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

[cheater512]

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.

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.

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.

Bogus Patent Damages

[Doc Ruby]

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.

And yet Test.Com is still advertising the patent

[RyanJBlack]

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?