Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO Unable to Find Top Ten Patent Holders

Posted by samzenpus on from the powdered-water dept.

lelitsch writes "So a journalist tries to interview the top ten patent holders in the US. As he finds out, neither the USPTO, nor the patent processing companies are able to identify them. Even more surprisingly, "America's greatest inventor is apparently an obscure guy in Japan who makes stuff most people can't comprehend. And the nation's greatest native inventor seems to be a man who has come up with 100 different ways to make a flower pot.""

19 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Same name problem by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lots of people with the same name in that database.

    Kind of like the Nobel prize a couple years ago where there were a bunch of people with the same name in the research department of the winner in Japan.

    For those that didn't read the article, USPTO is bad and grants too many broad patents to obvious and common things.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
  2. does anyone else find it fascinating... by __aasmho4525 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    (and maybe a little depressing) that in so many parts of our (western) culture, we value quantity over quality?

    to wit:

    "And the nation's greatest native inventor seems to be a man who has come up with 100 different ways to make a flower pot."

    the nation's greatest inventor, in my mind, would be the inventor that has most positively impacted society at large with their inventions, etc, etc. basically, a totally subjective unit-of-measure unless we find some nice way of ranking the value of a given patent to society...

    it's just curious how often this happens....

    (large houses over well constructed houses, etc, etc, etc).

    enjoy.

    Peter

  3. What's frightening about all this... by Niraj59 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After reading the article I got to thinking about the controversy surrounding the subjective assessment of a patent. When does a patent become too general? When does it go from covering an invention to covering something that is convention?

    I think it's especially terrifying in the computer world because it seems that many USPTO employees don't know what is standard practice and what is innovation. This article from Salon reviews some ridiculous patents and patent claims

    Generally subjectivity plays a small role in governmental organizations (think about the IRS and all its coded forms). It seems that the USPTO is a strange organization in that sense. Does anyone know how the process works? To me it seems as if it's just reviewed by a bunch of people who may or may not understand what it is their awarding a patent to.

    1. Re:What's frightening about all this... by playit12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once more with proper formatting:

      Whatever PTO examiners don't know about standard practice is dwarfed by what Slashdotters don't know about Patent Law.

      First, as has been explaned numerous times before, each patent is reviewed by someone with training in that select field. For example, a patent for an LCD is reviewed by someone that has reviewed LCD patents, often for as long as LCDs have existed. It's quite common for these specialized examiners to be as adept in the field as any inventor working in that same field. This isn't surprising considering that those examiners will be reading some 1000 or more pages related to the field every day in their searches.

      Second, the claims define the patented subject matter. Without sufficient legal background it's impossible to understand the meets and bounds (legal protection) of the claims. Reading out patent titles or parts of the specification is useless to understanding the legal ramifications of the patent itself. There is a reason why nearly all cases brought before the office are by lawyers representing inventors and not by the inventors themselves.

      Third, it is in the best interest of the inventor (most of all) to allow good patents. Bad patents cannot be enforced in a court of law and are therefor not valuable to the inventor. As the filing fees for a patent often exceed several thousand dollars (and attorney fees are even more), people who pursue bad patents only harm themselves.

      Fourth, just because you have a patent doesn't mean you can use it. A patent on some random element of a flower pot is only useful in that third parties find it useful and without an alternative, and the patent will be upheld upon extensive review by other attorneys.

      Lawyers understand the quality of the USPTO far better than the average public. The USPTO is a favorite selection for PCT (Internationally filed Patents) searches primarily because they offer the best quality search and examination in the world today. Here no patent is awarded, and the sole goal is to find the best, most relevant art before filing nationally in other coutries.

      Of course, feel free to ingore this or mod it down so you can continue to sound ignorant to those that have bothered to understand the details of Patent Law.

    2. Re:What's frightening about all this... by mavenguy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Since you were modded up to 5 by the time I got to this, let me respond how the patent system is supposed to address this issue:


        103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
      Release date: 2005-10-11

      (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

      35 USC 103 (a)


      The application of this statutory requirement has been further enunciated by the courts, including some infrequent SCOTUS decisions, but most prominently, one level below the SCOTUS at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). All prior art rejections must be based on evidence, mostly "prior art" as specified in various sections of 35 USC 102. If the claimed invention is not described in one prior art reference, section 102 cannot be used to reject the claim, so the next consideration is section 103. The various court decisions have set up criteria for being able combine more than one reference to support a rejection based on section 103. Over the years the court has required more explicit showing directly from the references, and less leeway for examiners to use "handwaving" and broad reasoning to "combine" references; this is known as the "suggestion" requirement.

      This has had the effect, over the years, of making it more difficult to make section 103 rejections. When you combine this with the PTO management's relentless "production" at any cost mentality, and you see the result. And things ain't getting better any time soon, since the management response to the growing recognition of quality concerns has been to institute more review and other time wasting initiatives, and not investing in providing more time to develop the best prior art to support rejections. It's a typical PHB response; it's like being on a "death march" to bring in a software project unter time, under budget, and over quality, except this is a continuous death march.

    3. Re:What's frightening about all this... by dballanc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Lawyers understand the quality of the USPTO far better than the average public"

      Of course! A system designed to protect brilliant and innovative ideas requires a lawyer to fully understand it? It should not be necessary. I've noticed in my legal dealings that the best way to deviate from facts, truth, and original intent is to get lawyers involed. Any system that requires a lawyer simply to interpret a patent is a BROKEN system.

  4. USPTO should offer patents like grants by SEGT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recently got setup to apply for a grant from NIDA and thought if patents were treated in a similar manner we might be better off. To get accepted your application goes to a board of individuals who are physicians. They are still working in their respective fields and understand what is innovative in the medical field and what is not. They determine if your grant goes through. Think, "what if patents were treated this way?" You enter your patent in a category and it is accepted/denied by those who are knowledgable in the field. They will be able to tell if you are patenting the obvious.

    --
    10: SIN 20: GOTO HELL
    1. Re:USPTO should offer patents like grants by bani · · Score: 2, Interesting

      those patent examiners keep allowing perpetual motion machines to get patented. so obviously that $35k is being largely wasted on people who failed grade school physics.

  5. Re:Yes by lbrandy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My personal experiences with the patent office has been nothing but excellent. I hold two, one in chemistry and one in analog electronics. Most people on this forum "believe" the system is broken because that's what they hear continiously. And while there are certainly problems, anecdotal evidence isn't sufficiently indicitive of systematic failure. The Patent Office has one of the most unenviable positions possible, and yes it is often easier to grant borderline patents and let the courts handle it later (since, technically speaking, the argument goes that it's cheaper to litigate the .001% of borderline patents granted, then litigate 100% of the borderline patents not granted)... that doesn't make it right... but expecting an organization like that to be able to be perfect is just ridiculous.

    The Patent people that I dealt with were -very- competant and -very- effective. It's a shame that the tiniest fraction of mostly trivial stuff gets 99% of the press.. I guess that's life.

  6. Re:Yes by dtfinch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until I find a better one, perhaps one of my favorite patents is #6,341,372, desribing a "Universal machine translator of arbitrary languages", able to make perfect translations in real time with zero knowledge of either language, like on Star Trek. It goes on to talk about such translaters being used by androids powered by perpetual motion. The rest is just chapters upon chapters full of philosophical ranting about existance, quantum physics, and the universe, maybe pasted from another source. Filed in 1997, granted in 2002. I came across this patent while searching to see how many "perpetual motion" patents the USPTO has granted so far.

  7. Re:The (sort of) correct list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    hmm, using our database from patanalysis.com I get what looks like 7/10 are from the US.

            431 Sandhu; Gurtej S., Boise ID
            432 Forbes; Leonard, Corvallis OR
            460 Focke; Heinz, Verden
            470 Straeter; Joseph G., Highland IL
            475 Gardner; Mark I., Cedar Creek TX
            505 Farnworth; Warren M., Nampa ID
            518 Akram; Salman, Boise ID
            518 Silverbrook; Kia, Balmain
          1292 Yamazaki; Shunpei, Tokyo
          1297 Weder; Donald E., Highland IL

  8. Re:Yes by montyzooooma · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The USPTO doesn't help itself when they consider patenting storylines and other makebelieve. Originally you were meant to have a working model before you would be granted a patent but now it seems possible to patent a "concept" and hold other people to ransom with it.

  9. Re:Yes by simong_oz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to agree with you, but I do think most of the patenting that brings bad press is to do with software in some way or other. I think the whole system is much more set up for physical science/engineering style inventions. There is a lot of mis-understanding out there about what patents/trademark/copyright do and are supposed to protect (and how they work). I include the average slashdotter in that too, though you can hardly blame anyone - the details of IP are very complex field.

    --
    "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
  10. Re:hmmm by damsa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unlike copyrights, under the current law, patents are awarded to flesh and blood heart beating individuals and not corporations. Corporations can be assigned a patent but cannot be credited for inventing stuff. In fact failure to name all relevant inventors in a patent application may result in an invalidated patent years down the line.

  11. Re:Yes by internewt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The rest is just chapters upon chapters full of philosophical ranting about existance, quantum physics, and the universe, maybe pasted from another source.

    It does look like the text is from elsewhere. I skipped through the text of the patent, just to see if it is all solid ramblings, and spotted the below in the section titled "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS"

    Aware of its existence, the android perceives and changes the same reality of human corporal experience, including the reality of the cosmos. This book, an introduction to the theory and science of androids, is intended to acquaint the reader with this new technological finding and to mark the beginning of an androidal age in which sentient machines alter the human universe.[My emphasis]

    So it looks to me like this patent wasn't even fully read before being granted, though it looks to be about 12000 words!

    --
    Car analogies break down.
  12. Incompetence, disinterest and short-sightedness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'll tell you why USPTO fails to do this in their database: Sheer incompetence, disinterest and short-sightedness

    I mean, they receieve money and have a customer-relationship with the patent applicants. With a little thought in advance, you could have built a normalized database that accounted for this. But I guess they aren't really interested in anything else than pushing through as many patents they can a year, to receieve more money. Are you really telling me USPTO doesn't really know WHO owns the thousands of patents? They are not a friggin' store, they are a government agency.

    Patronize the guy asking uncomfortable questions? The whole post/article is tongue-in-cheek. HE's the one setting THEM up! I thought it was obvious, especially after the pot-joke.

  13. Possible reason why a Japanese man is #1 by rnelsonee · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The Japanese patent system is different from ours in that the patents remain open to the public after the application has been processed (before it is granted). This allows for the easier exchange of ideas (although it has its obvious negative effects).

    It's possible that this guy is simply recording all those patents (which they mail out a CD biweekly) and applying for the same items in the US.

  14. Re:so sad... by chickenmonger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh yeah, Dean Kamen, the Segway guy. I contest your statement. I believe that Ron Popeil is an even greater force than Dean Kamen. I mean, the Veg-o-matic? The guy invented the infomercial because the Veg-o-matic was too good at what it did.

    Wikipedia's article on Ron Popeil

  15. Wrong by cheesedog · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's quite common for these specialized examiners to be as adept in the field as any inventor working in that same field.
    Do you really believe this? I'm sorry, but it just doesn't ring true to anyone who has browsed through many of these patents and read their contents. The truth is, patent examiners are overworked, underpaid, and under incredible pressure (by those giving the USPTO money for applications) to grant patents. Sure, there is usually the few token rejections and rewrites, but anyone who has gone through the process of obtaining a patent can tell you that persistence usually wins out.
    There is a reason why nearly all cases brought before the office are by lawyers representing inventors and not by the inventors themselves.
    This is damning evidence against the patent system. If you'll recall, the great compromise of the patent system was that the government would grant a monopoly if the inventor would publicly disclose how the invention works -- the main impetus was to keep secrets from getting tied up in guilds or going with the inventor to the grave. If it is as you say it is, the patent system is broken by definition, because only lawyers can understand the applications. Us lowly slashdot readers don't have a chance, you imply, because we just are not smart enough.
    Bad patents cannot be enforced in a court of law and are therefor not valuable to the inventor...people who pursue bad patents only harm themselves
    Once again, this rings false. The average cost of defending oneself in court against a patent claim averages around 2 million dollars. That gives the holder of a 'bad' patent incredible leverage -- as long as they ask for something reasonably less than 2 million dollars in licensing fees, the prudent "infringer" will pay up rather than fight. Don't tell us this isn't how it works -- one need only look at how many billion dollars the Lemelson "computer vision" patents brought in before eventually being challenged and invalidated.
    A patent on some random element of a flower pot is only useful in that third parties find it useful and without an alternative
    ...unless the patent is overly-broad, in which case the patent on a random element of the flower pot gets applied to all sorts of new technologies that weren't envisioned when the patent was filed. Again, I'll reference the Lemelson patent portfolio, but that is by far not the only example. Just do a 'patent' query on news.google and you'll see a host of others, for example the NTP patents on sending email over wireless medium.
    Lawyers understand the quality of the USPTO far better than the average public.... feel free to ingore this or mod it down so you can continue to sound ignorant to those that have bothered to understand the details of Patent Law.
    Once again, I beg your merciful forgiveness for not being a super smart lawyer or lawyer-admirer like yourself! If only all of us could become IP lawyers the world would be a better place!

    In the meantime, feel free to continue your naive perspective in which the wonderful patent system not only doesn't ever impede progress, never hurts inventors, doesn't retard products from making it to market, and never sets scientific research back by decades, all the while enriching all of us equally according to the merit of our cleverness. Oh, what a wonderful system it is!