Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Busts Bogus Online Testing Patent

Posted by Zonk on from the still-kicking dept.

Panaqqa writes "It's taken some time, but the EFF's Patent Busting Project is making progress. In the latest news, the USPTO has now officially rejected one of the 10 awful patents targeted, making the world safe again for administering tests over the Internet. This joins the reexamination of a patent on automated remote access of a computer over a network and the revocation of a patent on recording live performances to CD as notable successes for the EFF."

60 comments

  1. EFF should win by log1385 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a fight that I think the EFF will win. Too many people and corporations have to much at stake to let patents like these get through. Simple common sense will also side with the EFF. If the EFF fails, it simply bears more witness to the fact that our patent system is broken, perhaps beyond repair.

    --
    Seek and ye shall find.
    1. Re:EFF should win by kebes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a fantastic win for the EFF, and I hope they continue doing this good work.

      However it points to a deeper problem in the patent system. It's bad enough that the current patent office allows awful patents to slip through--but it's worse still that it requires an external non-profit organization to "fight" in order to get ridiculous patents overturned. In principle it should require nothing more than a polite mail to the USPTO, pointing out a weak patent that was granted, and the patent office would do a review and overturn the patent immediately.

      Instead, we have to organize ourselves, fund a non-profit, and get them to aggressively fight the issue, submitting detailed accounts of prior art, and hope the patent office responds properly. This also means that we are paying for these ridiculous patents twice: first to run the infrastructure of the patent office, and then again because we have to fund third parties to actually review patents (wasn't that supposed to be the job of the patent office?).

      The whole system seems rather inefficient. Again I commend the EFF on its amazing work (and I will continue donating to them), but ultimately it would seem that a reform of the patent office itself is what's really required.

    2. Re:EFF should win by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A patent bounty sounds nice.

      If someone proves that your patent is a load of crap then you need to pay them a amount and pay the patent office the same amount for wasting time.

      It should make people think twice about getting a patent on something obvious.
      The person who finds the dud patent would be compensated and so would the patent office.

      The amount would be determined on a case by case basis I think.
      Too many variables. Dont want big companies abusing it because they can pay.

    3. Re:EFF should win by RobBebop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's worse still that it requires an external non-profit organization to "fight" in order to get ridiculous patents overturned

      When overturning stupid patents is profitable, the free-market economy will come to the rescue and begin to undertake this role. If they can be profitable, Patent Fighter Corporations *will* get involved, for non-other than the sake of greed.

      I would *much* rather have a non-profit watchdog handle the job. I applaud the EFF for the organized presentation of information that they've done on there "10 Patents" list. Good for them.

      The only other way to fund them would be straight from the government, and then they would become just another wing of the USPTO. Now - don't get me wrong. I would LOVE to see RMS-like ideals at top levels of the government, but the bureaucrats would squash that type of progressive control.

      In the end, it is *better* that EFF is privately funded. Just like news on PBS (tv) and NPR (radio) are BETTER because they are privately funded.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    4. Re:EFF should win by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who gets to decide that it is worth a bounty? Or do you propose that everyone who has a granted patent overturned has to pay? Or only if it is overturned as obvious?
      I like the idea, but I foresee significant possibility for abuse.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:EFF should win by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      The patent office would determine how much.
      I cant think of any situation where someone shouldnt have to pay if their patent is overturned.

    6. Re:EFF should win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm a little startled and alarmed by your position. Patents are property, even the awful ones. Even though I hate awful, innovation stifling patents, I'm glad it's hard for the government to take property away from citizens. Should it really only take a call to a governmental agency by someone who doesn't like the ugly house you built on your land to "review and overturn" your rightfully purchased land deed "immediately"? I think not.

      I realize I'm relying on a faulty analogy between intellectual property and real property, but I think the point stands. Even awful patents are property, owned by the patentee (or its assignee). Even though it is a shame that we need public watchdog groups like the EFF to help invalidate the many awful patents out there, I prefer that world to the one you suggest, where the government can just "review and overturn" my property rights "immediately" upon the urging of some "polite letter". Yes, the current reexamination (and perhaps entire US patent) system is inefficient. But do you really want the government to be able to efficiently divest you of your property rights?

      All of that said, I applaud the EFF's efforts. Their program succeeds on both fronts--knocking down awful patents AND doing so within a system that makes it hard for the government to take [intellectual] property away from citizens.

    7. Re:EFF should win by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what if you built your house in a public park, bribed a local official (or contacted an incompetent official) to write up a deed, and tried to claim that it (and the fenced in yard) was yours. If someone called you on it and pointed out the corruption/incompetence involved, then the government should indeed come and take away "your" house as it was never really yours to begin with.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:EFF should win by shentino · · Score: 1

      True.

      You should also be charged with bribery, the local official either charged with bribery or fired for being stupid, and

      And God help you if you ever tried to sell it. You should also get charged with fraud, and the hapless victim needs cure. In this case, the victim would probably sue the city for negligence in that the deed never should have been granted.

      In the same vein, what about a corporation who buys a patent that later gets busted? Shouldn't a corp (or individual) who buys a patent that later gets borked through no fault of its own, get some sort of compensation?

      More on this house biz...if you introduce "adverse possession" it gets tangled even further. But that's for another day :P.

      In the end, it really sucks that the american legal system is based on the concept of "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to civil matters. More often than not, simply letting a statement (lawsuit, claim) go unchallenged means you are agreeing with it. This forced (and often BINDING) "I automatically agree because I failed to bitch about it" stance, and the resulting default judgements (or lawyerese filibuster-via-lawsuit) are often a far cry from justice.

    9. Re:EFF should win by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      So you'd reward the patent office for approving bullshit patents by giving them more money?

    10. Re:EFF should win by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      I like the idea, but I foresee significant possibility for abuse.

      I see, so, we use the 'potential' for abuse in the future to avoid dealing with the ongoing, and escalating abuse in the past and present? All I can say is, I hope you don't vote.

    11. Re:EFF should win by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I think there are possible solutions that would not be as susceptible to corruption. Personally, I think that eliminating patents for software and "business processes" would go a long way to fixing the problem without as much room for abuse. The reason to be worried about the potential for abuse before a law is passed is that once it is passed it is a lot harder to fix it. "Act in haste, repent at leisure."

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  2. What about the patent on first posts? by ISoldMyLowIdOnEbay · · Score: 1

    Will my patent on such prevent anyone else from posting until the comment counter reaches 1?

    1. Re:What about the patent on first posts? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Looks like log1385 can claim prior art.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:What about the patent on first posts? by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Rob Malda patented the comment counter in September 1997. You're welcome to arrange a contract with him if you want to use it.

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
  3. Success? by B5_geek · · Score: 0

    Do we really want EFF to win these types of cases? What better way exists to reboot the entire system then waiting for it to grind to a stop.
    Let them choke on their own stink.
    I'll file a patent on "method of filing a patent".

    Its the same argument as all the DRM crap we see. Let everyone become annoyed with it.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Success? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really want to risk all this stuff taking the rest of your own life to get so bad that people fed up with it?

      Personally, for stuff like DRM and patents, I'm more interested in doing what I can to fix them now, rather than waiting for it to get so bad that my great grandkids have to buck the trend and make it right.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Success? by techpawn · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll file a patent on "method of filing a patent".
      Put in "A means to over the Internet" and you might actually get it...
      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  4. Should this even be necessary? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The USPTO should be doing a better job of screening patent applications in the first place. Obviousness tests should be conducted upon applying for a patent. Some might say patents are already too hard to get, to which I say, No, they aren't. They aren't NEARLY hard ENOUGH to get. Especially when most patents are granted to corporations with deep pockets who pay the cost of doing a patent search without even thinking about it.

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:Should this even be necessary? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Some might say patents are already too hard to get, to which I say, No, they aren't. They aren't NEARLY hard ENOUGH to get.

      Well, I would more characterize it as being the wrong *kind* of hard. It is hard in being expensive and cumbersome for individuals and small companies to work with, which is bad. It is not hard enough in terms of the technical merit you have to establish in order to be granted the patent, which is also bad. We need to somehow make the former less hard, and the latter harder.

      IMHO, patents should only be granted for such stunning works of genius that it is unlikely anyone else would have come up with it any time soon. A good "obviousness test" for this would be to present the problem it intents to solve, to other people in the field and ask them to submit solutions. If they don't list yours, even as a sketch, then it's non-obvious. This has the problem of making it more expensive (the first, bad, kind of hard), but that could be fixed by having a system where you do this for other applications, in exchange for it being done for free on yours.

      --
      Apology to Ubuntu forum.
  5. Basic premise in the USA .. by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It looks like to me that the basic premise for most things in the USA is to do something or grant something and then let the courts work it out after the fact. This has the benefit of getting things done cheaply along with that only the people who are grievously upset will bother to fight things in the courts (which is really those who have money to do so)

    To me this is a direct result of a purely capitalistic approach - the worship of the Dollar.

    What would be better to do would be to actually examine what is being processed and to grant/deny based on its merits - but that would take way more $dollars

    Capitalism is a great way to find the lowest $dollar cost to a process, but the lowest $dollar cost may not be the best overall solution for society.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by inviolet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What would be better to do would be to actually examine what is being processed and to grant/deny based on its merits - but that would take way more $dollars

      That means spending all the research effort ($thousands?) for each patent... and even then there is no guarantee that the examiners will find everything. And what happens when the inventor wants to dispute the examiner's findings? That is exactly what patent courts are for. Your proposal therefore implies that we run potentially every patent through the court system, rather than (as we do currently) only the small minority of patents that are actually challenged.

      Yes, that would cut down on the amount of patent trolling -- on the amount of companies using patents to intimidate people who can't afford to take them to court. There is a certain social benefit to that, for sure... but there is also the great up-front cost I already described, which in any case is no guarantee that the relevant prior art would actually be found.

      To me this is a direct result of a purely capitalistic approach - the worship of the Dollar.

      "The worship of the Dollar" is a mealy-mouthed way of describing our quest for efficiency. It would be more honest for you to complain that we are sacrificing long-term efficiency (via a full prior art search upon filing) in order to gain short-term efficiency (quick patent approval, and only investigate those patents that come under fire).

      It is not obvious that we should pay more now to gain more later. It might be, but it might not. When TVM is included in these calculations, long-term gains often shrivel up.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    2. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by mavenguy · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of Capitalism, but one of government - specifically failing to properly allocate the resources needed to do the job. This was detailed in a recent gao report - patent examiners simply have too much production pressure to reliably and consistently discover and consider the best available prior art. This was already a problem when I started in the PTO way back in the '70s and only has intesified as production pressure has increased plus tasks not directly related to prior art search and action formation has been heaped on the examining corps.

      Note that this scheme of running the PTO has festered over 4 decades and several administrations and Congresses both Democratic and Republican. No reform proposals I am aware of seems to address this fundamental problem, or seem to gloss over it (e. g. opposition? that time will have to be compensated; if examiners are forced to absorb it there won't be any remaining to examine anything).

    3. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by mounthood · · Score: 1

      To me this is a direct result of a purely capitalistic approach - the worship of the Dollar.
      It's a direct result of "Rule by Law" rather then Kings, or committees, or old boy oligarchies.
      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    4. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by TomatoQueen · · Score: 1

      I live in Alexandria, VA, where the PTO's new office opened not too long ago, after outgrowing its old quarters in Crystal City (an office building hellhole adjacent to the Pentagon). While I am glad that the PTO remains in Alexandria as a major employer, I must complain of the increase in traffic--car, foot, and subway line--in an already-overcrowded area of town, that has had to absorb and cater to all these new users-of-city services and taker-upppers of space, an estimated 5,000 people. While your arguments about the caseload are of merit (I work for SSA, in case you want to googlefight about an agency being budget-axed into total dysfunction), please allow us to take in and assimilate the new people before you dream of further population increases. Or, alternatively, encourage the greedheads to stop patenting silly stuff.

    5. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      It looks like to me that the basic premise for most things in the USA is to do something or grant something and then let the courts work it out after the fact. This has the benefit of getting things done cheaply along with that only the people who are grievously upset will bother to fight things in the courts (which is really those who have money to do so)

      To me this is a direct result of a purely capitalistic approach - the worship of the Dollar.
      Actually, I suspect it has more to do with the progression of the legal system. At first glance the rules which govern what is patentable are based on common sense and would rule out probably 70% or more of the current patents filed today and 100% of all software patents. Unfortunately, through many years of work by lawyers and legislatures the common sense of the patent rules have been trampled and raped to the point where anything can be patented no matter how obsurd. If you look at the history of software patent cases in the courts we went from "Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972). In this decision, the Court ruled that a program to convert binary-coded decimal numbers to binary was not patentable, since it was merely an algorithm, This decision laid the basis for the view that programs are not patentable, which held sway until 1981." where software absolutely could not be patented, duh, to "Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Here the Court ruled that a process (for curing rubber) that used a computer program could be patentable, even though it made use of a mathematical algorithm." where the machine, which included software, was patentable, to today where software companies are filing thousands of patents every years.

      And sadly, while there have been patent trolls probably since the inception of the patent system, the worship of the dollar has turned it into an art where it now threatens the very purpose of the patent system "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".

      Case in point, how much is NTP doing to progress the science of wireless communications and devices versus RIM who recently paid NTP over $600 million for to license their patents. RIM invests about 8% of their revenue in research and development and the result, they pay an additional $600 million to NTP who produces paperwork.

      This nonsense should be stopped right now simply by upholding the original common sense of the patent system and the first step is, abolish software patents.
    6. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any true northern virginian would know that Crystal City is not in Alexandria, it is in Arlington County.

    7. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Read it again. And then apologize. The NEW office opened in Alexandria, and the OLD office was in Crystal City.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    8. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that a patent application runs at around 10 grand, I'd say that only needing a few thousand is perfectly acceptable. (As opposed to the current method of having one overworked guy whose fired if he doesn't process an application a day). Big part of the problem with the patent office is that somebody decided to run it at a profit, instead of just self sustaining.

    9. Re:Basic premise in the USA .. by Genda · · Score: 1

      In fact it may well be the worst case solution for "society"... that is, there's no correlation whatsoever between the (least expensive)/(most profitable) path, and the one that dignifies humanity, does the least damage to people, property, or the environment, or serves the greatest public good.

      In fact looking at our society over the last 30 years in particular, its fair to say that what has consistently served the short term interest of business, has ultimately undermined the long term health of our economy, our freedom, our environment, and our viability as a global competitor, and our posterity.

      Just as you would stop a child from eating too much candy (even though the child might want that candy and be fully prepared to pitch a fit if you don't let them have it), a responsible parent protects the child and looks out for it's best interest. When our social governing structures cease to responsibly manage human enterprise, even in the best interest of creating a healthy ecology for that enterprise to operate, we end up with a sick society. Ultimately we lose the ability to promote and maintain human enterprise. They very structures required to regulate and protect are coopted instead, and the only measure of importance degenerates to cost and profit.

      Poor measures of humanity indeed.

  6. I have a great idea by jrothwell97 · · Score: 2, Funny

    To: Officer, US Patent Office

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I would like to express my interest in patenting a system by which inventions can be protected from copies by other individuals or companies. This is a system I have trademarked as Patents(tm) and I intend to take them on to the market as soon as the patent is issued. I enclose a cheque for $16500 and a coupon for a meal at the Ritz in London; please reply with my patent certificate as soon as is possible.

    Yours faithfully,

    E.E. Cretin

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    1. Re:I have a great idea by somersault · · Score: 1

      If you change that to 'a working system' then you could perhaps get this granted, as there doesn't appear to be any prior art!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:I have a great idea by volpe · · Score: 1

      Whoever applied that "funny" mod to the gazillionth incarnation of the "I'm going to patent patenting" joke deserves to be meta-modded deep into hell's septic tank.

  7. Bogus Patent Damages by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When a bogus patent is demonstrated to have been filed and defended by an owner who knew it was bogus, the party demonstrating so should be able to claim a reward. Such bogus patents do a lot of damage, from obstructing "progress in science and the useful arts", to clogging up the patent system and the courts. Probably the bogus owner should pay a fine to the government, and the party proving it bogus should get a percentage. If it was granted by incompetence by a government agent, that agency should pay. When the owner exploited an incompetent government agent, they both should pay.

    That system would encourage people to expose bogus patents. It would deter bogus filings and incompetent grantings. And it would siphon lawyers away from filing bogus patents into exposing them.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Bogus Patent Damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except then patent trolls can abuse the system to claim a reward.

    2. Re:Bogus Patent Damages by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      From whom, themselves? This is starting to sound like a perpetual motion patent.

      Except that exposing government incompetence is worth a reward. If the government failed when granting a bogus patent to a patent troll, then the troll is doing the system a favor by showing it's broken, like anyone else.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Bogus Patent Damages by jellie · · Score: 1

      I think the patent reward is a good idea, but the reward would have to be small enough so as not to provide any financial incentive for patent trolls to challenge every patent. What about those whose inventer has died? There are patent attorneys, so I think the government should set up a court whereby judges can revoke obvious patents and fine companies.

      Isn't the only agency that grants patents (in the US) the USPTO? In any case, it wouldn't be fair for them to pay. After having read only a few patents related to my research/work, I've often found it difficult to get past all the confusing/BS words used to describe even the simplest things.

    4. Re:Bogus Patent Damages by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't patent trolls challenge every patent? If they lose, they should pay all costs. The system already offers them an incentive to hassle without legit basis: extort an out of court settlement to drop the suit.

      The USPTO grants the patents, but there can be other agencies involved in a bad process, like if some other Executive Branch office installed someone it didn't test for qualifications.

      In the event that a patent app is incomprehensible to a college engineering (or other relevant discipline) grad, it shouldn't be granted. The purpose of the patent is for the public to read it to know what not to duplicate, and what is available for license, as well as general education of how things work (without allowing copying a temporarily protected invention). Incomprehensible patents make matters worse.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Bogus Patent Damages by arivanov · · Score: 1

      I suggest you leave the government out of it completely. It simply will not work.

      The rest of your idea actually has a lot of merit. Let's say the patent office grants a patent on any shit it is given (not particularly different from now). If the patent is later overturned the person or company which has applied for the patent is fined triple the other party costs as well as a fine. Same for the reverse. The unsuccessful challenger is fined triple the defending side costs. The fine is unnecessary, the costs alone will make this work.

      From there on if you think your patent is good enough you take out legal insurance and fight it out. If not you surrender it outright. Similarly, people will stop patent trolling as it will become an extremely expensive exercise.

      Granted, the lawyers and insurance companies will have a feeding frenzy, but they are having it anyway, so this should be an improvement on the current situation.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    6. Re:Bogus Patent Damages by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, the government has to be reformed in this process, or government failures will keep patents mainly a battleground, an impediment to progress. And if there's no fine to compensate the government for its work processing everything (including the legal process), then the system will continue to operate as a subsidy to businesses (and guarantors of profits to patent insurance corps, or alternately drive them into nonexistence).

      The lawyers' and insurance corps' feeding frenzy keeps the patent game largely the province of big corporations which aren't nearly as efficient at innovating as are small inventors.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Bogus Patent Damages by jadin · · Score: 1

      What's to stop the agent from rejecting all patents (troll and legit) for fear of a fine? Obviously it'd be better to reward agents with bonuses or something for keeping a high rate of quality.

  8. And yet Test.Com is still advertising the patent by RyanJBlack · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's right on their front page, and it even shows an official-looking certificate for patent number 6513042, which the USPTO has now rejected! The test.com link even describes how important their patent is and what it covers. "The Patent issued to Test.com, Inc. protects its intellectual property in the area of distributing and selling tests on the Internet and sharing revenues received for the test with the test creator."

    Maybe their marketing folks haven't heard the news?

  9. Why the spamblog overload? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why does the "10 awful patents" link go to a spamblog, which itself links to another (wired) spamblog, when the first link in the summary links to the same information?

    Also, one patents 'busted' in what, four years? Cool. Good thing there haven't been any crappy patents since then.

  10. The Internets? by Locklin · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems like many of these "bad" patents stem from these form applications combining some standard practice with the Internet. Anything done on paper easily transfers to the Internet because the Internet was designed that way -thats a testimate to the Internet's design, not to the bozo who thinks ordering pizza over the "tubes" is genius.

    --
    "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    1. Re:The Internets? by somersault · · Score: 1

      testimate to the Internet's design heh.. I'm sure you mean 'testament'
      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:The Internets? by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Anything done on paper easily transfers to the Internet because the Internet was designed that way -thats a testimate to the Internet's design, not to the bozo who thinks ordering pizza over the "tubes" is genius. Hmmm - how do you order your pizza? First-class mail, or carrier pigeon?

      You could've picked a better application to back up your statement...
  11. Re:And yet Test.Com is still advertising the paten by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    The Patent Office Has not updated anything yet either.

  12. You can have voice activated phone trees by blhack · · Score: 2, Funny

    9. Firepond's patent covering automatic message-interpretation and routing systems. This patent, said Schultz, would effectively control the technology that allows consumers to call companies and have their calls routed based on a spoken command. Would anybody here be terribly unhappy if every company that used voice recognition technology in their phone tree was sued into oblivion?

    "THANK YOU for Calling Verizon Business! now together with MCI!! Did you know that you can check the status of your order, open trouble tickets, and order an ice pick to stab yourself in the eyes after listening to this blatant advertisement online at www.verizon.com?... ....

    Please say the nature of your call:"
    me: "Somebody was out digging in front of our office and cut through the line that feeds us our T1s" .......

    "I'm sorry, i Didn't understand that"
    me: "I need you to send somebody out here to fix our T1s" .....

    "Did you say that you would like to hear about verizon's new firewall service? if so please say "Yes""
    me: "I NEED YOU TO FUCKING SEND A GODDAMNED TECHNICIAN OUT TO FIX THE LINE!" .....

    "I'm sorry, I didn't catch that, please state the nature of the call"
    me: *0*
    "I'm sorry, but that is not a recognized option....Main menu.....Did you know that you can open trouble tickets, check the status of your order, or order blah balh blah blah blah"

    I'm not sure there is anything out there that irritates me more than voice activated phone trees....the only thing that comes close is customer service reps who keep repeating the phrase "okay, i can definitely help you with this" or end every conversation with "okay Mr. Johnson, is there anything else i can help you with? no? okay well you have a terrific day, thank you for calling sprint now together with nextel!!". These two things usually go hand in hand though, so.....take them both down! :)

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    1. Re:You can have voice activated phone trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mind voice-activated phone trees, just so long as 0 connects me to a live person once I've decided the voice system has no idea what the hell it's doing.

    2. Re:You can have voice activated phone trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just say "Terminate service." Those automated service knows what that means.

    3. Re:You can have voice activated phone trees by argent · · Score: 1

      That's the problem. Many of these systems don't have an option to break out of the phone tree.

  13. Weirdness by jefu · · Score: 2, Funny

    For sheer weirdness, a patent in the field of new-age-therapy pretty much can't be beat.

    Two whole claims :

    1. A psychological development system comprising triangulation, categorization and interpretation.
    2. A psychological development system comprising evaluating at least three things in at least three ways in at least three levels that is repeated at least three times.

    And the rest of the patent is worth reading for amusement as well. There is even an "illustration of a Venn Diagram". And what on earth is meant by "Numbers have historically been seen as unreal templates of creation".

    The odd part is that the patent holder (Mary Swenson) was (last summer at least) suing someone over this.

    1. Re:Weirdness by jefu · · Score: 1

      Odd. I thought at some point that the post had the link to the http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060160053.html patent itself in it. But the "a" tag doesn't seem to be working for me. myminicity madness counteraction?

  14. One thing I'd like to see is reimbursements of lic by melted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One thing I'd like to see is reimbursements of licensing fees that were already collected on pending patents if patents are rejected. That'd (a) Make companies think twice before they file obvious bullshit, (b) Make the patent system more fair in case obvious bullshit is rejected. I'd genuinely enjoy seeing Amazon reimburse the licensing fees for their "one click" patent.

  15. Re:One thing I'd like to see is reimbursements of by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

    One thing I'd like to see is reimbursements of licensing fees that were already collected on pending patents if patents are rejected. That'd (a) Make companies think twice before they file obvious bullshit, (b) Make the patent system more fair in case obvious bullshit is rejected. I'd genuinely enjoy seeing Amazon reimburse the licensing fees for their "one click" patent.

    It would be difficult and risky to enforce such a scheme. It would be difficult because patent holders would search for loopholes to avoid the risk of being required to return licensing revenues. Attempts to work around the law could be as simple as requiring agreement that the licensee would not seek reimbursement if the patent was invalidated. Attempts could be more complex, perhaps relying on covenants not to sue or in-kind royalties. One risk of enforcing such a scheme is that patent holders would be less likely to license in the first place. There are already plenty of barriers to patent licensing (e.g., patent holders overestimating the worth of their rights). Placing all licensing revenues into de facto escrow would only add to the barriers. An additional risk is that the people with the most interest in invalidating patents would have less incentive to pursue options such as reexamination or seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement by invalidity. Why take on the expense of attacking a patent when it is easier to license the patent and wait for someone else to take on the expense of attacking it?

  16. Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims? by NZheretic · · Score: 2, Insightful
    As I stated almost two years ago...

    1) Any patent lawsuit against a user of a software component used by major vendors will automatically result in those vendors lending legal support to reduce the chance that their own customers will also end up being sued.
    2) Any patent lawsuit costs the suing party at least several hundred thousand dollars.
    3) Any patent put before the courts is at very great risk of being destroyed by prior art.
    4) Any payout awarded from a single end user has to be in proportion to value of the patented technology. The value of a single instance will could only be measured in hundreds of dollars, not coming close to covering the costs of the lawsuit to the platiff.
    5) Patent lawsuits take six years to over a decade to work it's way though appeals.
    6) Developers will release new software using a method that circumvents the patent in question within two months. This will be quickly adopted and by the time the first patent case is resolved there will be no further customers for the patent holder to sue.
    7) The outrage generated in taking out a case against any open source will result in Groklaw and other groups putting the suing party and their lawyers under the closest scrutiny. You will not believe the level of bad publicity, let alone the the amount of prior art, dirty business practices, and legal suspect practices and even violation of statutes that will be uncovered.

    Lastly to quote Pulp Fiction, and then "we are going to get medieval on your ass."

    Any IP case against users of open source puts the attacker at a far greater risk.

  17. The applicant can of course challenge it by r6144 · · Score: 1

    The patent law isn't being changed. If the applicants feel that their patents are illegally rejected, of course they can challenge the decision.

  18. Re:And yet Test.Com is still advertising the paten by RyanJBlack · · Score: 1

    Does that database show the live status of patents? I've never relied on it to do so... that being said, I did a quick status search and the status doesn't seem to have been updated. Things moving at the speed of government, I suppose...