation in the context that the patent officer has done his job.
If I'm wrong then please point me to US case law where the patent office has refused a patent because it is 'known' or 'used' and the courts have then set an interpretation that overrules them.
Looks like they violated Bezos' patent.
This meets the requirement of being non-obvious?????
F*** me.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Face facts, folks: just like Bill Gates, Bezos is clearly looking out for #1, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else.
Quit supporting the asshat. Purchase your books locally.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Get a copy of the Book Burro Greasemonkey script for Firefox.
What does it do? All those Amazon links people put on their web pages still work, and you can still use Amazon product search. But it will give you a price comparison right in the browser (a little floating window on top of the Amazon page), together with links to order from other on-line book sellers.
There are other Greasemonkey user scripts that look up the book in your local library and do all sorts of other nice price comparison things for you.
Token and useless actions such as "contacting your representative" without a wad of cash in hand or "spreading awareness" to an uneducated, hostile, and self-destructive public only serve to distract people from effective action. You are an unwitting Emmanuel Goldstein, a servant of the system, a member of the loyal opposition. You only serve to strengthen the system in the manner of a vaccine.
In Soviet Amerika, system changes YOU.
Let me put to you a reasoning why when the courts determine high burdens of proof in patent challenges that they are actually strengthening the patent officers right to make a judgement call.
1) The patent law includes subjective elements and objective elements.
2) The patent officer decides on those subjective elements.
3) He decides to issue the patent based on his judgement.
4) Someone challenges the patent.
5) The courts decides that to overrule the patent officers judgement you need that high level of proof of X Y Z.
It's not that the court decided that patent officer needed that high level of proof X Y Z to refuse to issue the patent. It's that the courts have backed his judgement by default unless a high burden of proof is provided to overturn it!
The stricter the conditions X Y Z, the more the court is strengthening the right of the patent officer to make that initial judgement!
Again, if you disagree, can you bring me a case law example where the courts IN THE CONTEXT THE PATENT EXAMINER FACES have ruled that to refuse the patent that same high burden of proof of prior art and non obviousness.
Either a court challenge to a refused patent, or where the Judge specifically references an incorrect judgement call on behalf of the patent officer would do it.
But I have to put it to you that its just the US patent office refusing to do its job.
That 'invention' is clearly already *known* and *used* so he should not have been given the patent.
A company I used to work with applied for this same patent on 4/19/99. The amazon patent was filed on 7/12/02.
P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=frogmagic &OS=frogmagic&RS=frogmagic
See http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
So Jeff Bezos just patented calling the recipient to ask his mailing address or looking it up in the phone book.
I can see the phishing scams now.
"LandShark.com wishes to arrange delivery of a candygram gift to you. Please provide full delivery address and a time when someone will be available to answer the door..."
Obscure SNL "Land Shark" reference explained here:
What is a LandShark?
Trick-or-Treating LandShark
Jaws II
Jaws III
For someone with enough money to patent the Process of taking a dump.
Step 1: Place toilet seat in the down position.
Step 2: Drop em', this includes the unmentionable bits.
Step 3: Park ass on seat.
Step 4: Squeeeeeeze!
Step 5: Wipe until paper comes back up clean.
Step 6: Pull pants up.
Step 7: Fasten buttons, zippers, etc.
Step 8: Flush!
Step 9: Check for trailing bits and remove if any found.
Step 10: Turn on hot and cold water and adjust mixture until desired temperature found.
Step 11: Dispense liberal amount of soap in hand.
And so on.
I'm just wating for the first asshat to patent a natural process. Wait, wait, hasn't that already happened?
A corporation's one and only duty is to make it's stockholders richer. There are no greedy corporations, just greedy investors. Other than the investors, corporations are composed of the average working folk like you or I. As little as five years ago, Amazon was the darling of the Internet, probably one of the few .coms that not only survived, but made it into our vocabulary. Bezos used to be a geek hero.
Power corrupts. Who knew?
-cooter
You haven't heard about Vladimir Putin? Government control of corporations has nothing to do with Communism. And you don't seriously think Joseph Stalin believed in the "withering away of the state," do you?
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Seriously -- when are Americans going to curb-stomp their government and government agencies back into reality? How long are the politics of fear and stupidity going to rule? How long until Americans stop voting for lizards, just to make sure that the wrong lizard doesn't elected? Or shirking the blame because they voted for Kodos?
Bah. Stupid yankee assholes. I'd hate them if the rest of us weren't following in their footsteps as fast as we possibly can. I hassle my local parliment-monkey by email all the time (and I try to get through to him on the phone). What more can one do to fend of the scourge of American-style idiot-patents? In Canada, there's really nothing we can do about them, thanks to our patent treaties.
This: $25M estate is for sale. The guy who owned it was receiving $100M+ in compensation from the company he founded. ($ + stock) (he sold encyclopedia door-to-door as his last job before he founded the insurance company). He and another dozen+ suits were taking huge loans out of the company to load up on shares of stock. They bought a company which insured trailers (as in mobile home trailers - tornado magnets) and the company financially bounced pretty hard and most of them were tossed. They are now being pursued for repayment but are claiming they have no way to pay and will not declare bankruptcy.
...everything.
The funny thing is, they would have kept the money had the stock paid off but they don't believe they owe anything because the stock didn't pay off. The best part is Hilbert (said estate above) claims he's spent all of his money and has nothing more than a handful of millions left - as an aside: a substantial number of donations were made before the financial issues - hospital wings, orchestra, athletic facilities, etc. Mysteriously, his wife seems to have two substantial estates across the street from each other in Florida, etc. The Hilbert family attorney claims she's permitted to have her own financial status and it's no one else's business. read that: they've stashed the money in her name.
Who is she? The second Mrs. Hilbert. She was the stripper at Mr. Hilbert's son's bachelor party. I'm not kidding. The only thing she shouldn't have taken off during her routine is the bag she had on her head. Have you heard the phrase, "Uglier than a mud fence?"
Oh, they've had two auctions to unload everything they left behind because it wouldn't fit when they moved into the biggest house they could afford around here - 9'000 ft^2 - $5M. Auction #2 The real estate sign advertises "55'000 ft^2 under roof!" The basketball court mentioned in the cited story is a to-scale replica of Indiana University's, down to the championship banners, scoreboards,
35 USC 102(a) deals with novelty and is much more clear cut than 103. For a patent to be rejected under 35 USC 102 all elements must be shown in a single reference in the same manner as claimed. From MPEP 2131:Obviousness is much trickier and the procedure for testing obviousness was layed out by the Supreme Court in the Graham Factual Inquiries: The judicial branch only becomes involved later, when they are faced with the situation where the patent officer has already effectively accepted that it is not "KNOWN OR USED" or "DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED " and are taking a challenge.
Judicial review is not a strictly one way process. When the courts issue a decision they are interpeting the law in a way which the patent office must then abide by. For example, in Graham v. John Deere cited above the Supreme Court layed out reqruiements for testing obviousness which has since served as the basis by which the Patent Office has been forced to use when rejecting patents as being obvious.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
Yeah. This is interesting, to be off topic for a second. Communism basically has a lot of bad PR. It makes sense that no ordinary politician fights for communism. Firstly, communism is very anti-government. Imagine an ad in the paper that goes "We have a free position as leader of a communist state. Good pay but short-term. We're having trouble filling this position due to the fact that you'll lose your job if you're successful. If you're an altruistic politician please contact us."
Joseph Stalin wanted to keep his job. Politicians are the worst people you could put to work for communism if you view everything in that context. Politicians seek power and money and communism is really about the opposite of that.
What the United States and other countries should really be opposing is *facist states*. I basically think communist states turn into facist states because they're run by politicians.
If I could experiment, I'd set up a board of people from various layers of society. People with no criminal record and perhaps educated in the proper fields. Serving on the board would be mandatory, but hopefully most people would want to influence the future of their country, so this would be viewed as positive. Lists would be kept of eligible people, filtered out by a rule set specified by law. Maybe the board could have a fixed number of elected representatives, but not too many, as politics is all about populism and after seeing democracy in action for a while, I don't sincerely believe that people know what, or who, are best for them.
I don't believe that addresses my point. For example, the link you gave is the USPTO opinion of a judgement that I've put to you is fault. For example you quoted "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element..." I refer you to this discussion of that judgement:
/ opinions/99opinions/99-1066.html
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed
"This court requires that a party seeking to invalidate a patent under 102 show that the allegedly invalidating prior art contains "each and every element of [the] claimed invention.""
Notice that the court requires THAT THE PARTY SEEKING TO INVALIDATE A PATENT required to show this higher level.
This judgement is guidance on how to set the bar for an invalidating party (setting a very high bar), not to the patent officer making the original judgement. If you accept that the patent officer is the person positioned to make the initial subjective judgement, the court is setting a high bar for changing that judgement. Further it says:
"The law imposes this high burden because Unocal's patent, like any issued patent, enjoys a presumption of validity"
Here, the PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY presupposes the patent officer made his subjective decision correctly! The court is saying that by default the patent officer's opinion prevails, not that he isn't entitled to an opinion.
The second quote you gave backs my point not yours. He doesn't specify HOW he says "PATENT EXAMINERS CARRY THE RESPONSIBILITY".
i.e. he firmly gives the patent officer the judgement not the courts!
Doesn't FedEx do this already? I mean. Its basicaly trying to guess where a package goes when the address is incomplete. Come to think of it a lot of other software packages do this as well. So what's different about what Amazon does?
Specks
Batteries not included
"he same test of X Y Z used by the courts to overrule a patent is used by the patent examiners when they try to reject patents."
Why? The patent officers job is to issue patents not to try to reject them. The case law you quote doesn't refute that. It sets the conditions to overturn a patent not to accept it.
In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). also Wilson is the same.
"If a claim is subject to more than one interpretation, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite"
i.e. if a claim can be objectively determined to be vague (more than one interpretation) then its objectively faulty. It says nothing about the subjective terms.
Deere simply excludes commerical success as an argument.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co is the same:
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
Again it says nothing about the subjective terms.
"Therefore, unless it can be proven by the standards layed out by the courts that the patent appplication is either non-novel or obvious, the patent must be granted."
No, a subjective judgement must by definition include a range of opinions. The courts dealing with a challenge presume that the patent is valid unless proved invalid so they deal with the 'high water mark' of proof, the case law you quoted gives a low water mark of proof. There must be a range of opinions between those.
Put it this way, if the high water mark and the low water mark were the same, the courts would not have to presume the patent is valid unless proved otherwise because the level of proof would be the same (whether they presumed or not) as if they were originally granting it.
The reason I brought it up is to further illustrate that Jeff Bezos isn't my idea of a corporate C.E.O. with loads of sensibility. So when you start asking "Why the hell did this guy think it made sense to try to patent a 1-click shopping cart purchase concept on a web site??", it might make more sense, considering the rest of his business decisions.
And for what it's worth, I don't shop there much. I hate when places want to offer me those "$5 gift certificates for Amazon.com!" and so on. Really, I have little use for 'em. I think I purchased a total of 2 pieces of software from them, and that was for my ex-wife after she complained that she couldn't find them on store shelves anywhere locally.
With the speed with which technology grows, the best patent reform is the easiest patent reform. Simply reduce the lifespan of software patents. After 5 years, successful developments are either mainstream or die, at which time new developments are necessary. Patents, like copyright, are meant to spur innovation and creativity, not to ensure inventors are "set for life". I think 5 year patent limits (and certainly NO MORE) on any software process ensures continued innovation, not stagnation.
20 year patents are like 20 year sentences for 80 year old criminals, a virtual death sentence. Sure, you can also patent a significant improvement, but that is unrealistic with today's environment. I certainly can't make a significant improvement to the Windows code and patent it, where as 50 years ago, I really could take say, a Chevy engine, make a significant improvement, and patent/market it, without Chevy suing me for EULA violations. Mechanical improvements and the patent system developed around it simply do not translate to the software world.
I'm sure other improvements could be made, but the 5 year limit would be most benefitial, imho. Give them 5 years, no more. After that, their improvements become as outdated as the steam engine locamotive is today.
I8-D
I'm a patent lawyer, and want badly to reform the patent system, so to answer your question,"me". Also, as a bit of a correction, it's not a new goldmine, its been a goldmine forever.
I'm going to file a patent on a new idea I had.
Everyone else uses a single dick when clearly two is better. I call it "double penetration".
I'd like to someone find prior art on that!
Please send all prior art to admin@slashdot.org