Slashdot Mirror
PUBPAT Makes Progress Against JPEG Patent
The Data Compression News Blog writes "The US Patent Office has granted the Public Patent Foundation's request for a reexamination of the patent
which Forgent Networks is reportedly using to harass anyone that implements the
widely used JPEG format. They have already been challenged by many, but PUBPAT
had the first concrete case with 'prior art'.
In its Order granting PUBPAT's request, the Patent Office found that PUBPAT
raised 'a substantial new question of patentability' regarding every claim of
the the '672 Patent."
Question: If a corporation like this recieves licence fees for an invalid patent, What is preventing the licensees suing them for the money that they have extorted?
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Oh wait, it already does. What's the difference between MP3s and JPEGs, such that we'll violate patents for JPEGs but not for MP3s?
News concerning governments, patents, or corporate affairs is usually controversial (in that it can easily erupt into long flamewars). Thus, ad impressions for OSTG's sponsors.
The answer is to get experts in the field involved in examining patents before they are "rubber stamped".
If people that knew what they were talking about technically (and preferablly leaglly too) were involved in deciding if a patent was valid or not, we wouldnt see so many crappy patents. Enough people would be required to look at it such that people wouldnt be able to say "no, its not valid" because they have a vested interest in being able to use that stuff and not pay for it (also, a simple "no" wouldnt suffice, actual links to prior art or whatever else would need to be presented)
Also, introduce a clause in the rules that says that if a patent is found invalid (either in the initial investigation or later on by a court), the patent holder has to pay up to the PTO.
The idea of "you have to demonstrate your patent somehow" (e.g. for a patent on something like an encryption algorithim, you have to demonstrate working code for it) would also help.
I'd really like to see some more resources dedicated in the initial granting process rather than simply cheer the decisions to review. Allowing someone to patent an unoriginal idea contradicts the notion of promoting the useful arts which the Constitution provides for.
Well, that was the idea when the USTPO was re-organized quite a few years ago, to make it self-supporting. But somehow, the fees charged never seem to wind up buying more reviewers with technical knowledge suitable for the job, or computers enough to facilitate a speedy search for prior art in their own database.
However, I'm certainly not privy to their budget details, and it may be that the fees charged are what they perceive the traffic will bear, but which are still insufficient to realize the grand dream of both an efficient opertion, and smart enough people on staff to see through all the bullshit in the average patent application, which as we all know has been reduced to boilerplate language over the last 150 years, the soul purpose of which is to confuse and confound the examiner into thinking this particular kitchen match is a brand new invention just because this one has a blue head where the normal ones have a red head.
Folks who can chew through that stuff in a timely manner and make the right decision, doing the prior art searches et all, should, in order to protect the innocent, be first at least 3 star genius's, tested as such before they are even offered the position AND be paid enough to keep them for long enough to actually get some usefull work from them. I'd estimate that as being at least $250k/annum minimum in todays market for such people.
Yeah, I'm a dreamer who thinks it might actually work.
--
Cheers, Gene
The PDF seems to indicate that the "prior art" is another patent, one that is only prior by one year. Does this mean that the prior patent's holder can ask for royalties based on the older patent? This does not seem to place the jpeg format fimly back in the public domain.
The answer is to get experts in the field involved in examining patents before they are "rubber stamped".
If people that knew what they were talking about technically (and preferablly leaglly too) were involved in deciding if a patent was valid or not, we wouldnt see so many crappy patents.
Too expensive. What would it cost to get good computer scientists doing something not-so-fun as examining patent applications?
Maybe make it part of a deal -- "get your PhD on a government scholarship, but spend part of your time for the next couple years doing patent review"?
Also, introduce a clause in the rules that says that if a patent is found invalid (either in the initial investigation or later on by a court), the patent holder has to pay up to the PTO.
I'd like that, but I'm not under any illusions as to this working. First, patent filers would protest -- they're being subjected to risk for an impossible search (I agree that the search for conflicting work is impossible, which is part of the reason that I dislike the existing legal minefield where anyone might accidentally infringe on a patent for doing perfectly straightforward work). Second, how much does the patent holder pay? Microsoft doesn't care if it has to pay $10K. It paid more in fees to its in-house lawyers to get the patent pushed through in the first place. On the other hand, Joe the Independent Inventor working out of a garage may see $5K as a harsh blow to his finances.
The idea of "you have to demonstrate your patent somehow" (e.g. for a patent on something like an encryption algorithim, you have to demonstrate working code for it) would also help.
Yes. There is very little reason that I can think of for this not to be a requirement. I don't think that it solves much, though -- my concern is not people filing impossible patents or patents that are very difficult for those people to implement, but simply taking areas of ideas and holding monopolies over them without then returning advances in technology that would not have otherwise been made.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I'm not sure that the problem is even the "smartness" of the people doing the reviews. The problem is that they have about four hours to find a reason to deny a patent.
/. and say "This patent sucks." It's much harder to encapsulate said suckage into a reason to deny a patent.
It's easy enough to sit around
In the modern world, I think that it is impractical to expect anyone, no matter how smart, to be able to find the weak spot in a patent in a mere four hours.
IMO, we would be better off going the other way. Make the initial patent application just a listing. Instead of writing Patent Pending, write Patent Requested. Then, when they try to use the patent, the challenge comes from the recipient. Also, patent infringement notices should all be sent *through* the patent office (for another fee). I.e. the workflow would be
File patent application.
Notify others that you feel that they are infringing.
The defendant (who is presumably in the field; otherwise how are they infringing) researches prior art and challenges the patent.
Both sides present their evidence to each other.
If neither has admitted the other is correct, they can then go to a review at the patent office. The loser of the review pays the review fees.
The fundamental problem with the current system is that it is not possible for a single person to perform such a review at the proper level of importance. Some of these patents are requesting multi-million dollar fees. Some would be happy with $10,000. How do you support both uses with a one size fits all fee?
If you are really committed to the idea of an up front application review, perhaps we should reconsider how patents can be used. E.g. what if a patent application also had to include the licensing fees? I.e. I might file a patent and say that users could pay either $10,000 for an unlimited license or $1 per use (with a cap of $10,000; i.e. the 10,001st use would be free). The applicant needs to set
1. The max fee per user ($10,000 in this example).
2. The fee per use ($1).
3. The max to be collected.
Every purchaser of the unlimited license would become a part owner of the remainder of the patent. Once the original patenter gets the max amount to be collected, all the licensers (to that point) now own the patent and may license it to others *up to* the amount that they themselves paid. Once they all have licensed the amount they have paid (or 14 years, whichever comes first), the patent expires.
Now, here's the kicker: base the patent application fee on the max to be collected amount. E.g. 5%. That will determine how much effort the patent office puts into researching the patent. As a result, people who can realistically expect their patent to be the next big thing will pay huge fees up front, will get lots of patent review, and will presumably make back the money in licensing. People who put in $5000 worth of work and are hoping for $10,000 in fees will pay much smaller application fees, get little patent review, but will not cost that much.
I would still prefer the delayed review. I think that it is fairer to all concerned and puts much less burden on the patent office. This is an example of an alternative.