Slashdot Mirror
PTO Eliminates "Technological Arts" Requirement
MdntToker writes to tell us that the Patent Board has issued an opinion which removes the existing procedure of rejecting patents under 35 U.S.C. 101 as outside of the "technological arts". From the article: "Our determination is that there is currently no judicially recognized separate "technological arts" test to determine patent eligible subject matter under 101. We decline to create one. Therefore, it is apparent that the examiner's rejection can not be sustained."
Who's going to jump on the patent that eliminates the process for processing the elimination of patent requirements?
Time to go patent all my fiction writings, before someone else does it.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever even imagined. Just when you think it cannot possibly get any worse.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.
I think I'll patent the making of the "I have a patent on stupid patents" jokes that appear below.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
...how it was that wrestlers could have "patented moves."
:\
I guess now they actually can.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
This is an idea I wish I had patented. Imagine patenting the concept of patents before there was such thing as patents. The royalties from the patent office alone would be enough to retire on.
...In the direction of making patents completely and utterly useless.
Now all they have to do is remove the prior art clauses and were in patent utopia.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I do not know how big a deal this really is. I am sure in software or business method arts there might be more of an issue at hand, but I do not think 35 USC 101 is a highly used rejection method within the office. I would also be surprised if this stood up outside the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference (BPAI). I believe this should be tasked to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) since it almost sounds like the BPAI is trying to limit the USC.
I do not have numbers, but I am willing to take a guess the number of Business Method patents allowed to date is quite low. It is something that I believe should be more contested by the general public then the idea of software patents. I mean at least I'll see the end of a Patent term in my lifetime, but that same code that gets copyrighted won't be touchable until after a great many of us are long gone.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Reading the article, I'm made aware of two things: 1) I lack the training to be able to argue about this properly 2) I would like to know why exactly "a 'method of compensating a manager' that involved several steps of calculating a proper compensation based on performance criteria and then transferring payment to the manager" is not an abstract idea? What exactly does constitute an abstract idea? This sounds like a particular application of mathematical and economic principles, which I wouldn't have thought patentable at all. Anybody have a link to some reference materials that might help with these questions, without requiriring several years obtaining a law degree?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Patents exist since at least 1594 (earliest patents I know of), probably earlier. Your patent would be pretty much expired by now.
Patents were invented to make people publish their inventions, protecting them for a short period of time, after that time everybody is free to use it. That probably worked in a slower paced world.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
So now they aren't even going to be limiting patents to software and "business methods"? In another 5 years we're all going to have to pay license fees to take a crap without being sued for violating a patent for "method of voiding bowels into a porcelain fixture while seated."
But that won't be the end of it: microphones in the toilet will be listening to make sure it doesn't sound like the tune to some Britney Spears song, while cameras examine the shape of the turds to see if they resemble a corporate logo. I can't wait to see which company owns the rights to each particular method for wiping your ass.
...space time.
You ALL owe me bigtime.
Come on, they had to do this at some point. All intellectual works are basically discovery of some *previously existing* but useful aspect of reality. If you invent a new mousetrap, you're discovering the previously-existing aspect of reality that some organization of different materials is better at catching mice. If you write a book, you're discovering the previously-existing aspect of reality that people like a certain combination of words. Trying to classify one kind as "technological" and the other as not gets really tricky.
Next on the list: the patent office stops rejecting discoveries as being "too theoretical". Imagine working around those patents!
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Her definition of invent was out there already. I can see her joining a patent holidng company and patenting countless common and inane ideas.
...that will break the US Patent Office's back. We're due for patent reform. It has become such a joke that just about any new technology or idea is already patented in some respect. And if it isn't already patented, someone out there can make a case showing their patent covers the new technology and they are due money in return for fair use. There has to be a limit. Enough is enough.
It's discussed in a bit more detail here. It looks like any business process can be patented, from plotting a basic graph on a whiteboard, to having TPS reports notched according to the future employment status of the employee.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I. Method of Selling items: The business shall offer a customer an item/good/idea/etc for an amount of currency (Dollars/Euro/Yen/etc). Upon receipt of currency, or promisory currency note, the aforementioned item/good/idea/etc's ownership will be transferred to the customer.
It's not like the PTO even looks for prior art.
-- Dan
A vibrant economy requires resources to be used efficiently. In theory, patents are supposed to help this process by increasing the incentive to invest in capital. Indeed, such investment can benefit both the inventor and the end user. As such, patents encourage the production of new capital, and the new capital is often more efficient at using resources than the previous capital. Thus the economy grows.
However, it appears as though America is reaching a point where patents interfere with the process so much that productivity is diminished. When an inventor has to search for patents when designing every portion of a capital work, less time is spent on developing the capital itself. Thus the creation of new capital diminishes, and resources are not used as efficiently. That can eventually cause the economy to basically rot.
This is not what the American economy needs, considering its various other problems (massive debt, inflated stock markets, a housing bubble, and so forth).
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
If anyone was thinking about actually going to some of these headquarters and just punching the shit out of some of these people, I am here to highly encourage you!
It seems there are actually examiners at the USPTO that are willing to call bullshit on a bogus patent. That offers a bit of encouragement.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
This is all because the people who make money from patents are patent lawyers. The more stuff out there that can be patented then litigated for patent infringment the better. I agree the patent office sucks ass, Ive been trying to patent something without the help of a lawyer which is next to imposibble and it's all because they have complicated things beyond comprehension. To what extent I have no idea.
Am I the only one who thinks this could go well for IP in the long run?
If the patent office makes a blatantly terrible move like this one seems to be, its possible it could trigger a backlash that will get patent law fixed up properly. People talk about this with the Supreme Court as well - it might be better to overturn Roe v. Wade because it would so energize the choice crowd and maybe even motivate congressional action.
Just something to consider.
Anyone have a spare Senator they're not using?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
USPTO has no authority outside the realm of "Science and useful Arts" and patents granted outside the scope of that allowed by the Constitution are illegal. Nor does it matter what Congress has to say about it; granting patents on things not meeting the prior test is not a power granted to the Federal Government.
They "declined" to create a definition. Translation: we "chose" to ignore the law. Perhaps I'll "decline" to pay my taxes and see how that flies. Arrogant bastards; they need to be put against the wall.
Taking this doctrine to its logical extreme may, unfortunately, be the only way to force people to recognise how flawed it is. In that regard, this may be a useful decision.
Hrmm, Though honestly I don't see removing a restriction the department isn't able to define or legally defend as a big deal, recent trends are worrysome. I can see a future where companies pay regular fees to some cartel for protection from patent related lawsuits. At first there will be numerous small cartels kicking around, fighting each other for business, suing each others 'clients', over time the biggest bankroll will prevail and a patent protection fee will become a regular part of doing business.
paul reinheimer
Essentially the ruling states that ANY process regardless of whether or not it's performed using a device or results IN a device.
IE, I can now patent my process for making hamburgers into meat balls.
Or to dial a phone.
Or the methodology behind replying to a slashdot post. (NOT the code for doing so, the *idea* behind a posting forum.)
Now class, please turn your books to the section on "Integral Calculus". This class has been liscensed and authorized by Megacorp - holders of patents on the power rule. Please note that any integrals referencing the trigonometric functions must also credit the proper patent holder. sin = George Smith, cos = Megacorp, tan = Umbrella Corp. For a list of all current patent holders on Mathematics please reference "How Freaking Retarded Can We Be (2010 Edition)". Always pay your liscense fees! No calculation without compensation. Or was that "No taxation without representation"?
This seems so ridiculous, that I wonder whether this is was purposefully done to force people to reform patent laws. Sometimes you need to utterly break something before people will notice that it was broken to start with. This is the most benign interpretation I can see as otherwise, it seems to be lacking in sense.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Funny. As the Patent Board itself, I'd have thought that was part of their job. Maybe not.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
It's become clear that since the patent office is willing to let anyone patent anything with very minimal checking on validity that patents will effectively end productivity and innovation in the US (and everywhere that has an enforcement treaty with the US). So either we cripple our economy and technological advancement or we modify patents so they don't strangle innovation. So ditch them or limit the duration to a more reasonable timeframe (given the current rate of advancement).
I submit the parent for the Worlds greatest answer prize. Not only is the parent dead on, but their answer reflects the kind of half-ass journalism that we've become accustomed to. A journalism in which the reader isn't expected to actually read the article. A journalism in which no question will be answered and where diagrams are appropriate, none will be provided. And... ahh screw it, nobody is really going to read this any way!
This makes me chuckle mostly because I saw Harvey Birdman last night. I don't know if it was a repeat or not, but the episode was basically one of those "Welcome to Company X" promotional training videos. "How to do your job" "Why we're here" "Company History" all that.
Every time they showed Sebben he had an ever larger pile of money until at the very end of it he was neck deep in cash with swimsuited women on pool floats.
And for those of you that think Geeks and Animation can not possibly be interrelated and have never seen Harvey Birdman, the joke behind the series is he's a lawyer willing to take on the case of the "little" `Toon.
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
This decision is quite funny. A couple of months ago, Slashdot was running a story about a piece by Richard Stallman where he made the analogy with the works of Victor Hugo being covered by patents on literary plots. Then there were some posters who thought Dr. Stallman was making an absurd comparison, and that patents on literature would never happen.
Well, well...
Meanwhile, in Europe, we have chosen another road. After the victory on July 6, when the European Parliament rejected the software directive, we now have a chance to get one of our activists to win the title "European of the Year" in an open Internet poll organized by a big business magazine.
Please feel free to go to NoSoftwarePatents.com for instructions on how to vote, while you contemplate this latest madness by the US patent establishment.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
" I won't steal your thunder " Before you were stealing my intellectual property, now you're stealing my thunder? Thats *my* thunder you're taking their buddy. :)
h tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6767433.WKU.&OS=PN/6767433&RS=PN/ 6767433
More seriously:
"bezier curves for issues of clarity, simplicity of implementation, ink conservation"
Thats damn close to the drawing a graph example the judges based their thinking on. Steal away.
Only tangentially related to this, have you seen this patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/neta
For a solar still:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still
This company received a patent on the solar still in 2004:
http://www.solaqua.com/solstilbas.html
I think USA has almost no prior art test at all, and no non-obvious test, this is a train wreck just waiting to be patented.
Funniest damn thing I've heard all day!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I hereby claim a method of losslessly compressing audio, to wit, I claim that:
...
1) audio exists,
2) it can be losslessly compressed,
3) there exists some algorithm to compress audio losslessly,
4)
5) profit.
Item 4 is redacted to protect valuable trade secrets under the DMCA and Patriot Act.
As a liberal, I would have to say that protection of human rights is governments' sole legitimate role. Property is a social concept, without society there would be no need for the concept of property. By owning property, you are stealing the opportunity to use that property from everyone else, most of whom would never grant you that right without some recompense. For the privelege of private ownership of anything, you owe a debt to everyone. Private property is not a right, it is a privelege granted to the individual by society.
All "intellectual property" is based on ideas freely granted to the individual by society. The individual owes society for the ideas that sparked the innovation. Processes and other abstract things should never be patentable because doing so does not benefit society. It does not protect innovation at all.
Collective property is at least as valid as private property, and given the right control structure it is as feasible to maintain collectively as it is privately. In fact, one could argue the opposite of the tragedy of the commons, saying that an individual owner would always find it easier to profit from a resource in a destructive fashion and then move on than a collective owner of the same resource. Collective ownership is far more natural to the human mind than private ownership. Witness the fact that most "primitive" (as we in the west see them) societies have little conception of private ownership.
I postulate that you and people like you benefit from private ownership in an unfair fashion and that you cling to the myth of the benefits of private ownership in order to justify your ego-based worldview and your position of power and privilege rather than from an real and logically arrived at conclusion that it truely benefits the collection of individuals known as society the most.
Yes, this post is slightly trollish but hey, wouldn't you conservatives and libertarians out there rather point out how foolish and knee-jerk my post is rather than mod me down? After all, if my arguments are so knee-jerk, they should be pretty easy to refute, right?
However, if you want to mod me down for using a sixty seven word, paragraph-long run on sentence, be my guest.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Th Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is established under 35 U.S.C.
The Administrative Patent Judges (who issued the opinion in the article) are appointed by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (i.e. "The Director"). The Administrative Patent Judges are regular employees of the patent office, and serve until they quit, retire, are removed, etc.
The Director is appointed by the President.
and for how long have they had the power to change the laws of the USA?
They don't have the power to change the law. They have the power to interpret patent law, "on written appeal of an applicant". Note that the applicant can then take this issue to federal court after it is reviewed.
In this case, the patent examiner rejected the patent claims of the applicant by arguing that they were outside the "technical arts". The patent applicant filed an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The case was reviewed by the Board and a majority (3 of 5) found that there is no test under the law for determining what "technological arts" covers. The minority argued that the meaning of "technological arts" is equivalent to the "useful arts" phrase in the US Constitution.
The result of this is that a precedent has been set which determines that, "outside the technical arts", is not a justifiable reason under the law for rejecting patent claims.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Your patent is supposed to not duplicate prior art and it is supposed to be non-obvious.
Both of these criteria are criteria honoured in the work to register a patent in good faith (a search for prior art) and after the fact, by the fact your patent can be challenged.
A lot of the most obvious patents will not be upheld if challenged and either meaningful prior art exists or if the patent actually *is* obvious. In the Litigious States of America, this mechanism for defeating patents should not be surprising.
It is, however, expensive to register patents. It is also expensive to challenge them. This gives the leverage to the financially wealthy. It gives even more leverage to larger companies that don't do anything but patent registration and litigation - they don't spend any money inovating, just patenting other people's ideas and chasing down infringers. Usually this results in out of court settlements rather than challenges, since it could cost you $100K to challenge a patent, and $20K to license it from the current patent holder.
We've created a system that has within it a built in niche for a group of butt-sucking parasites who do no actual work. I'm not talking about lawyers, but of patent attack/defense companies that don't *make* anything. They are just storehouses for intellectual property, not with the idea of protecting of the inventors or even their investors, but simply for profit. They act as leghold traps on innovation, rather than incentives.
This is the surest sign that the system is broken. The patent system itself now has so many companies co-opted into the machine that they can't imagine life without it. And their fear keeps the system going strong and growing. And of course, as it grows, it stifles invention and innovation, instead of protecting it as it probably did way back when the patents were first envisioned.
At one time, it did bring together investors and inventors because it helped ensure RoI for the investors, because anyone who knocked off their process or product could be litigated against and punished. Thus it fostered innovation.
That day is long past. What we have left is the rotting carcass of a system that protected innovation, and the only creatures that enjoy hanging around rotting carcasses are maggots, flies, and carrion eaters. And that's what the Patent system has develoved to.
Get rid of it, because it no longer serves the purpose it was meant for.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."