Slashdot Mirror
PTO Requests Working Model of Warp Drive
aborchers writes "According to Patently-O: Patent Law Blog, the PTO has requested a working model of a Warp Drive for which a patent was recently applied. From the article, "Among other rejections, the Examiner has asserted a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility -- finding that the invention is inoperable." At least one examiner is paying attention!"
If they actually turn something in..
Now I've got some time to finish mine.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I have a working model, but unfortunately it's stranded a couple of galaxies away. I can give you directions though, would that suffice?
.... that way we won't get harrassed with frivolous lawsuits when it becomes a reality 20 years + down the road.
Essay: A Violent Protest Against Patents
Thank you for this useful insight into my online rights. Keep up the good work, slashdot! :)
Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
spelling:0 composition:0 see me.
Warp engine designer: it's nice to see the time cube guy has a day job.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Hello Earthlings,
I'd like to inform you, that ony of my many clients has in posession the MWOCPT titles to all kinds of warp drives. I think that if you where to see the patent, you'd understand we've got everything covered. Obviously, you (Earth) haven't developed gravity control yet... so, because of evolutionary "process" clauses in the Federation, we can't show you the patent. Besides... it's a 18.65TB PDF.
It's quite obvious that all your human efforts will fail, until you attaint a little bit of element 115. I'll leave you with that. Just so you know, the Orion Confederation doesn't take lightly to violations of Intellectual Property.
Thank you very much for your attention, and I hope this doesn't repeat itself,
-Stitch
Presently @ MilkyWay.Sol.3 (aka, Planet Earth)
BTW: If you want to survive the next galactical gravity fabric quake, we suggest you hurry up your nanotechnology advances...
Working models are required when the Examiner simply cannot believe such an invention would work. They're typically requested of the flood of time machines, warp drives, teleportation devices, and other such knick-knacks and paddy-whacks the USPTO receives applications for.
... most of the examiners in the electrical arts know more about electronics than you guys. And they DEFINITELY understand the patent system better than idiots like parent.
As far as your typical Slashdrone comment regarding software, however, there's a fairly low burden of showing something will work in software just because there is so much flexibility when writing code. The same is even more true with regards to a hardware implementation of something that could be done in software.
However, since you've been modded insightful, I have to ask -- why? If it's something that you honestly don't believe could be implemented in software, then a) you're obviously too stupid a coder to accidentally run into the problem of practicing the patented invention; and b) if the inventor can actually code the thing, you'd be suggesting that it would therefore be useful and non-obvious just because you're too stupid to figure out how the patent system works.
Here's a hint, Slashdot
Here's a dumb question from a non-lawyer: how long do patents last? Forever? I ask because if a patent only lasts 15 or 50 or 100 years or whatever, what sense does it make to patent something - even if it's essentially just an idea - if your protection is likely to expire before you take anything to market?
A-Bomb
Dear Friend, I am Mr Andrew Peter Worsley and I have an important business proposition for you. On December 12th, 2001, while testing my Warp Drive (patent pending) transport, the ship was stranded in Galaxy N37 due to technical difficulties. The patent office is now demanding that I show it to them before they will approve my patent. But unfortunately, I spent my last penny developing the prototype! As you can see, this patent would be very valuable, and recovering my ship would be a good business investment. I am currently lookinging for investors to gather the $35,273,000 needed to recover the ship. etc, etc, etc... Awaiting your urgent reply. Thanks and regards.
Well, it's nice to see that at least someone applied some brain before passing a patent. Unfortunately, it's not always so easy.
My guess is that normally, the patent clercs simply shake their heads, say "don't understand it, but since they wanna patent it, it's prolly working" and pass it. In this case, though, at least "warp drives" are so well known to be science fiction and far from a working model, that it rang someone's alarm bell.
I wonder, though, if a quantum singularty drive would have been shot down as well. It's not really common knowledge anymore that those don't work (yet) either. Worse yet, they won't be used in Federation starships.
I really sometimes wonder what kind of approval course a patent has to go before becoming patent. Does anyone who has a clue take a look at all?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just call it a software warp drive, or even just include the word software somewhere in the application. Just watch the bastard fly throught the application process.
Remember, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle.
seems a bit overdone, I think they pretty much explained freshman quantum physics in the first part... but if you skip down to the bottom, it makes a smidgeon of sense.... I wouldn't doubt that the actual solution is something similar to this, but the problem they would have is that (if the whole electron bit is true) is the immense forces on the armatures and the internal superconductor. Theres a problem is that if you try to push strong magnetic fields into a superconductor, they tend to break down (the property of superconductivity, not the actual ceramics).. so when this thing (if its even possible) starts to lift, it will likely collapse the superconductivity of the internal sphere, and it would fail to lift. You'd still see the difference on a scale, but I would doubt you'd ever get off the "launch pad" in the next 50 years.
meh
Where you rotate a superconductive sphere 1 meter in diameter 1,500,000 rpm. That'll work.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
that clerk is a /. reader.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Just what I was thinking -- I'd really like to see the PTO require working models of all "inventions" submitted for patent, and while I'm as pleased to see this frivolous application rejected as I would be any other, I can't help be a bit bothered by the double standard involved. "Silly, unworkable, sci-fi-inspired idea probably filed as a joke? Forget it, pal. Silly, unworkable, b-school-inspired idea layered in suit-speak? No problem!"
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Wrongo, legal fanboi. They don't know jack shit about "electrical arts", or else they'd have a real job actually building something instead of shuffling papers in a government cubicle.
If they had even the slightest bit of talent, they would be embarrassed to categorize the most trivial of ideas to be "non-obvious".
And they DEFINITELY understand the patent system better than idiots like parent.
No, they can't see the forest for the trees. All they know about is masturbatory legal minutia. For example, they can't see how software patents are threatening to destroy innovation in the software industry, because they're not actually trying to make a productive living developing software. They just get paid to plant landmines all over the industry landscape; they don't give a shit about who ends up getting hurt or who has to clean them up. All they know is that their bosses allocate them a couple of hours to plant each mine, and their organization is rewarded based on how many mines get planted.
hi - at my company, we hold a lot of patents. In fact, there's a program in which people at the company can submit patent ideas and our legal department checks them out and sees if they exist/are viable/etc. I submitted one last year (that already existed - damn) and while speaking with one of the lawyers he mentioned, quite empatically, that whatever is being patented does not actually have to exist. According to him, you can patent a process or software or hardware that has no working proof of concept. I think the idea of submitting a patent on something that can never exist is pretty lame, but on the other hand, I don't think that people should be allowed to call dibs on patents just so they can wait for somebody else to do the work and then sue them. It's tough to find a same medium. how close is too close (or too far) from the realization of an idea for it to be patented?
calling all destroyers
I'd really like to see the PTO require working models of all "inventions" submitted for patent
That used to be among the requirements, but the costs of storing all the models became prohibitive back in the 1870's or so. The Smithsonian Institution has quite a few of them, and they show some of the collection from time to time.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I have no problem with people getting a patent on an "idea" or software concept as long as the person can
1. Show no prior art
2. Has intent to use said patent.
Patents are meant to protect a inventory from LOSS due to stealing of a persons idea. They where never meant as a profit center.
I should not be able to think up and idea and then just sit on it until someone else decideds to try and use it.. Wait even longer then sue them for using it once they are worth money.
Personal Website
I'd really like to see the PTO require working models of all "inventions" submitted for patent
I respectfully disagree. I submit patent applications as an IBM employee, and while I don't have the resources to ever bring my ideas to market, IBM can certainly bring to bear just about anything I submit that they deem worthy. But why would they ever tool a manufacturing line and build a working demo of every invention *before* having a patent covering the idea? I started to develop a residential answering machine that allows a family to setup individual profiles with independent mailboxes, greetings, and email addresses to forward messages as attachments. I did my due dilligence and found too many related patents and applications out there. Even if someone hasn't developed a working demo yet, I can respect that they claimed the idea as their own. Why can't you? And why don't you feel that "Joe Inventor" who works in his garage for 20 years trying to find the next big thing should be allowed to make money by documenting cutting edge ideas just because he can't afford to fab circuits, develop code and burn EEPROMS?
Kicking it up a notch, how about IBM implementing a new chip design? We can simulate complete chip designs entirely in software. Why should they spend a billion dollars to fab the first version of the chip just so they can ship it to Washington so a patent clerk can validate its worthiness? I feel this position was borne from the fact that a tiny fraction of the folks we meet and work with in our daily lives are actually backed by an organization that may at one point actually do something with our ideas. You certainly don't mind demanding that those of us who *can* spend millions of dollars in development actually *do* spend that kind of money. Obviously, software patents are a different story, but you didn't say "all software inventions". You want every patent application accompanied by a working model.
Intelligent Life on Earth
Inside the working models of radiation shielding.
What's that skip? Timmy's trapped down the well?
James P. Barrett
....to how this space drive patent application was treated. When this earlier patent was discussed on Slashdot I made a comment discussing how the patent just sailed through without a single question being raised about operability.
The difference? I can't really determine the exact reasons, not being privy to the cirumstances surrounding the prosecution of each application, but one fact is that each was examined by a different examiner. I can speculate on the disparity of treatment, however. It is another fallout from PTO management's 30+ years of emphasis on meeting production and timeliness goals over substantive quality aspects of examination, quality meaning finding and applying relevant prior art and passing judgement on issues such as operability (I don't include aspects such as including software and business methods as patentable subject matter or creating a high standard of proof to support obviousness rejections, since these have been imposed externally by the courts).
The PTO's response to issues of quality has been to establish an entire subbeaurocrocy dedicated to "Quality Review", which has all the pitfalls of centralizing such essential values outside of the main operation. The main failure is how one expects a small core of people, no matter how expert they are in the examination process, to possess the same depth of knowledge as even a mediocre examiner in a give art. PTO management then compounds this with a punitive aspect; if QR "kicks back" an application the examiner will get charged with an error, yet the QR reviewer doesn't have the same kind of production pressure as the working examiner to grind out cases; telling someone "you should have spent more time searching this case" isn't particularly helpful if it doesn't explain how one chooses the other applications from which this time should have been taken.
The negative publicity concerning examination quality has, finally, reached the attention of PTO's upper level management, but, it is an open question if they will recognize that just heaping more "review" on the process will not actually result in an improvment, but that a fundamental return to the ethic of a genuine quality examination is the way to go.
Of course, it a cobbling together of parts in an imagined configuration, borrowed for a well known fictional source, without having actually invented any of the needed sub components, except for the usual nuts, bolts, screws, etc. But not really. There is not real confusion, as the concerns from fiction might be based in actual possible Very Bad Side Effects(tm), among other things.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Of course, Arthur C Clarke is credited with the invention of the Communications Satellite, based on a detailed technical destricption he wrote in a magazine, back in 1947. (If I recall correctly)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
How about a Slashdot for Patents???? Given the knowledge and interest I've seen displayed here, and the fact that the SlashCode is available, I really think this could work!
Features: Here's a rough, back of the envelope, sketch of how it could work:
Getting patents A demon could periodically check the USPTO site, and create an article for each new patent application it finds.
Categorizating Patents would be categorized into different "departments". Hmmm, could a Bayesian filter come up with a short list of recommendations? These could be attached to the article as options for "High-Karma" users to select (or offer something better). As soon as some threshhold (say 10 votes) is reached, the article is moved from the NEW department to the selected department.
Moderating This could procede as it does here on slashdot, but the comments' focus could be to examine the patents:
Benefits Offhand, I see this would:
What have I missed? I know there has to be SOMEthing! Thoughts? Ideas?