Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Peer Review Starts for Software Patents

Posted by Zonk on from the clarity-to-a-muddy-situation dept.

perbert writes "As seen in an interview in IEEE Spectrum: Qualcomm v. Broadcom. Amazon v. IBM. Apple v. seemingly everyone. The number of high-profile patent lawsuits in this country has reached a staggering level. Hoping to curtail the orgy of tech-industry litigation, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is experimenting with reforming the way patents are applied for and processed. Launched on 18 June 2007 was an Internet-based peer-review program whereby anyone (even you) can help to evaluate a number of software patent applications voluntarily submitted for public evaluation. The one-year pilot Peer-to-Patent program is a collaboration between the USPTO and New York Law School's Institute for Information Law and Policy, in New York City. The program's Web site allows users to weigh in on patent applications by researching, evaluating, submitting, and discussing prior art, which is any existing information, such as articles in technology journals and other patents, relevant to the applicant's claims."

102 comments

  1. Looks pretty solid by Evets · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nice...

    5 applications online, 22 instances of prior art submitted.

    While everyone's favorite seems to be Method, apparatus and computer program product for providing status of a process, I had to laugh at Database staging area read-through or forced flush with dirty notification - it's pretty much a description of how every memcached/SQL plugin works. I guess somebody should mention that.

    Apparently, if you make the description sound complex enough it will pass initial review.

    It's good to see this kind of a process come to light. Three cheers for Beth Noveck.

    1. Re:Looks pretty solid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apparently, if you make the description sound complex enough it will pass initial review.

      Yes. I once had a conversation with a lawyer who worked in a patent office about this, and this is very correct. In theory the people reviewing patents and determining whether or not a patent should be granted are technically educated and competent. In fact, many of them are technically literate, but as we all know the world of computer technology is huge and what is often required to intelligently review a patent is not just technical literacy, but plenty of domain knowledge in the specific area of the patent (many people who use computers every day, even people who program computers, know very little about how memcached/SQL plugins work).

      So even though some effort at technical literacy is made, the fact is that there simply isn't enough manpower to pull it off. A patent office only has so many people on staff, and so much money that they can spend on expert consultation, and the submitters are always in a hurry. These real-world pressures leave specific clerks holding the bag; they are more-or-less forced to make a decision with too little information, and financially incensed to lean towards approval.

      So, yes, techy-sounding complexity will go a long way towards getting bogus patents approved.

    2. Re:Looks pretty solid by billsoxs · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think that it has more to do with the time that the Patent officer has to spend on the patent. I am involved in such an issue and the offending patent has a "Korean" patent referenced on the front. That patent was from "1977". Guess what, the new patent was just a rehash of the "77" patent. (There is prior art to ~"1970".) How can I tell, I've read a translation old patent and the new patent. A laywer has said that because it is listed IN the patent - it is unlikely that a court would over turn the new patent.... The court will assume that the USPTO actually looked at the "Korean" document and thinks that it was different. That same laywer is seeking to find out if a translation of the "Korean" patent was looked at by the USPTO. He thinks it is unlikely. This is because of the time it would take to do so.

      Note dates and names have been changed to protect the guilty.

      --
      This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
    3. Re:Looks pretty solid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, an examiner spends on average 5 minutes with a patent. An attorney charges around 500 dollars an hour to rewrite a patent to get around an prior art an examiner finds in that 5 minutes. Who do you think wins most times?

    4. Re:Looks pretty solid by eggnoglatte · · Score: 4, Interesting
      On first sight, the situation may seem positive, but unfortunatly the quality of the "prior art" submissions is dysmal.

      For example, if you read even just the intro of "Method, apparatus and computer program product for providing status of a process", it is immediately clear that the authors use the term "process" in a non-software meaning (i.e. a production process or something similar - they use a power plant as an example). Yet two of the supposed prior art submissions refer to operating system process monitors (one wanker actually uploaded a .exe file). Most of the other "prior art" submission have already been rebuked by other participants.

      I predict a very fast end to this pilot test unless the quality improves drastically. If you are gonna comment, you should at least bother reading the patent, for christ sake.

    5. Re:Looks pretty solid by backbyter · · Score: 1

      Having done contract work for the USPTO for a number of years, I can assure you they do not lack people who speak Korean. Doesn't mean they looked at the Korean patent though.

    6. Re:Looks pretty solid by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      but as we all know the world of computer technology is huge and what is often required to intelligently review a patent is not just technical literacy

      This is why I think the patent process should be a direct analogue of the peer-reviewed refereed scientific journal process—so that it is a panel of field experts that make the decisions about what is significant and what is not. Patents should be of a quality that would be accepted for publication in such a journal. This would eliminate about 99% of all software-patent applications. The new public review process is a first step in this direction. Next, it needs to be made mandatory for all patent applications. Finally, the patent employees need to be made administrators of the process rather than arbiters of what is significant. (Actually, this would be no change from what they do now.)

    7. Re:Looks pretty solid by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      Why should this site encourage more thoughtful posts than Slashdot does?

      The USTPO is asking the public to do their jobs for them. Nice try, but real life doesn't work like that.

      Now they're stuck with moderating the website and sifting though an enormous number of garbage posts.

    8. Re:Looks pretty solid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So treat it like jury duty. If you're in receipt of grants from the National Science Foundation or the like, you must agree to participate in a couple patent reviews a year. You could even turn it into something prestigious that can go into an academic c.v. ("reviewed 16 patent applications in 2007").

      Academics do this all the time to be published in journals.

  2. Not peer review by kmac06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While this is an improvement, it is not peer review. Allowing public comments is different than requesting recommendations from experts in the field.

    1. Re:Not peer review by Evets · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While there is a semantic difference, I'd hate to leave "Peer Review" to academics and "career experts" that have taken the time and effort to have their own credentials reviewed.

      There are plenty of people out there who wouldn't pass muster if you reviewed their credentials, but they know more about the inner workings of some things than anybody else in the industry.

      How many key industry players are drop outs that made their money on hard work and ingenuity? More than a few I imagine.

    2. Re:Not peer review by EvanED · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Then what does the "peer" mean? If anyone can comment, it's just "review".

      This is just an argument about what "peer review" means, not about whether it's useful, how it compares to peer review, etc., but that term has a pretty specific meaning.

      Wikipedia's entry starts with "Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field."

    3. Re:Not peer review by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Judging by a lot of software patents, I would be highly surprised if experts in the field were the authors' peers...

      Cheap shots aside, aren't you opening yourself up to litigation with this? If you submit prior art on a patent which is then granted anyway then they can prove that you read it, which opens you up to claims of wilful infringement, which carries stiffer penalties than ignorant infringement (which is one of the main reasons patents fail to achieve their aim, since the people who would most benefit from them aren't able to read them). Or is the review process sufficiently anonymous?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Not peer review by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then what does the "peer" mean? If anyone can comment, it's just "review".

      It means every bit as much as a "jury of your peers" does today.

      Once upon a time, a "jury of your peers" was a group of citizens with similar social standing, economic condition, et cetera. Today it's twelve assholes that both lawyers think they can manipulate, who are guaranteed beyond a shadow of a doubt to know nothing about the case they're trying.

      I don't see any reason why corporations shouldn't be judged in the eyes of random jackoffs if you and I are.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Not peer review by geek2718 · · Score: 1

      "peer" does not mean "expert", it means someone at an equal level http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peer. Therefore since patents are submitted by the general public, they can be reviewed by the general public, and that is peer review. Whether it is effective peer review or not is up for debate. Academic peer review is generally done by experts because the community in question is unified by its expertise in a certain area, thus reviewers, and authors, are experts and peers. In this case I'd think that patents would surely benefit from this broad peer review, and it is far simpler than organizing expert review, or refereeing in the academic sense. To do that one would need a large infrastructure of patent "editors" to select appropriate referees. Of course, there is already a similar infrastructure in the Pat. Office.

    6. Re:Not peer review by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Yup, so rich southern whites accused of killing/assaulting blacks were tried by other rich southern whites. Brilliant!

      Thats the reason that juries today try for diversity- because certain segments of society are more likely to be harsher or more lenient than society as a whole. Or do you want the next Kenneth Lay to be tried by a jury of CEOs?

      (Not that there isn't plenty of problems with the current method of jury selection, but trying to get socio-economic peers is a step backwards).

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    7. Re:Not peer review by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      I did Jury Duty a few months ago.

      Jurors AREN'T supposed to be experts on the case. You are allowed to only use your general knowledge of things (ie, gravity holds things down, the sky is blue, basic physics). Lawyers will bring in 'experts' whos testimony you can ignore or accept. Jurors themselves are supposed to be unbiased, and using your expertise will make you biased. In the trial I participated in (civil, car accident), two different experts came to two different conclusions as to the location of one of the cars and hence the person at fault. From the same data. If you were being tried, would you rather a juror come to a conclusion before the trial was over or wait until after the trial and THEN consider the evidence like they are supposed to?

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    8. Re:Not peer review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A jury consists of 12 people not clever enough to get out of jury duty.

    9. Re:Not peer review by robbiethefett · · Score: 1

      we can calculate the exact telemetry of an object moving through space 365 million miles from earth, traveling at a velocity around 38,000mph. we can send that object a signal thats 20 billion times less powerful than a digital watch and tell it to turn around and take a picture of Jupiter. Why, oh why, can't we determine who's playing the insurance company for a chump?

      --
      "Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
    10. Re:Not peer review by geekoid · · Score: 1

      if people would stop weaseling out of Jury DUTY, maybe we can get that.
      otoh -
      "Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel." H. Simpson

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Not peer review by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with Jury Duty is that it wasn't supposed to be a financial burden. You can bet the $5 a day they pay was actually worth something when it was first implemented. It's a sad state of affairs when juries are made up entirely of people who can afford to just not get paid for weeks at at time. If we require maternity leave, and disability to be paid by employers, we sure could help our country a lot more by adding jury leave to the list.

    12. Re:Not peer review by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I did Jury Duty a few months ago. Jurors AREN'T supposed to be experts on the case.

      Now that you've been a juror, you're an expert on what a juror should be?

      Why shouldn't jurors know something about the case? If I'm smarter than the expert witnesses (it's a hypothetical here, bear with me) then isn't it in the interest of justice if I remain on the jury, and don't get booted off just because I know something?

      The so-called justice system is flawed at best, and deliberately designed for game-playing at worst (and unfortunately, I think worse has come to worst in this situation.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Not peer review by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      if people would stop weaseling out of Jury DUTY, maybe we can get that.

      Well, I'm not saying that I've ever weaseled out of jury duty, but if I had it would have been because I couldn't afford it.

      My current employer is the first I've ever had that would pay you for your time spent on the jury. I work for a tribal casino, and they more or less appear to have adopted their holidays and some of their practices directly from federal government practices.

      Now, sometimes I've been salaried, but mostly those jobs involve overwork. So basically, while I would still get paid for my time, effectively I would not be, because I'd still have to go into work and do the same work. So I'd be behind time.

      However, I have never received a jury summons while I was idle. Only when it would be a hardship.

      If I received one now, I would most definitely appear. But is it fair to expect employers to pay your wages? Probably not. I don't have a solution, unfortunately.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. let's actually moderate patents by 1800maxim · · Score: 5, Funny

    We could use such tags as "Funny" - aka invention too stupid (remember the diaper pants that inflate if a fall is detected? This supposedly saves your bum from bruising).
    Or how about "Troll" - aka it's a patent troll, and should be ignored.
    "Interesting" means not a bad idea, but let's put it on hold for a while and give it some thought.
    I'm sure we could adapt "Informative" and "Insightful" as "Useful".

    I'm only kidding about this.

    1. Re:let's actually moderate patents by jeevesbond · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good idea, I'd only have one moderation option though: 'SoftwareIsNotPatentable'. :)

      --
      I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
    2. Re:let's actually moderate patents by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      >I'm only kidding about this.

      It's an awesome idea, you should patent it!

  4. Approved Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would have to have received at least +5 karma of either +1 interesting or +1 insightful, less any -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.

    +1 funny would not count towards patent approval.

  5. Cheaper? by vigmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will this make getting patents cheaper for the applicant?

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    1. Re:Cheaper? by zCyl · · Score: 1

      In the end it could make things cheaper for the large companies. Right now they are reluctantly filing patents in huge quantities on tiny things just to stay competitive with the other large companies. If most of the irrelevant patents start getting systematically discarded, then none of the large companies will have to file them, and each of them will save money on patent fees.

      It might raise the cost for an individual inventor filing a single patent, particularly if someone challenges it with prior art which has to be disputed, but this is a small price to pay for a patent system that might start to make a little more sense.

  6. No, but it probably aids peer review by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Attaching a bunchof prior art (or supposed prior art) to an application sure helps the peer review process.

    Only problem I see with this is that it can easily become deep pockets vs the rest exercise. No doubt MS and some others will have a few people perminantly assigned to tearing apart applications from others.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:No, but it probably aids peer review by aim2future · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No doubt MS and some others will have a few people perminantly assigned to tearing apart applications from others. Certainly, but there are plenty of people, like 50% of those I know that would gladly tear MS patent applications apart for free.

    2. Re:No, but it probably aids peer review by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is hope then.
      If one company can do it, then so can others.
      At some point they will realise its a waste of all their time, or we will end up with a server room fist fight broadcast on youtube.

      win-win I say.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:No, but it probably aids peer review by billsoxs · · Score: 1

      or we will end up with a server room fist fight broadcast on youtube.

      I'll take Balmer over Jobs in the second round! Jobs will come in the best equipment money can buy but Balmer will change the shape of the court by fiat and then kick Jobs in the balls.

      --
      This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
    4. Re:No, but it probably aids peer review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but there are plenty of people, like 50% of those I know that would gladly tear MS patent applications apart for free.


      So you have one friend and you know RMS?
  7. well by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

    Sounds good, as long as it doesnt turn into - Ill approve your patent for breathing, if you approve mine for walking.

    --
    Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
    1. Re:well by nonsequitor · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to combine those patents into breathing while walking.

  8. Remember getting paid for viewing ads online? by 1800maxim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was a system that displayed ads while you were using the mouse (moving the cursor, clicking).

    Perhaps they could develop a similar system for patent reviewing - get paid for it. And then I could write a script that keeps moving the mouse cursor around and randomly clicks on ACCEPT/REJECT buttons (and let's not forget, moderate the patents - see my post above for more detail).

    I suspect my randomizer would do a better job of filtering bogus patents out.

  9. Anyone? by niceone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...whereby anyone (even you) can help to evaluate...

    Well, anyone who can read a patent without their head exploding. I can't even read my own. let alone other people's :)

    Hopefully the people that do this will know enough to read the claims properly and not just deluge the system with incorrect prior art based on reading the description.

    --
    ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
  10. More expensive by qbzzt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No. This will mean that there will be more people finding more prior art, and therefore more documents to wade through and more correspondence with the Patent Office. This means more expenses rather than less. I'm not saying it's a bad idea (I already argued against one application), but it won't make patenting inventions cheaper. The patent examiner will still do a literature search and find things in addition to whatever this process finds.

    On the other hand, it mean that enforcing patents will become a bit easier because the general level of patents will be higher so there'll be less to litigate about.

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
    1. Re:More expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > This will mean that there will be more people finding more prior art

      "Given enough eyeballs, all patents are obvious." :)

    2. Re:More expensive by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Great! Just what we're looking for... make it not worth filing for software patents.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  11. Oh goodie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad that Microsoft and the other big guys are looking out for my interests, and am glad to know that any patent which I might file which threatens their cash flow will get their unbiased attention.

    This has to be the biggest giveaway that the U.S. Patent Office has ever achieved.

    1. Re:Oh goodie by qbzzt · · Score: 1

      Would you rather be awarded the patent and then have a court overturn it? This way you save on litigation costs if you're going to file a patent for which there is prior art.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    2. Re:Oh goodie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, absolutely. I'd rather take my chances with the court (which is supposed to be independent and unbiased) than have it shot down by the Big Guys in the first place.

  12. Join us NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have too much free time and no idea how to throw it out of the window?
    Visit our site and join us in wasting your money!

    We promise the work will bore you to tears and the patent language will burn a he in your brain!
    You no longer need violent games to become a psycho-killer,
    you no longer need drugs to permanently damage you brain,
    you no longer need gambling to feel utterly defeated...

    All this and much much more for FREE! Yes your read that right: FREE!

    Join our community now!

    the USPTO Team

    PS:

    Please feel free to post any ideas you might have for our advertising campaign.

  13. 4 Year Backlog! by monxrtr · · Score: 0

    "All applications that go through the pilot will be reviewed out of turn--in other words they'll be taken first--and if you think about the fact that there's now over a four-year backlog in this area of patents to get examined, being examined out of turn and having one's invention reviewed in the course of less than a year, which is what the commitment is, I think is a tremendous incentive to participate"

    Yeah, you know patent grants are in the realm of absurdity when there's a 4 year backlog just for a review. The system is corrupt and beyond legitimacy; this is a desperation move that foreshadows similar desperation moves from all sorts of IP monopolists to retreat to a "don't throw out the baby with the bath water" stance to save the IP system from collapse. But we have all the evidence, all the case studies, all the economic and philosophical proof necessary, to show that patents and copyrights hinder technological and artistic progress, contrary to the original constitutional claim of justification.

    --
    "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
    1. Re:4 Year Backlog! by Evets · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You just made a brilliant argument for getting rid of software patents all together.

      After all this time, there is no legitimate process for determining the true origination of an idea or whether an idea is actually original. This process is a band-aid for a broken bone.

      If you truly want your idea protected, it needs to be kept secret. That is the only real protection an inventor can provide himself with.

      The patent system is over encumbered with legislation and politicization (is that even a word?!?) to the point where a true innovator either has to be working under a corporate structure that can support his or her efforts, or that innovator must stop innovating long enough to gain an understanding of the process and navigate through it.

      Initially conceived to protect important intellectual property and therefore inspire ingenuity, the patent system has transformed into a system that actually stunts progress and protects very few who actually change our world for the better.

  14. Big flaw: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The people who could most contribute to this have the biggest incentive not to.

    If you read the patent, and it is then granted, and you, or your company, are ruled to infringe, the plaintiff is entitled to treble damage (I think) for "willful infringement".

    The people who could make the most interesting contribution (because it's their domain) are also the most likely to be potentially infringing (because it's their domain).

    And this thing is not anonymous...

  15. I think it is nifty by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 2, Funny

    Three cheers for the USPTO for coming up with the idea.

  16. a new era by ShorePiper82 · · Score: 1

    Patent System 2.0

    I like it.

    as a side note: my captcha image word was "stalling". Somehow applicable.

  17. You know.... by JamesRose · · Score: 1

    The lobbying system whereby you can support your interests by lobbying our government, which has now been turned into a system by which large corporations now run our government, well now large corporations can lobby the patent system and control that now, good news guys you can have your say! Long live freedom in America! Sorry if I seem a little skeptical, but if anyone can add to this without their background being checked, then I don't think its very good, at the very least a corporation could deliberately spam the patent office so they couldn't effectively review a patent.

  18. What Happen to /. by Bucc5062 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Holy Mother Of God!!! After all the whini^H^H^H^H^H commentary about how awefulthe Patent Office is regarding software patents, after all the knashing of teeth over why can't the US Patent Office let the public help....They DO!!! And the first 15-20 comments are complaints about the word Peer, litigation, and Microsoft still fixing the system....oh wait, this still is /. Folks, I would figure a big cheer is in order. Change was made to a bad system. Maybe not the panacea we hope for, but better then do nothing and bitch. How about a hand to the Patent Office for taking a trail run at trusting the public to balance on the side of good. I have to specific gain or loss in this, but if it stops the banal patent whoring, submarining, or patent camping I gladly lend my voice to say three cheers, and make the public win!

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    1. Re:What Happen to /. by bit01 · · Score: 1

      Change was made to a bad system.

      Superficial change was made to a fundamentally broken system. They're hoping the complaints will go away so they won't have to deal with the real issues.

      Well guess what? The complaints are not going to go away until they start addressing the fundamentals. Like how much benefit, if any, patents actually bring rather than the wholesale hand waving they usually engage in.

      ---

      Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.

    2. Re:What Happen to /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This new system may be the best thing since the dawn of man, or it may not. Only time will tell. One thing is sure now though: the day we stop questioning society is the day progress stops.

  19. scarry by phrostie · · Score: 3, Funny

    for a second i thought they said, Pay Perview for Software Patents.

    1. Re:scarry by imbaczek · · Score: 1

      Amazon has patent on THAT, you insensitive clod.

  20. Oblig. Sealab 2021 by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    While this is an improvement, it is not peer review. Allowing public comments is different than requesting recommendations from experts in the field.

    Dr. Quinn: I've got five Ph.D.'s and a genius grant. I don't have any peers here.

  21. Sounds like a Letterman list to me by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is experimenting with reforming the way patents are applied for and processed.

    Ok, ladies and gentlemen, from the home office in Sioux City, Iowa, the Top Ten ways the USPTO is reforming the way patents are processed:

    • 10. Removing the approve-it dartboard from the breakroom
    • 9. Firing Kiki the approval badger
    • 8. Banning Jeff Bezos from the office
    • 7. Doubling the 45 second research phase
    • 6. Free donut if the clerk actually looks for prior art
    • 5. Using one of them there computer thingys to search this "database" whatchamacallit
    • 4. Cut workload by 50% by arranging a death match between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs
    • 3. Halt the "approval by the pound" employee bonus incentive plan
    • 2. Up standards to a sixth grade education for all clerks
    • 1. Actually reading them first!
    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  22. Require Implementations by Belacgod · · Score: 1

    What is really needed to stop the bleeding (short of banning software patents entirely) is requiring patent applications to come with implementations. If you've patented a widget, build one and submit it. If your patented process is too large or complex for that to be practicable, you get a pass--but software should never be in that category! You want to patent 1-click ordering? Submit a runnable program to demonstrate the code you want patented. That would raise the costs of submarine patenting, as you'd have to do more of the development gruntwork before you could sue the people who proved it was profitable. Plus, it'd return some of the spurs to innovation, as people could read the published patent and be able to put it to use easier. Personally, the other reform I'd favor (this also goes for copyright) is a very short period of monopoly, followed by a longer period of forced licensing. For 5 years, you can prevent anyone from using your idea. For 30 years after that, anyone who uses your idea must pay you royalties of x%, but you can't stop them from using your idea. After that, it's public domain.

  23. I'm still having trouble with this. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Don Marti said in his blog a few days ago, and I agree: Why are we giving software patent holders free QA so that they will have more solid patents to use against us? . And some folks are trying to tell us that this won't expose us to the treble damages we would get if we looked at granted patents because these are only applications, but what happens when these get granted? Do we have to somehow insulate ourselves from knowledge that they are ever granted?

    I am not at all sure this would help either Open Source or small and medium sized proprietary software developers, who I imagine are the folks they want to have doing peer review - and also the folks most in danger from Software patents. I do not at this time recommend that you participate in this at all if you are an Open Source developer, the risk of being exposed to treble damages is too high. I don't know if you should participate in this if you're even an Open Source sympathizer. It sounds too much like an effort to save a software patent system that we should be shutting down.

    The only way I think it would help would be if we could entirely kill a patent application. Just fixing one only makes it more powerful.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > Why are we giving software patent holders free QA so that they will have more solid patents to use against us?

      Because the alternative is more patents that nobody QA's that they STILL use against us.

    2. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't agree with software or business method patents in general (or genetics for that matter), but this is a hell of a lot better than BS patents being passed through and then someone having to pay through every orifice for having transgressed on a bogus patent. It's a stop-gap as far as I'm concerned. We can still fight the good fight against them, but until then, this is the best step we can take. Fixing one may make it more powerful, but it may also marginalize it enough with prior art that it becomes irrelevant instead of the "one click" type crap. If you're in an out of control car, the first step is taking your foot off the gas, not stepping on the brake.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    3. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree Bruce. Theres another issue I'm worried about:

      Lets say I am a software devel and I happen to use a particular technique in a piece of software I write. For which I am paid by some company and this company now owns the software. Now I happen to look at some software patent (given for review). If this patent is using the same method as what I have used, what happens now?

      (a) I cannot prove the prior art
      (b) If the patent is granted, after a few years time, my code for the company will be found to be infringing on this patent!

      It would be great if you could write up an article on this peer review business for software patents.

    4. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by billsoxs · · Score: 1
      Not so - you just need to show that you used it and sold it to someone else BEFORE the patent application date. At that point it is not patentable. It is a little harder but...

      IANAL!

      --
      This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
    5. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But a patent that hasn't been through a QA process is likely to be much easier to defend against.

      The strategy of the patent trolls is to get a whole bunch of patents, none of them very good, but hope that maybe just one of them will stick. Fighting against a bunch of bad patents is much easier (although probably more time consuming) than fighting against a patent that has been through QA. After all, the patent troll is certain to use the fact that it has passed a peer review process to push their case.

      I agree with Bruce, this is like going through your enemies ammunition supply, filtering out the duds, and leaving him with a box and a note "here is the good ammunition, come and shoot me!".

    6. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because most bad software patents you should be able to disprove with prior art. If its so good that it can overcome all prior art, then maybe it does deserve a patent. However, I've yet to see a software program in the last 5 years or so that was that good, so it shouldn't be a worry. There are plenty of affirmative defenses to willful infringement that just looking at a patent doesn't expose you. This is a good program all around. People should participate, and if you don't like software patents, work at the legislative level. The courts and the executive aren't going to fix it, because the way the Fed Circuit has interpreted the law, they shouldn't. For the patent system in general, though, this is a great thing.

    7. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      Not so - you just need to show that you used it and sold it to someone else BEFORE the patent application date. At that point it is not patentable.

      This is not true in the US. Prior use will get you immunity from a lawsuit, but it won't invalidate the patent and others who had no such prior use will still be vulnerable. To invalidate the patent the prior used "invention" has to have been "known" in the general body or knowledge in the field, which requires that the patented mechanism be described. On the other hand widespread prior use may be relevant to a consideration of obviousness.

    8. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But a patent that hasn't been through a QA process is likely to be much easier to defend against.

      If you have a legal budget and you're willing to fight the patent in court. Most open source projects will just roll over if they get hit with even the threat of a lawsuit, so the strength of the patent is irrelevant.

    9. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way I think it would help would be if we could entirely kill a patent application. Just fixing one only makes it more powerful.
      This is entirely true. The patent trolls that swing by my area of the technology world add any prior art suggested in previous rounds to the continuations of the patent. Ah-ah-ah, they say, that can't be invalidating prior art! It's referenced and reviewed by the examiner.

      They threw us a division of a continuation of a continuation of a continuation of a division. From--in reverse--91,93,97,98 and the patent in question from 2000. Yeah, that's right, 17 years is no obstacle. We'll get at least 26 out of this baby...

      Not to mention the patent is the relatively obvious combination of two ubiquitous technologies. And you wonder why *we* file for everything?
    10. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this sounds good in theory but is really dangerous for us in practice. Got it.

      Thanks Bruce, I always value your advice.

      --Just another fanboy (I am not trolling or being sarcastic).

    11. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software patents are patents on generic ideas, not specific implementations. So you are probably very unlikely able to "work around them". If, as is, "streming video over internet" has been granted as a patent, when a FOSS project is threatened it has only to quit. Even if you THINK that you have found a workaround, you have then to demostrate in court (some MILLION dollars of legal expenses).
      Software patents have to be REMOVED, KILLED, have NOT TO EXIST, period. There is no a 3 way.

    12. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by __aayurq3262 · · Score: 1

      The only way I think it would help would be if we could entirely kill a patent application. Just fixing one only makes it more powerful.

      Bruce

      Bruce is absolutely correct. This process is designed to weed out all the "obvious" software inventions that we complain about - the ones that are just a rehash of something old. If you believe that patents are inherently bad or if you believe that software should never be patented - even if it meets all the requirements of a patent (new, non-obvious) - then you should be aware that this process does make the patent stronger. OTOH, it should remove or narrow some software patents, leaving fewer to worry about and making those that survive less of a threat when we use known software procedures and their obvious variants. Those who want to do what is described in the patent, however, will have to worry more.

      Choose your side: More software patents to worry about (but weaker on average), or fewer (but stronger) software patents.
    13. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about that, can you point to some examples of FOSS projects that have been shut down because of patent disputes? Since software patents are only valid in the USA (and maybe some other places, I'm not sure), they are certainly not valid in Europe, Australia, or many other places that are strong centres of FOSS development. So at worst, a patent dispute can lead to moving development of the project outside the USA. Admittedly for some projects, that might amount to killing it off anyway, but I would suggest the vast majority of FOSS projects would get on fine even if they were restricted from having a US presence.

    14. Re:I'm still having trouble with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look in the caselaw at what the court has considered public use/knowlege. In some cases, just _telling_ a single, disinterested party - not even showing them, mind you - counts as being 'publically known'.

  24. This is terrible! by John+Sokol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I haven't read this all that closely,
      But the idea of having my Intellectual property / invention read through by peers / possible competitors before my patent goes through is the worst thing that you can do to a small unfunded startup.

      This would kill of the next google before then even get out the starting gate.

      Basically I have some software / algorithms that I have been working on for almost 10+ years, Code is developed and I am ready to build a product and get some funding to launch the company. Investors want and need to see patent protection. I have indeed done all of the hard work, but if this it shared before I get my patent fully filed, then
      some group of students or Microsoft could through a small army of coders at developing a competing product before I even get funded. I will then be unable to raise funding because M$ is doing it already and therefor will be unable to raise the cash to finish my patent filings or defend the patent.

      It is already hard enough as it is, I should know, I have attempted to file about 20 patents of the past 15 years and not one ever made it all the way through because of lack of fund, or someone attempting to take over the company, or M$ putting out press releases and faked demos that were flat out lies.

      At this point my plans were to file patents before taking to investors or releasing products, and do this without professional patent attorneys that have eaten up almost $300K with not 1 completed patent to show for it.
      But if these patent get publicly dispersed before I even get my patent filed, well I am just dead before I even start.

      In the past I had the first and largest content distribution network 1994 and running from (1995 to 1998), Caching servers, Error Correction over IP, QOS, Firewall penetration schemes, Streaming audio over IP 1987, streaming video over IP 1989, the whole concept file sharing P2P 1989 and of live P2P streaming 1994,Dynamic Rate control for video streaming encoders and many more things that all fell apart for one reason or another.

    And some of these attempted patents that fell apart are now the core of several billion dollar companies that I have nothing at all to do with.

    As a small entrepreneur the system is already slanted heavily against me. This would really just kill any aspirations for me.

    And before you criticize, I have shared plenty of this in open source and published papers, usually only after it has lost commercial value for me though.

    John

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:This is terrible! by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
      If your patent should be granted, other companies working in the same area after you submit the application will not jeopardize that in any way. In fact, these other companies become a major source of future license fees. Any venture capitalist worth his salt that can be convinced you have valid patents in areas of interest to large companies is going to be very interested. Problems exist only if the process of getting approval takes too long. Time, in this case, becomes very expensive.

      You should be delighted by this initiative. It is voluntary for the patent applicant, but guarantees the application will be dealt with far faster should you opt in.

    2. Re:This is terrible! by tkohler · · Score: 1

      >I haven't read this all that closely, The new system only posts patent applications after they have published (18 months after filing) and are public anyway.

    3. Re:This is terrible! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Lets see, you event everything important with computer in the las 20 year. Check
      Kept down by 'the man' Check
      Basic facts don't seem to line up with reality? Check.

      BS detectors ringing loudly.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:This is terrible! by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      VC's are very easy to spook. There rational often defy common logic that any technical person would normally use.
      Like with my afterburner(on sourceforge) when I mentioned that the server is heavily optimized and therefor used much less computing power for the same task. VC's reply was why, there is no advantage? Computers are getting faster (Moore's law), there is no advantage in optimization of software!
      After that reply I was just stunned, stupefied and left speechless. Later I realized my comeback should have been, yes and my server will always be faster then the competition. Anyhow if you haven't guess yet, language isn't my strong point.

      I have lost count at how many ways there are for the little guy to loose inventions and IP.

      If a patent is open publicly before it's finalized, the is almost a certainty that a competitor will run with it faster and with more money and then a small unfunded startup. This is because they know there is a good chance the will drive the startup out of business and walk away scott free.

      Once something like that happens like this to your little startup your dead. It still takes something like $3000 to finish the filing on your own, but usually that money would be well out of reach for someone who's credit maxed out and there FICO score is rapidly approaching 450 with negative checking account balance.
      This is the usual state of affairs for most founders with out rich daddy's after a large company steals from a very small pre-revenue startup.

      In my case with the CDN, patents pending and system running, but a large competitor replicated the patent pending technology and took customers, I found myself living homeless in the company office 3 months behind on rent and water turned off after pouring over $100,000 of my own cash into the company.
      At that point even a modest amount such as $3000 was just way out of reach and the patent filing dates expired.

      More recently, I had Nisvara.com 2002 to 2005 now silentcomputing.com . We had incredible technology, again I put every last dime I had into and was working full time so there were no other sources of income. Same with several other founders.
      Someone who was brought in help manage and raise money, just decided to file papers with the state claiming he owned the whole company! We had done everything right and by the book with large law firms, so his attempt was repelled, but
      a $500,000 grant from the California Energy commission was lost, all the VC's scattered, the main law firm quit instead of helping. The law firm doing patent filings also bailed when hearing there was a conflict and demanded we pay $75000 debt to them and began filling legal actions against us.
      One by one I watched the 3 patents I had worked so hard for go down the toilet as the final filing dates passed without the money and knowledge to compete the filings.
      IBM recently reinvented one of our patents that improves thermal heat transfer, I mean it so close to what we had I could cry. Our filed patent had predated theirs, but since we ran out of cash, we don't have a patents and there is little we can do about it now.

      I could have saved these patents with about $10K but I was too busy working full time and digging myself out of a mountain of debt I had accumulated getting the company going. Partly this was based on the arrival of the $500K grant that we had already been awarded so I expected to be able to repay my loans, so the the other founders.

      The fellow to tried to steal the company was able to empty what ever was left in the company checking account.
      He knew the original founders were just too low cash personally to be able to go after him.
      So he just walked away. The company is stuck in a useless zombie state, a possible a tax l

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:This is terrible! by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      I hardly invented everything, but was just in the right place working on the right things.
      You can see links to many of these things on my home page and sites. If you really want proof I can even dig up the original patent fillings on these things.

      Even now, I have work I am doing for electronic cash, electronic voting, Anti SPAM by using Electronic postage stamps,
      earthquake detection and early warning, video streaming on cell phones, several Linux kernel drivers. VIVI currently in linux kernel/
        Oh and I have videotechnology.com that specializes in all things video, So I am going a project for SDI, developed several DVR software packages for customers,
      and I am importing and reselling stuff from china, and trying to learn Mandarin right now.

      This happens because I am the guy a lot of people call when they need help on anything technical or with physics mathematics and many other things. In the course of helping people I have to learn very quickly new things and because of my multidisciplinary background, I tend to come up with many new and novel solutions.

      I have done stuff with Arthur C. Clarke, Timothy Leary, Leonardo Dicaprio, Chuck Moore, Sun microsystems, Wells fargo (I registed there domain too), Nikon, NASA, The governments of Uruguay, Sri Lanka, Korea and Tahiti.

      So thank a lot for modding me down. I'll be sure to return the favor some day.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    6. Re:This is terrible! by DrakmirV · · Score: 1

      Can't your software be used as prior art?

      In effect, can you actually overturn the patents the other companies have gotten by showing you did it first?

    7. Re:This is terrible! by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      It has on several occasion done just that.
      In the cast with the First byte patent on Digital audio for PC internal speaker, Activision paid me to help overturn that patent.
      But in that cast I had posted code to CompuServe that kept an unbiased date and time stamp.
          http://www.dnull.com/zebraresearch/

      Being able to document the inventions date is very important, even when it is released into the public domain. If you can not produced evidence as to when you released it into public or even came up with it privately, then it's will not be valid evidence for overturning a patent.

      In a later case US patent 6,108,703, August 22, 2000 the so-called "Leighton-Lewin patent", which cover a "two-level DNS" method used by both Akamai and Digital Island to route web traffic to edge-of-network caches.

      I have well documented proof and could clearly show that a company Digital Island acquired a company that had copied that technology, because I had a CoLo server hosted at there site from 1995 to 1998, and the patented technology years later was nearly identical.

      There is a long paper trail, I had tried to file this patent on two seperate occasions one with a California corp NetSYS inc. in 1994 and again later under another California corp DVT (Digital Video Technology) inc, were the technology was actually deployed at 40 CoLos globally for first and largest adult video network at that time in 1995 to 1998. Pussycat.net and later vidx.com We supplied for recorded video feeds to 2500 of the top adult video sites on the net using my Livecam video, we were delivering almost 600Mbps of video 24/7. We called this SDSN - (Symmetrically distributed server network).

        I contacted both parties that I had Prior Art, since it's a Civil suit, and both wanted control over the IP and not to have it in Public Domain like my patents that failed to be competed had done. Both parties didn't want to hear anything about my prior art, very deliberately choosing to not be aware of it.

      There are several other stories like this, but I'd have to fish through many past E-mails to detail them.

      I find most legal wrangling is lots of posturing and bluffing, much more poker then logic.
      If they know your not bluffing or have a trump card they will fold.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    8. Re:This is terrible! by DrakmirV · · Score: 1

      Makes perfect sense. I really do feel for you. If half the stuff you said happened to me, I'd be very upset. Good luck with your next venture. Maybe one of these will finally pay off for you. :)

  25. Peer-to-Patent comunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hope its that the Peer-to-Patent comunity will be exigent enought to narrow most software patents to specific implementation level... ... and after some time will be obvious that software should not be patentable

    I know, the greedy bastards wont let it happend :-(

  26. Needle in a hay stack. by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1


    I just had a thought... reading a post within this thread.

    Considering the sheer numbers of patent applications alone, of any particular field no less, is it even possible, even one of a million is truelly ground breaking? Or, does it not need to be ground breaking? If not, then what else might we call a unique thought? If it's "useful" as in a utility? But, what of the tangible significance of art such as music and paintings? Anything without prior art, certainly requires a unique thought, and I assert that regardless if that thought is useful to this person or that person, it is inherently 'ground breaking' as it might open an unknown measure of doors, be it applications, philosophies etc.

    As for those who even accept the rationale presented, originally, for patents--that is to encourage invention and "progress"--there does exist a blatant blind eye towards the obvious Nature of Man and historical records as far back as we can reach, in any and all cultures. Man solves problems, Man is creative. Nothing is going to defy the fact a Man is a Man, so it only follows that nothing will make a Man less Man. Problem solving and creativity is in our essence, to deprive us of our intentions and expectations by Natural Design, is to deprive of us of what/who we are. Even under a most tyrannical state people will continue to "think", under the most repressive conditions, a man will "solve a problem"; in fact, if Man has no problems, he fabricates a problem just to try to solve. Take away everything you might from Man, he'll still discover he can draw on the walls with crushed berries, and he will do so.

    Patents, Capitalism... nothing is going to stop the fact Man will continue to make discoveries. Some might argue that given these Man Made ideas, that he can improve these tendancies, but I argue that a true Great is once in a life time and no amount of "economic" encouragement will render 10,000,000 Mozarts, Einstiens, DaVinci's in one room; or, even 5 of them. If they exist in your life time, they'll be in that room on their own accord, and have always been there.

    1. Re:Needle in a hay stack. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      even one of a million is truelly ground breaking? Or, does it not need to be ground breaking? If not, then what else might we call a unique thought?

      No, It doesn't, unique in this context doesn't mean totally original, on different then something else, even if it is based on a prior patent.(i.e. slight modification)

      "Anything without prior art, certainly requires a unique thought, "

      no, it require an original presentation of a thought, not unique.

      here :
      "having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable:"

      If it relied on being unique, then there could only be 1 song about a woman, 1 book with a wizard, etc...

      economin encourement allows for that Great to stand out more easily. Wouold we know who Einstien is if he had to slop bigs every day to live? Probably not. Since he was in an economic enviroment that left him with free time, and a means to publish thoughts and communicate with other Greats he rose up and changed physics.

      Yes, there are many greats alive right now, probably millions of them. Many people will be great, and do great things, and you will never here about them.

      Give the right time and circumstance, anyone can have a great thought.

      Man solved problems, it's why we exist. The only way we can solve great problems is when we don't have to worry about our day to day necessities. Only then can we reach the moon, send machine out of the solar system, cure diseases, visit the bottom of the ocean and develop great art.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  27. My peer review is right here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Software patents are not valid.

    HTH.

  28. Sounds great, but as always a Qbut... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Question: How will the USPO control paid web-lobbyist from posting spin-agenda that corrupts discovery?

    Over the last five years, I have noticed a significant increase in what I call lurking-lobbyist presenting very reasonable spin-agenda with pseudo-evidence. Some stuff would test the ability of investigative [AKA: muck-racking] news reporters.

    Paid "lurking-lobbyist" appears to be big business. I have no proof of "lurking-lobbyist" on /., digg, CNN, Yahoo!, Google..., but I have at times noticed that there appears to be a sort of coincidental cluster-postings and ratings on some political/business topics that leave me with a strong sense of disbelief.

    I mean, it was easy to corrupt government and democracy in the USA without much fan fair and notice by the public. Could the same be happening on major websites?

    Could corporatist demagoguery be skewing web-content (as happened to print/broadcast news) into agenda-appropriate manipulative content for public consumption?

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  29. RMS on prior art vs the patent problem by sick_soul · · Score: 2, Informative

    Prior art won't solve the software patent problem
    (by Richard Stallman)

    The article has been written a year ago:
    http://www.linux.com/articles/57167

  30. It's going to end up like /. by Locklin · · Score: 1

    Everyone puts in their 2 cents, no one reads past the summary.

    --
    "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  31. I Have Prior Art by lmnfrs · · Score: 1

    This is cool because I totally invented this peer review concept in an older /. discussion about patents. I would provide a link but apparently Slashdot has a unique method for "Limiting viewing of Comment History by non-Subscribers" and I can only see my most recent comments.

    I can't wait to threaten the USPTO for their unlicensed usage of my idea. Since it is a good idea, I will allow them to keep using it and only require a small percentage of the benefits they receive from the usage of my idea. And by that I mean for every patent application they allow online peer review of, they will be required to give me a taco. Yes!

    Dear Slashdot, please dig up my old post to help me prove my prior art, and I will share my delicious tacos with you all!

  32. so? by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

    Everything significant has already been given away by the USPTO as it is. This is a day late, and a dollar short.

    --
    Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
  33. Completely bogus by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Why the hell is anybody even tolerating the concept of software patents? "Peer review" means that people are accepting it, and that is not good. You all know what the real solution is. It's time to apply it...now.

    --
    What?
  34. Awesome idea!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patent office should patent this peer review thingy!!

  35. breaking news by zen-theorist · · Score: 1

    Launched on 18 June 2007 was an Internet-based peer-review program whereby anyone (even you) can help to evaluate a number of software patent applications voluntarily submitted for public evaluation.
    On 19th June 2007 it was determined that the Internet-based peer-review program was patented itself.
  36. Read this by kasin99 · · Score: 1

    Read this and come back: http://planetlinux.no-ip.org/

  37. Too bad this isn't retroactive by jbarr · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see an impartial peer review of all existing patents to weed out the crap.

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
  38. I tried the new system by dghcasp · · Score: 1

    I tried this new system...

    I chose a Patent and said "Patents are evil."

    They replied -1, Irrelevant.

  39. "Voluntarily" by argent · · Score: 1

    This will probably speed up the approval of some patents, but why would someone setting up a stealth patent for a portfolio have any incentive to take part in this program?

  40. Re:This is not as terrible as you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you have time to read it more carefully, you'll find that by law the only patents that will be studied in this one-year trial are patents that the inventor volunteers to them.

    So, nothing of yours will be looked at unless you give permission. The USPTO wants to test out whether the public is a useful resource and can help the overworked examiners, who know very little about FOSS and have no FOSS database. That has been resulting in a fairly high number of idiotic patents.

  41. I'm confused... by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

    What if painters could patent paintings.

    Painter #1 paints a picture of an apple, and patents painting apples. He clearly was the first to paint an apple, and needs the protection of the government from all the other painters who would steal his idea of painting apples.

    Painter #2 cannot paint apples. Poor painter..

    Or can he? If we compare solutions to what a software developer #2 would have to do today to get patent licence to make his software available, what can painter #2 do to paint apples, if painter #1 had already patented apples?