IBM Wants To Patent Restaurant Waits

theodp writes "If all goes IBM's way, it'll soon constitute patent infringement if Bennigan's gives you a free lunch for being inconvenienced by a long wait for your meal. Big Blue is seeking a patent for its Method and Structure for Automated Crediting to Customers for Waiting, the purported 'invention' of three IBM researchers, which IBM notes, 'could be implemented completely devoid of computerization or automation of any kind.' Can we count on IBM to withdraw this patent claim, or will Big Blue weasel out of its patent reform pledge again?"

Comments

The old saying must be true.

[palegray.net]

Now there's really no such thing as a free lunch...

Re:The old saying must be true.

[kcbanner]

Or, as they say, there is no such thing as a patent without a troll.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the TFA, you'd realize that they're not patenting the free lunch as payoff for a long wait. they're patenting a system for automatically doling out the free lunch.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it'd be rather nice of you to apologize. You know, as a way of making up for making him wait for someone intelligent to come along and post.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[andy314159pi]

hey asshole the whole point of this is that you do get a free lunch by way of apology

This guy was just quoting the patent application.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[kiwipeso]

Prior art, Hell Pizzas in New Zealand have always given free stuff to you depending on how long you wait.
Best thing is when they go to the address, arrive late at your address and you only have to pay the delivery fee.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[Headcase88]

[trollfood]And you have to spend time in order to get it. Not free.[/trollfood]

Re:The old saying must be true.

[The End Of Days]

But if you're a good Slashdotter and just read the completely inaccurate headline, you can work up a righteous froth and get a nice +5 Insightful.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[palegray.net]

Or, on the other hand, it's entirely possible that my comment was meant to be taken in a humorous context.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine is, of course, 100% serious and not at all a tongue-in-cheek followup to yours.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[The Yuckinator]

But if you're a good Slashdotter and just read the completely inaccurate headline, you can work up a righteous froth and get a nice +5 Inciteful. Fixed that for ya ;)

Re:The old saying must be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[calebt3]

'cause time is money and all that...

Re:The old saying must be true.

[bdjacobson]

Regardless, in the hands of IBM I see this as a Good Thing, as the more ridiculous these patents get the more obvious it will be to everyone something needs to be done.

Plus, for the time being, IBM is on our side as long as Microsoft is on top.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the TFA, you'd realize that they're not patenting the free lunch as payoff for a long wait. they're patenting a system for automatically doling out the free lunch. Which "could be implemented completely devoid of computerization or automation of any kind."

An automatic system devoid of automation, now there's something that I'd like to see. :)

Re:The old saying must be true.

[tattood]

Good point. Personally, I don't see why any restaurant would want to use this. Why make an automated way to give away free lunches to people because they wait? If a customer complains about waiting too long, then you give them the coupon.

I suppose the flipside to that is that the customers who don't complain, but decide that they don't want to come back to the restaurant because they had to wait...

Re:The old saying must be true.

[s13g3]

Good point. Personally, I don't see why any restaurant would want to use this. Why make an automated way to give away free lunches to people because they wait? If a customer complains about waiting too long, then you give them the coupon.

I suppose the flipside to that is that the customers who don't complain, but decide that they don't want to come back to the restaurant because they had to wait...

The reason being that IBM makes business machines - including point of sale and business automation systems. What they have described here is a novel method by which the human factor normally necessary to monitor customers' time spent waiting and then selection of an appropriate compensation is automated through their system, almost certainly to be tied in to an existing product like a point of sale terminal that will quite possibly be tied into one of those little pager systems that lets you know when your table is ready. Rather than requiring employees or wait-staff to monitor times spent waiting on a screen and then offer the customer something gratis, the system is designed to do all this for them, thusly eliminating time and resources necessary in what is probably an environment where time is a premium (since people are waiting for service) as well as potential stress or conflict with a customer who may unhappy - now they don't have to approach an already harried manager or wait-staff and present a complaint or argument - the system notes that a pre-programmed threshold (which the establishment has determined to be the minimum time before they would be willing to offer such freebies regardless of system automation) has passed and automatically offers the free item, in theory placating the customer(s) without creating extra resource strain on the staff.

Why patent this? Because IBM wants to offer this ability to restaurants and other businesses who do not want to have to do these things themselves, implemented via a piece of IBM equipment. The patent as described does not prevent a business from offering you a free lunch if you wait too long - IBM obviously spent money time and research effort creating a combined software and hardware method that can automate this process (and thereby expand the services and functions performed/offered to customers already owning or seeking to purchase IBM equipment) - also known as a "value add"; what the patent prevents you from doing is copying or mirroring IBM's research to produce a similar system while not actually doing any innovation of your own. If they didn't file for a patent, then you could just go buy a bunch of chips, assemble your own equipment, and then gank (yes, that's a technical term) the software that they paid someone to develop all without any real investment of your own - exactly what the spirit of the patent system is meant to prevent you from doing - stealing other peoples innovations, not to prevent you from innovating on your own. If you want to use an off-the-shelf or custom built computer and implement your own methodology for accomplishing the same task, there doesn't appear to be anything anywhere in the patent application that would prevent you from doing so; you just can't steal IBM's precise method for doing so. I don't claim to understand how they mean this can be implemented without automation or computerization, I'll admit. I've read as much as the patent application as I can bear to (or have time for, for that matter), but claim 1 indicates automation is necessary. To wit:

1. A system for reducing customer dissatisfaction for waiting, said system comprising:a queue monitoring subsystem that detects an entry of a customer into a waiting queue;a reward computing subsystem that calculates a reward for the customer for being in the waiting queue; anda communication subsystem to communicate the reward to the customer,wherein at least one of said queue monitoring subsystem, said reward computing subsystem, and said communication subsystem is automated.

I looked for but did not immediately see any cla

Re:The old saying must be true.

[SL Baur]

I didn't read the article, but I read the patent and honestly I am amazed. Dominos Pizza has advertised 30 minutes or less or your order is free or something like that for many many years and they appear to fill all the requirements described in the patent.

I've defended some of the so-called stupid patents posted here and this time I am indeed mystified. Will a lawyer type please explain what doesn't make Dominos Pizza trivial prior art?

Re:The old saying must be true.

[SL Baur]

Thanks for the explanation.

And shame on kdawson for posting such a sensationalist FUD piece Ugh. Shame on me. I should have checked who posted this before I wrote anything.

Re:The old saying must be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when Microsoft gets on top.

I think Madeline Kahn "said" it best:

"the start with Byron and Shelly,
and jump on your belly,
and bust your balloons!"

Re:The old saying must be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is ALWAYS a free lunch, look in the dumpster behind the restaurant! (lol) This is NUTS - pretty soon the French will sue me for kissing my girlfriend with my toungue and calling it a FREEDOME KISS instead of a FRENCH KISS! (LOL)

Re:The old saying must be true.

[s13g3]

Quite welcome. I had to stop on reading the piece to see what editor put it through. Needless to say, I was not surprised when I discovered the answer.

Shame, looks like the mods are ignoring this thread completely. I had points yesterday, but when I was looking through this thread to find someone to mod up, I realized I had to post instead in an attempt to shed some light on the issue, seeing so many led so far off track by the wording of the original story post. Oh well.

Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for Pizza Hut corporate in '85-86. We had a five minute or free deal on "Personal Pan" pizza. One of my coworkers analyzed the POS data and picked the best time to go to lunch. He was averaging about 60%.

Dale

Re:Prior art

[britneys 9th husband]

Now we just need someone at the patent office to examine this POS patent application and reject it.

Re:Prior art

[Brian Gordon]

Only 60%? That's some POS POS data.

Re:Prior art

[eonlabs]

Does Snow Crash count as prior art

The Deliverator knows that there is a 3 foot gap between the burbclaves and... A POOL!

Re:Prior art

[SacredByte]

Not really. Basically he worked out when the stores he would visit were at their peak # of customers durring the day, and then go durring that time period. The 40% represents visits where: A): The branch wasn't as as busy as they sometimes were, and/or B): The employees weren't slacking off, and/or C): He missed the peak of business. Any combination of A, B, and/or C could result in wait times of 5 minutes. That said, without examining the data he whould have been lucky to get anywhere near 60% without investing alot of time to find out that information himself.

Re:Prior art

[SpaceLifeForm]

It would have probably been easier to look for a really
full parking lot, find a spot, and hurry in.
May have hit 70% and could have saved a lot of valuable cycles.

Re:Prior art

[SacredByte]

But that requires luck. You have to actually be there to see that the parking lot is relatively full. Unless it is in a convienient place (I.E. you would have to drive past it to get to a more desireable eatery) it is inefficent to do this unless you know when they are at their busiest.

What the data (when they are busy) allows you to do is plan your trip ahead, and not have to drive past the eatery multiple times while wasting your valuable lunch break.

Re:Prior art

[Gideon Fubar]

Uncle Enzo wants to have a little conversation with you, sir. Follow me please.

Re:Prior art

[jmpeax]

Gives a whole new meaning to "Fat Cat"...

Automation IS required

[l0ungeb0y]

The Summary states: "which IBM notes, 'could be implemented completely devoid of computerization or automation of any kind.' "
But the patent says: "At least one of subsystems is automated."

So they summary is incorrect.

Regardless, this patent is pure, unadulterated BS. Therefore, I applaud it and hope that IBM file many more just like it and they all get granted.
Sooner or later, no one in the US will be able to do business without paying off a squad of patent pimps, and then, maybe ... just maybe an inkling of common sense will emerge from Congress and some reform will take place.

Not to miss out on all this, I'm rushing out to patent "A method for receiving payment in exchange of receipt of goods." and "Providing furniture and eating instruments for consumers at a dining establishment".

Re:Automation IS required

[Frosty Piss]

The problem with this and other Patent Story Trolls here at Slashdot, is that the person who "writes" the summary (and the "editor" who approves them) looks at the TITLE of a patent and makes WILD INFERENCES and ASSUMPTIONS that are not supported by the ACTUAL claims of the patent. This is just such a case.

Re:Automation IS required

[Protonk]

That's not fair. This is an almost totally BS patent, and automation would change little of it. Read the application again. How much of that diverges from a complex system of comping you for waiting? I'm not oversimplifying here. The patent itself is almost the definition of obvious.

It is very true that /. usually makes broad assumptions about patents and patent laws when publishing these stories. This, however, is not a very good example of that wider trend. With the exception of the automation remark, the summary is a pretty accurate run-down of the patent.

Re:Automation IS required

[optimus2861]

So read claim 1 and enlighten us. Where's the brilliant innovation in this legalese that demands a 17-year monopoly on implementing it? "1. A system for reducing customer dissatisfaction for waiting, said system comprising:a queue monitoring subsystem that detects an entry of a customer into a waiting queue;a reward computing subsystem that calculates a reward for the customer for being in the waiting queue; anda communication subsystem to communicate the reward to the customer,wherein at least one of said queue monitoring subsystem, said reward computing subsystem, and said communication subsystem is automated." I ordered a meal at Wendy's not too long ago. I waited a long time for some reason. When the guy brought me my meal, he also brought me a coupon for a free meal as compensation for waiting. In behind the counter at this particular Wendy's, I could see an order board, showing the orders and how long it has been since they were taken. Aka: an automated queue monitoring system. Prior art. Plain and simple. Which is what this garbage patent application is: plain and simple. It is not novel, it is not innovative, and granting it would in no way promote the progress of science.

Re:Automation IS required

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not too sure whether it's still part of the actual claims, but point 41 in the patent defines "automated" as "a device, such as a computer, electronic circuit, or even a simple mechanical clocking device, performs calculations or at least one phase of a step of the process, although a human input might be used to initiate and/or terminate the automated phase." So does that include even a simple hourglass? Then I would imagine the only non-automated system not covered by the patent would be a human going "one Mississippi, two Mississippi,..."

Re:Automation IS required

[totally bogus dude]

...and then you'd have to pay royalties for my patent on "the utilisation of the name of a river, when said name of river is comprised of an appropriate number of syllables such that saying or thinking the name of the river takes the average humanoid approximately one second, as an aid in the task of marking the passage of a particular quantity of time".

Re:Automation IS required

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I patent a system for determining the precise instant at which a customer should enter a queue in order to maximize their odds of being compensated by an automated system for the length of time spent waiting in said queue? Oh, and an automated system that will act as an agent for said customer entering the queue for them much like a stop loss order may cause stock to be sold without the customer being there.

Re:Automation IS required

[Foobar of Borg]

Regardless, this patent is pure, unadulterated BS

May I point out that this is *not* a patent, but rather a publication of an application for a patent. I wish someone on this friggin' site would learn the difference between the two.

Re:Automation IS required

[TheGavster]

The part I find most bewildering about the statement "could be implemented" in a patent is that patents are supposed to be for a specific implementation. You aren't supposed to be able to patent the idea that one might remove the seeds from cotton, just a specific way of doing it, or at least that's how it's been explained to me in the past.

Re:Automation IS required

[ScrewMaster]

just maybe an inkling of common sense will emerge from Congress and some reform will take place.

Be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it. Expecting Congress (who, after all, are largely responsible for the current state of affairs) to implement proper reform is asking a lot. At this point, I'd settle for just not making things worse: any "reform" is likely to be so corrupted by special interests as to be worse that nothing.

Re:Automation IS required

[pokerdad]

May I point out that this is *not* a patent, but rather a publication of an application for a patent. I wish someone on this friggin' site would learn the difference between the two.

If you are being critical of the patent office the difference is very important, if you are being critical of the applicant, not so much so.

Re:Automation IS required

[simong_oz]

good luck, I've been trying for years...

It's barely worth reading any of the patent articles on /. these days because of the total ignorance of the system.

Re:Automation IS required

[lysse]

When the USPTO don't seem overly keen to draw the distinction, why should anyone else?

Re:Automation IS required

[Lumpy]

Another problem IBM's design will NEVER be used.

restaurants love the fact that your card where you get freed food and the voucher for a free lunch has a high chance of never being used. You will forget it or lose it. That is why those vouchers are always "not usable now but on your next visit." you need to be given time to lose or forget about it.

Automatic freebies? not a chance in hell any sane businessman will want that in place.

Re:Automation IS required

[Erpo]

Patent examiners are working hard to make sure there is very little difference between the two. cheek.insert(tongue);

Re:Automation IS required

[Anonymous Coward]

Zippy? Izzat you?

quick

[hansoloaf]

someone better patent rewards such as free beer for long bathroom waits.

Re:quick

[SacredByte]

Alcohol is a diuretic--That'll just compound the problem of long bathroom waits.

Re:quick

[Vombatus]

rewards such as free beer for long bathroom waits

Leading to even more trips to the bathroom, longer waits and more free beer.

Re:quick

[palegray.net]

And your liver falling out of your butthole in protest.

Re:quick

[hansoloaf]

think of the free beer!!!

Re:quick

[omeomi]

Alcohol is a diuretic--That'll just compound the problem of long bathroom waits.

That's okay as long as the beer is free.

Re:quick

[quantumphaze]

They can put advertising on the walls around the queue to the bathroom to pay for the free beer

Everyone wins

Actually interesting

[bluefoxlucid]

This is actually interesting. IBM's patent details a system which monitors the customer queue continuously and scales a response versus a customer wait time. It also delivers the response to the customer. Basically, if you make the reward a re-prioritization rather than i.e. free lunch or discount programs, you're looking at a task scheduler.

Re:Actually interesting

[Protonk]

It might be interesting, but even with the repurposing, it is hardly novel. The notion of reviewing queue times is not new. Various alternatives exist that are avoiding because they upset customers (Serve last in first), or because they are to damn complicated to implement (most of the rest of them).

Re:Actually interesting

[SpaceLifeForm]

Hopefully, it's implemented like the Completely Fair Scheduler, otherwise I probably would avoid the place.

Enough is enough

[sqrt(2)]

Software and business models should NOT be eligible for patents. It's just going to get more and more ridiculous until we wake up and realize that and revamp the patent system.

Re:Enough is enough

[SacredByte]

Thanks for stating the obvious. We've know about this for years. The people with the power to fix this just havn't been told by enough of us with enough regularity.

Re:Enough is enough

[Farmer Tim]

I've just been awarded a the patent on "waking up and realising" as a method of understanding a situation...but don't worry, I'll let you know as soon as someone actually uses it.

Re:Enough is enough

[wellingj]

Don't you think maybe IBM is trolling the US Patent Office? I think they get a kick out of it. If I was Big Blue and knew no one could safely challenge me, yea I'd force some really stupid stuff through just to prove a point about the current state of patent laws.

Re:Enough is enough

[Anonymous Coward]

How ridiculous. Why is it any more beneficial to reward the invention of physical processes that improve the efficiency of a business, than it is to reward structural or institutional processes? Why should businesses invest only in research on improvement and invention ONLY if they can touch it?

Puhleeze...

[binaryspiral]

Will this insanity stop at the USPO?

Re:Puhleeze...

[Anonymous Coward]

The insanity is not actually at the USPTO in this case. The insanity is at IBM this time. If this was not a patent application but was an actual patent then yes, the insanity would be at the USPTO.

This insanity apparently resulted from three geeks at IBM who somehow were able to file a patent application. Anyone who knows anything knows that geeks must be locked away and kept under close guard lest things like this happen. They should have no unfiltered access to the outside world and absolutely no communications with anyone that is not thoroughly scrutinized and reviewed by management to make sure that craziness like this never sees the light of day.

Re:Puhleeze...

[ancientt]

Who knew my managers knew how to post on /.? Now where is that AC button?

This would only be good

[zappepcs]

if it was applied to tech support call waits. The longer they make you wait, the less it costs to fix your problem. At current waiting times I've experienced, it's possible that sending me a brand new computer would be the cost of making me wait.

Re:This would only be good

[calebt3]

Na. They would just refund you $1 an hour or some other small number.

Re:This would only be good

[sweepkick]

Hell if that were implemented I'd already be eligible for a lifetime membership to World of Warcraft..

Re:This would only be good

[wattrlz]

OK, so a brand new computer every other week.

Wow

[Protonk]

I was about to launch on a screed about how innacurate /. headlines and summaries would lead us to believe that a reasonably sophisicated queuing system was instead a simple reward for waiting. How wrong was I.

This is literally a system to reward people based on their time in queue and their position in the queue. Wow. An egg timer could do this. I was expecting something fairly complex and novel like Amazon's patent for prioritizing shipping based on future profit streams per customer (here). Instead I saw a basic, obvious solution that has pretty easy to find prior art: a waiter comping you a dessert because you had to wait a while.

Re:Wow

[cybereal]

Performing the steps in a system is not prior art to defining that system.

That said, if the "waiter" was following written instructional guidelines on exactly when to start handing out free meals, that's a whole other issue entirely. Those instructions would have a chance at qualifying as prior art.

Re:Wow

[Protonk]

I think that it would strain the imagination to say (I know you aren't saying this) that there wouldn't be a procedure, somewhere to perform exactly those steps. Even a threshold procedure for CSR's to offer rebates if customers are waitng for X + 1 minutes would qualify.

Re:Wow

[glwtta]

Performing the steps in a system is not prior art to defining that system.

An idea about how to do something obvious is not a fucking "system".

Is there any way we can get that taped above every patent reviewer's desk?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope what you're saying isn't true. Because, honestly, I've never yet seen an idiot's guide to starting and driving your car.

I hereby patent the following process of vehicular motion (tm/c/r/patpend):

  - Depress the brake pedal
  - Placing a matching key into the ignition on a car
  - Turning said key past the on position to the start position
  - The user then releases the key from the start position, allowing it to naturally rest in the on position
  - The shiftlock button is depressed, and the shifter adjusted to the "D" or "R" position
  - Release the shiftlock button, then release the brake pedal
  - At any time, adjust steering wheel left and right as necessary to direct the car in the appropriate position
  - Depress the accelerator until the vehicle reaches the desired speed
  - Release the accelerator, depress the brake pedal until reaching desired speed
  - Release all pedals, continue the above 3 steps as necessary until ready to exit vehicle
  - Before exiting vehicle, depress the shiftlock, adjust it to "P", release shiftlock, turn the key to the off position and remove it

Now IBM should pay me $1,000,000 per usage of this grand information! Thanks!

Re:Wow

[Jarjarthejedi]

Even something as simple as verbal instructions would qualify, and I know for a fact that many restaurants in my area (that friends have worked at) tell their waiters the procedure for determining if someone should get a free meal. Even if they didn't every restaurant manager knows about when a free meal should be given out. Computerizing that is not something patentworthy any more than taking a student's methodology for determining if homework is worth it is patent-worthy.

If it's already being done commonly and easily adding the words 'on a computer' should not earn you a patent. I'm one of the few /.ers who actually do believe software patents can be done well but this is so far in the absurd that it should merit a fine of some kind for wasting the patent office's time. Just because you took the egg timer and computerized it doesn't mean you should get a patent.

Re:Wow

[The One and Only]

Learn to drive a real car, asshole. Then we'll listen to you whine about the incompetencies of others.

Re:Wow

[mpe]

If it's already being done commonly and easily adding the words 'on a computer' should not earn you a patent.

Especially where the something has most likely been common practice since prehistoric times.

Just because you took the egg timer and computerized it doesn't mean you should get a patent.

Nor should you if you did something similar with a Clepshydra, marked candle, etc.

Imagine the coin they would bank

[antifoidulus]

if everyone had to go through what Butters went through to get to Bennigans......

Re:Imagine the coin they would bank

[thatskinnyguy]

That would require my parents to work together to 1. try to kill me and 2. cover it up. Since I don't think there's a chance in hell of getting them both in the same room together, I'm not going to Bennigan's anytime soon.

My patent

[Boyceterous]

A system whereby a user shall be charged a fee based on the actual volume of excrement deposited into a dedicated porcelain facility. The system shall be called "Pay As You Go"

Re: My patent

[calebt3]

excrement deposited into a dedicated porcelain facility Or piled up in D.C.
Better yet: at USPTO headquarters.

Re: My patent

[noidentity]

Damn, at first I read the subject as "My parent" and was feeling sympathy for the environment you had to grow up in.

Re: My patent

[zen-theorist]

A system whereby a user shall be charged a fee based on the actual volume of excrement deposited into a dedicated porcelain facility. The system shall be called "Pay As You Go"

Can you pull it off?

Re: My patent

[TaoPhoenix]

No $hit!

Re:I vote....

[palegray.net]

I count on their stock price, personally...

As you so ably demonstrate...

[caitsith01]

...courtesy certainly is a novel invention in the US of A.*

Now if IBM could just patent a method for pumping it into the tubes of the intarweb, we'd really be getting somewhere.

* I'm kidding - I've met plenty of polite Americans, like the nice policeman who asked me to "please step out of the car" and the nice TSA lady who told me that without even asking I'd been placed on some kind of list that got me extra special treatment at the airport.

Re:As you so ably demonstrate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you met the nice TSA guy that gives the free colonoscopies also?
Who says we don't care about free health care in the USA?

Re:Worthless Story

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you read the story and determine that it's worthless, GO THE FUCK AWAY. Your comment doesn't help anything and those of us that are interested in the story don't want to read about your oh so grandiose feeling of superiority over the topic at hand.

Way to go asswipe, now just go the fuck away.

Slashdot Sensationalism at its best

[Veramocor]

'could be implemented completely devoid of computerization or automation of any kind'

This statement is clearly shown in the disclosure not in the claims. The only thing that IBM is patenting is what is stated in the claims. You should not read limitations from the disclosure into the claims.

"The name of the game is in the claims" - Federal Circuit Judge Giles Rich

Remember that before you get your panties in a bunch.

Re:Slashdot Sensationalism at its best

[MULTICS_$MAN]

Then what did we need this zSeries mainframe for?

Re:Slashdot Sensationalism at its best

[Anonymous Coward]

So? It's still IBM's own take on their patent. And it's scary, really.

Re:Worthless Story

[Protonk]

no it isn't.

Dominos pizza??

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Domino's Pizza have first dibs? They did 30 minutes or less in the 80s.

Fast-Food Social Psychology

[presidenteloco]

On a slightly related note...

Have you ever noticed there are three kinds of people:

1. Those who notice whether there is a single line-up or multiple line-ups
to get to the McD's order counter, and take their place appropriately.

2. Those who notice, but decide that they can interpret the situation as
ambiguous, and/or pretend they didn't notice, so they can just go ahead
and ... well, go ahead.

3. The oblivious. These come in two subvarieties:
        a. The oblivious go-to-the-fronter-past-everyone-else-in-single-line.
        b. The oblivious hanger-backer in single-line position,
unknowingly tempting everyone behind them to create their own line.

I just want you all to know that I notice, and I notice whether you're
noticing, and in my hungry imagination, intentional queue jumpers
have laser holes smoking in the back of their skulls from my intensely
glowering black stare.

Perhaps I'll patent little poles with ropes between them or something
that could solve this unnecessary and potentially tragic situation.

Re:Fast-Food Social Psychology

[trentblase]

in my hungry imagination, intentional queue jumpers have laser holes smoking in the back of their skulls from my intensely glowering black stare. Too passive aggressive for a polite "excuse me, but there is a line"?

Re:Fast-Food Social Psychology

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a solution for you. Instead of staring angrily at people, get the fuck out of McDonalds!

Seriously that shit is poison, and if you frequent it often enough that you have classified the people who stand in line there, then you really need to smarten up.

There's no motivation to change

[EmbeddedJanitor]

There is very little motivation within the patent system to change it.

The USPTO makes a lot of profit. Why should Uncle Sam kill a cash cow.

The patent lawyers make a lot of money filing patents. Easy filing encourages more filing which means more business/profit. But the real money gets earned when patents get contested. Therefore bad patents mean lots of litigation which mean more profits. No motivation to improve patent quality.

Systems don't fix themselves. Since there is no motivation to change, change won't happen.

This will do some good elsewhere

[MikeRT]

By providing economics students with an excellent case study on what rent-seeking looks like, and why the law should seek to make it as legally difficult as possible.

IBM's patent strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM just wants to stay #1 in patents, ahead of the closest competitor (Samsung). Samsung is arguably a more diversified company, but people won't remember that if IBM slips into 2nd place. That would be a major PR hit for IBM.

IBM tried improving the quality for a couple of years and filed fewer (potentially better) patents. All that did was allow other companies to sneak up and get closer.

So IBM loosened up a little. The result is that the local committees that review patents and make the decision to file are letting more ideas go through. Some fraction of those are related to actual IBM products, some fraction will get licensed to other companies, and some fraction really won't mean anything in the end. What you want to look at are what patents IBM keeps valid by paying maintenance fees. Those patents are important to IBM. If the patent is issued and then abandoned when the fees come due, it's just a number toward the goal of being #1.

From what I've seen, IBM strongly supports patent reform but has to play the same game everyone else plays. If IBM plays the "high quality patent only" game, everyone on Slashdot gives IBM high marks. If IBM then comes in second it'll be big news in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ beats Slashdot every day of the week.

Re:IBM's patent strategy

[trentblase]

IBM strongly supports patent reform but has to play the same game everyone else plays This strikes me as similar to many people who support higher taxes. They probably still try to minimize their annual taxes in legal ways (e.g. taking appropriate deductions). It's a collective action problem where individuals trying to make the world better are disproportionately penalized for their actions.

Re:Worthless Story

[Anonymous Coward]

I told you: I'm not allowed to argue anymore unless you've paid...

Filed last week?

[wannabgeek]

It was filed on 21st of this month and it's on /. already? Is someone closely watching the patent filings, or did some insider alert slashdot? Good thing either way. May be all this "publicity" will make IBM retract the application.

Re:Its called courtesy, stupid.

[Dan541]

I've read about alot of patent-related stupidity, but this one seems like a new low. What is it with the US and that backwards law.

Ideas don't do anyone any good.

Implementation does.

Patent squatters rob us of potential technology because they sit on and ideas without implementation.

  As far as I'm concerned if your not using your idea it should be free for someone else to take.

~Dan

Speaking of voting

[Anonymous Coward]

...why not patent crappy government?
The US Government couldn't count as prior art, as its crappiness is pure science.

Re:Worthless Story

[Protonk]

This isn't arguing, it's just pointless contradiction.

Illogical.

[n6kuy]

" ... Automated Crediting ... 'could be implemented completely devoid of ... automation of any kind.'"

If they can pull that off, they deserve a patent!

Re:Illogical.

[Eskarel]

Not too terribly difficult actually, depending on your definition of automation.

I can create a system whereby if a customer is forced to wait over half an hour they are automatically given a free desert and implement it only by providing appropriate instructions to my staff.

It's autmoated, but it's not automated.

Prior Art

[oldhack]

This is just an exploitation of the well known fact that numbers in restaurants, including time measurements, dance to different tunes. Some guy wrote about it, like, years ago, in some book about hitchhiking.

Brilliant Strategy

[PPH]

It appears that IBM is seeking to force patent reform by clogging the system with so many useless applications that soon it will be impossible to swing a dead cat without hitting a patent claim.

Sorry. That should read 'Method for controlling the trajectory of a deceased feline to avoid impact with preexisting intellectual property'.

Re:Brilliant Strategy

[Foobar of Borg]

Method for controlling the trajectory of a deceased feline to avoid impact with preexisting intellectual property

Or, better yet, "Method for applying blunt force trauma to ungulate, wherein said ungulate is deceased, lying on the ground, and infested with maggots."

Re:Brilliant Strategy

[Gazzonyx]

It appears that IBM is seeking to force patent reform by clogging the system with so many useless applications that soon it will be impossible to swing a dead cat without hitting a patent claim.

Sorry. That should read 'Method for controlling the trajectory of a deceased feline to avoid impact with preexisting intellectual property'.

Ah, but may we slashdotters still beat a dead horse, or will that fall under aforementioned patent?

I bet they're going after Starbucks

[wbean]

I bet the whole plan is to go after Starbucks for all those free drink coupons they hand out.

Patents like this...

[Puffy Director Pants]

Just tell me that there needs to be a penalty for when companies file absurd patents in the name of greed. I say we strip IBM of a random 1% of its patents. This will discourage them from being stupid.

Looks like fun, where do I sign up?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

I think I'll file a patent on using the word "the". Makes about as much sense.

This is just old operational research papers

[crovira]

from the fifties rewritten on a patent application form.

Total sham.

Re: Prior Art Versus Obviousness

[evought]

Performing the steps in a system is not prior art to defining that system.

That said, if the "waiter" was following written instructional guidelines on exactly when to start handing out free meals, that's a whole other issue entirely. Those instructions would have a chance at qualifying as prior art. No, you are right. If the procedure is so utterly commonplace that it is not even written down as a procedure, then it fails by way of obviousness, not prior art. The idea of rewarding (bribing) customers for bad service of all kinds likely goes back to the first occupation. Bad word of mouth advertising and lost business hurts. Duh. Adding "with an egg timer" to the process does not make it less obvious.

It's a trap - for the patent office

[davidwr]

Maybe IBM is trying to force the courts, the patent office, or Congress into outlawing such silliness once and for all.

Imagine putting this system in

[crovira]

airport wait queues.

There's be one apology for waiting at the airline desk, one apology for waiting after the TSA to root through your carry on, one apology for waiting after the airport for runway clearance, one apology for waiting for your luggage at the carousel, (only to discover that your luggage is having a much nicer trip than you are,) and one last apology for waiting after the idiot who's supposed to deliver all of the apologies.

I suppose there should be an Al Queida booth set up for apologizing that you've actually made it to wherever because they haven't got around to blowing up your plane.

I ate at the IBM cafeteria in Bethesda

[crovira]

and it wouldn't surprise me if they had to write down instructions for chewing your food and an addendum for remembering to swallow it.

Then again, they probably wouldn't have to give any instructions for vomiting.

Re:I ate at the IBM cafeteria in Bethesda

[huckamania]

No, they just sing the IBM eating song. It has all of the necessary steps in the lyrics.

Re:Its called courtesy, stupid.

[Gideon Fubar]

heh.. even if you are using the idea, someone should be able to come up with a new way of doing it without violating your patent.. of course, this may not work with some products (such as pharmaceuticals) but i suspect the patent systems was originally developed without them in mind..

Sounds like it's more for call centers

[CougMerrik]

If you look at the patent, it's just a system for monitoring when customers begin waiting, determining their "reward" based upon how long they've been waiting, and frequently communicating their reward to them. The purpose appears to be to stop people from hanging up while they're on hold at a call center (especially when the customer has options to go elsewhere for the service). I'm sure some people would be likely to stay on the line if they were told they were earning some kind of points/money/discount, instead of just completely wasting their time.

This is great news!

[ScrewMaster]

Now if IBM will just refuse to license these waits (except maybe to expensive French restaurants that I'd never go to anyway) we'll find a general improvement in the dining experience.

Re:This is great news!

[aadvancedGIR]

There is an easy solution: simply live in France. Most of the expensive restaurants we have here are 80% empty on rush hour.

Just a method of getting slacker employees to get

[zoomshorts]

OFF their duffs and serve customers.
"The casual-dining chain's "Time Crunch Lunch"
guarantees that meals not served within 15
minutes of being ordered will be free. The
offer is good between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m.".

It is not news, it is a ploy to force the
workers to do a 'time and motions' study on
themselves. Improve SOMETHING so the stop-
watches are not needed. These times are
the BUSIEST TIME of the day. What manager
would not like to kick their employees in
the rear and get the lead out?

Simple. Pull my finger.

No Shit Shirlock

[theshowmecanuck]

You don't need to read the article, just this in the summary:

Method and Structure for Automated Crediting to Customers for Waiting

It's still ridiculous to even apply for this. It is blatantly obvious since all it is doing is automating something that already exists in a non-novel way. Way to troll for stupid patents dude.

Re:No Shit Shirlock

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that? Just because an idea is obvious doesn't mean IBM's way of implementing that idea is obvious.

This needs to be said in every single goddamn patent story on slashdot: Patents are NOT for ideas. They are for METHODS of implementing ideas.

Even if IBM gets this patent, you or anyone else is free to use your own method to credit customers for waiting. You just wont be able to use IBM's fancy automated system without their permission (which no one currently uses anyway, so it really is a non story).

Re:No Shit Shirlock

[saigon_from_europe]

This needs to be said in every single goddamn patent story on slashdot: Patents are NOT for ideas. They are for METHODS of implementing ideas.

This needs to be said to USPTO.

Re:No Shit Shirlock

[theshowmecanuck]

Sure... show me a concrete implementation then, instead of some vaguely worded shite. For example:

[0032]Queue monitoring module 401 detects the user entering and leaving the waiting queue, as well as application-specific parameters such as the user identification, time of entry, and date of entry. Reward computation module 402 receives inputs from the queue monitoring module 401 to calculate/update the session award, and communication module 403 announces the award to the user, perhaps keeping the user updated periodically as the waiting session continues. There also may be an interface with a database 404 to maintain user account information, including cumulative awards/credits.

For Christ's sake, this can be done any number of ways as a concrete implementation.... but if this gets a patent, then the idea of doing this (because this is all this is, an idea) gets patented, and no-one can make any alternate implementations.

And what about this crap

[0034]The CPUs 511 are interconnected via a system bus 512 to a random access memory (RAM) 514, read-only memory (ROM) 516, input/output (I/O) adapter 518 (for connecting peripheral devices such as disk units 521 and tape drives 540 to the bus 512), user interface adapter 522 (for connecting a keyboard 524, mouse 526, speaker 528, microphone 532, and/or other user interface device to the bus 512), a communication adapter 534 for connecting an information handling system to a data processing network, the Internet, an Intranet, a personal area network (PAN), etc., and a display adapter 536 for connecting the bus 512 to a display device 538 and/or printer 539 (e.g., a digital printer or the like).

This can be any sort of a computer. This means no-one can have an alternate implementation with a computer if they get the patent. Bottom line Shill, tell me where the concrete implementation is. This is a collection of ideas and business methods being patented, not an implementation. Go back to your patent lawyer shill hole.

Re:No Shit Shirlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, when someone responds by calling you a shill it's obvious they are interested in a rational understanding of the situation...

But what the hell, maybe you aren't a complete idiot with an agenda. Here's the points that you are apparently "missing".

Sure... show me a concrete implementation then, instead of some vaguely worded shite Patent applications are often vaguely worded. That's why they include goddamn figures! Did you even bother taking a look at those? All the parts mentioned, 401, 402, 511, etc are pieces of a system clearly labeled in the figures.

This can be any sort of a computer. This means no-one can have an alternate implementation with a computer if they get the patent. Correct, that is "any sort of computer". You'll find a computer described similarly in any number of patents. But in absolutely no way does that mean that no one can even have an alternate implementation with a computer. The fact that you would even say this shows that your knowledge of how patents work is completely inadequate (a common thing on slashdot, unfortunately). They described the computer because they have to - it's a part of their implementation. They can't just include a figure with a big amorphous blob labeled "Generic Computer" half-way through their system - they need to be precise to the point of pedantry. But again that is just part of their implementation - it happens to use a computer. It does not mean no one else can use a computer in a alternate implementation, it means that on one can use a computer in the same way as described in the patent in an alternate implementation!

You seem to be laboring under the false impression that each of the numbered points in the patent application is a separate claim. They are not. They are all just small parts to their overall system. Of course if you pick out any one of two of the points they will seem obvious - thats the fucking point! That's how patent applications are written!! It's the stringing of all the points together described in the patent (and more obviously the figures with the application) and in the order described that IBM is seeking a patent for.

Re:No Shit Shirlock

[theshowmecanuck]

No other country in the world recognizes crap software patents other than the U.S. Any other politicos in other countries trying to push junk software patent laws through are being lobbied heavily by patent shills from companies like MS, Apple, IBM, et al. Many software developers in the U.S. and elsewhere also recognize the ridiculous nature of patent laws. The only thing software patents do is keep big companies and patent trolls in business. They discourage innovation and prevent small companies from starting up. Copyright law more than adequately protects software systems. And the portion talking about CPUs etc. more than shows this to be a junk patent application. Since you are among the very very few that seem to think software patents are good, I am assuming you work for either a big company or a patent troll. Using the word shill isn't bad if it's true. Now maybe it isn't true, but my personal experience makes me believe that it is true... whether you are actively paid to support a shite concept (software patents) or not.

Re:No Shit Shirlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about software patents? This is not a software patent!

For fucks sake you have no idea what you're arguing about.

IBM patented waiting before

[JohnnyVang]

In 2000, IBM filed patent 6329919 "System and method for providing reservations for restroom use". Specifically, it was some thingamadingy for restrooms on planes. For whatever reason, they later decided to renounce all claims. Wonder how many people over at IBM have PhDs in waiting.

Don't you see?

[shyberfoptik]

IBM is just patenting everything they can think of so that no other similarly-extremely-huge-and-well-funded-entity can sue us little people for using an obvious invention (or process, or collection of symbols, or Turing tape) to promote useful arts and sciences.

A brilliant strategy for repairing the USPTO. Now we won't have to hire people who can actually reasonably award patents. Hey, IBM should patent that!

</sarcasm>

But teh IBM is teh guud guyz...

[Anonymous Coward]

but teh IBM pays for teh FOSSie programmerz, an teh Lunix, an teh IBM college for teh FOSSie programmerz (which dudn't mean teh IBM owns teh Lunix or the FOSSies of course, cuz teh FOSS is teh freezorz!!!).

So since teh IBM give teh moneys to teh FOSSies, IBM kant do nuttin wrong.

I trust teh IBM, dey rnt teh evel like teh MiKKKr0$$$loth. Cuz teh IBM give teh monies to teh FOSSies, so dey be teh guud guyz.

What are they up to?

[prionic6]

I'd say these are the first steps for patenting a new space ship propulsion system...

Efficiency!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just have the bar on the other side of the stand-up urinal.

For extra efficiency, sieve out the fag buts (cigarette ends for your 'merkins) and pipe it into the lager bottles. May require some chilling.

Re: Prior Art Versus Obviousness

[mpe]

If the procedure is so utterly commonplace that it is not even written down as a procedure, then it fails by way of obviousness, not prior art.

Which has the problem from the patent examiner's POV that the "obvious" is often poorly documented. Hence it is essential to suitably skilled patent examiners.

The idea of rewarding (bribing) customers for bad service of all kinds likely goes back to the first occupation. Bad word of mouth advertising and lost business hurts.

It's probably been going on as long as businesses supplying some kind of service, be it a current "fast food" resturant or "flint knapping while u wait".

Adding "with an egg timer" to the process does not make it less obvious.

It just adds an objective measure of the quality of service.

Not surprising

[smoyer]

Given what I've heard recently about the quality of business analysts in IBM's consulting group ... I'm not surprised that it took three of them to come up with this idea. And a quick prior art search would show that Domino's Pizza had a system for automatically providing freebies in the late 70s (If the pizza guy arrived more than 30 minutes after you placed your order, he automatically gave you the pizza without taking your money:)

Is IBM trying to prove a point?

[Midnight Thunder]

With some of these crazy patents coming out of IBM these days, I am wondering whether IBM is just trying to prove a point. The point being that the patent system should not be allowing these sort of things, and that they will continue doing this until someone with the power to sort out the patent mess wakes up.

Re:Is IBM trying to prove a point?

[danzona]

Right.

And bank robbers are trying to prove a point about weak security at the bank. They are really public servants!

Y'know, the way the title was written

[wattrlz]

.. it would be a good thing. Every second that a business made a customer wait they'd have to pay a fee to IBM. That would be a great motivator to enhance queue efficiency resulting in lower wait times for all.

I can has idiot?

[Anonymous Coward]

but teh IBM pays for teh FOSSie programmerz, an teh Lunix, an teh IBM college for teh FOSSie programmerz (which dudn't mean teh IBM owns teh Lunix or the FOSSies of course, cuz teh FOSS is teh freezorz!!!).

So since teh IBM give teh moneys to teh FOSSies, IBM kant do nuttin wrong.

I trust teh IBM, dey rnt teh evel like teh MiKKKr0$$$loth. Cuz teh IBM give teh monies to teh FOSSies, so dey be teh guud guyz. Alright, who let a lolcat post on slashdot?

Re:I can has idiot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I M N ur /. jackin yer thredz!!!1one!1I

Re: 60%

[rnturn]

That should have been easy to pull off even without analyzing any data.

We used to head to Pizza Hut nearly every day back (it seemed) in the mid-80s and I can recall going for a couple of months without having to pay for pizza. I stopped going to lunch with my coworkers until they found another place to eat. I'd gotten sick to death of Pizza Hut's stuff after that stretch. In fact, I don't think I've been back to one since then. (Hey, living around Chicago has certain advantages and being able to find dozens of pizza places that are better than the Hut is only one of 'em.)

Just what is IBM's goal here? Cornering the market on bad service?

Unless IBM is willing to get themselves laughed out of court should they ever attempt to enforce it, they ought to let this patent wither and die.

Pay if I BM?

[c0d3r]

So does this mean that I need to pay when I BM while waiting in line at a restaurant?

The Land Of Queues

[NotZed]

Well its in the right country for it. I never saw people waiting for up to an hour or more just to get into a restaurant before I went to Boston.

This WILL become a patent and it is good

[hadaso]

because then IBM - being the nice big company that they are - would grant free use of the patent in FOSS and then anyone who wants to offer a free lunch would not be able to do it with the software from Redmond...