Slashdot Mirror
US Patent Office To Re-Examine Blackboard Patent
Mr_5tein writes "Groklaw is reporting that the US Patent and Trademark Office has just ordered a re-examination of the e-learning patent owned by Blackboard Inc, thanks to a filing by the Software Freedom Law Center. SFLC's press release states, 'The Patent Office found that prior art cited in SFLC's request raises "a substantial new question of patentability" regarding all 44 claims of Blackboard's patent...' The SFLC explains that though such re-examinations may take a couple of years to complete, approximately '70% of re-examinations are successful in having a patent narrowed or completely revoked.'"
Its good that there are agencies out there that look for bad patents and bring them to the gov't's attention, but it would be much better if the patent clerks did a better job screening the patents, or these challenges came during the comment period.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
For years, the patent office was granting patents based upon adding the words "Internet based" to what was otherwise an unoriginal idea.
...wait for it.... "digital".
Education? Not new.
"But its on the Internet". Hey! That's new!
There are still literally thousands of patents floating around that were based on this mindless logic, and it still happens today.
Just last week, Microsoft patented a "digital means of recording one's life history". One might call it a diary -- or a time capsule,
but no this was something new. Why? Because its
Sigh.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Yes, but doesn't your second point assume that many of the earlier reexaminations weren't based on substantial reasons? I'm not sure this is common; I'd assume that reexaminations in general have such a high rate of overturning patents specifically because they're based on evidence similar to that seen here.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Yes, much like the Post Office. And *thst* is why they grant everything in sight; the USPTO is a profit center for themselves and the gov't.
C|N>K
This might explain why the USPTO shows so little interest in making sure that the patents it awards are of high quality. For the USPTO it makes absolutely no economic sense to it spend more time on individual patents than the absolute minimum. Actually, it has a lot to do with time constraints and the backload of patents. The system is already upwards of 3 years or more behind in some fields. The problem is they are trying to catch up and do not have the time to do it. They also do not have the money since Congress funnels a lot of what they make to the government departments that LOSE money.
Honestly, one of the best things that could happen to the PTO is the ability to keep more or all of its money. This could be spent to hire more examiners, thereby spreading the load out over more people. I will say, they also need to re-examine the "count" system used to determine the Patent Examiner output. There is far more prior art to examine then there once was, and with more examiners you could offer up more time for examination. There also need to be limitations placed on continuation practice, but I could probably go on for days about ways to tweak the USPTO back into line. A good start would be SCOTUS reversing field and saying software and business methods are unpatentable.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I'm starting my fourth semester of blackboard classes, and while it sure is nice not to have to trek to a classroom miles away to go to night school, the software really is pathetic. I can only imagine what cool things could be done with it if there was a motivation to innovate.
Oh, wait, that's why there is a patent system isn't it? This is going to be an object lesson in how much better the software (or its competitors) gets real quickly once stupid, overly-broad software patents get overturned.
The abuse of patents has become so widespread that it is time to drop the concept. If someone can implement a product or service, good for them. If they can sell that product or service and provide their customers to satisfaction, great. But when some coat tailing company that filed a patent 3 years ago comes stomping in to collect on something they did nothing to produce, market, and support this is just wrong. Costs of producing anything will continue to skyrocket because of this behavior. So why bother? If I knew someone was going to come out of the woodwork to collect, I wouldn't bother, and the time necessary to investigate all potential patents that might infringe is too costly. Look at the video game industry, its amazing how they have been burned by this kind of activity. Patents are wrong and are against all tenents of capital economies.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?