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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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: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.

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.

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"

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.

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'.