EFF Busts Bogus Online Testing Patent

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."

Comments

EFF should win

[log1385]

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.

Re:EFF should win

[kebes]

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.

Re:EFF should win

[RobBebop]

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.

Re:EFF should win

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:EFF should win

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:EFF should win

[Jason Levine]

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.

Should this even be necessary?

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:Success?

[MBGMorden]

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.

Basic premise in the USA ..

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:Basic premise in the USA ..

[inviolet]

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.

Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims?

[NZheretic]

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.