Slashdot Mirror


IBM Wants Patent On Finding Areas Lacking Patents

theodp writes "It sounds like a goof — especially coming from a company that pledged to raise the bar on patent quality — but the USPTO last week disclosed that IBM is seeking a patent for Methodologies and Analytics Tools for Identifying White Space Opportunities in a Given Industry, which Big Blue explains allows one 'to maximize the value of its IP by investigating and identifying areas of relevant patent 'white space' in an industry, where white space is a term generally used to designate one or more technical fields in which little or no IP may exist,' and filling those voids with the creation of additional IP."

151 comments

  1. Too meta for me... by Loibisch · · Score: 4, Funny

    My head explodes at the sheer number of possible meta-jokes hidden here...

    1. Re:Too meta for me... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      My head explodes at the sheer number of possible meta-jokes hidden here...

      That's OK, Mach5 took care of it for you!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:Too meta for me... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "It is illegal to behave in an intelligent fashion without permission. We have articulated all the intelligent ways in which a human can behave that we are aware of, and you are not permitted to behave in any of these ways unless you have paid for the privilege. If you have no money, you are permitted to work like a slave in the employ of someone who has already paid. If you do not wish to do so, you are permitted to starve to death."

      According to our rulers, whom we may disagree with but still materially obey, this is progress.

      Incidentally, they also own the land, the sea, the skies, and your sorry ass. Better put your head down and get to work.

      Has anyone ever noticed that it's hard to eliminate an armed and active military force, and yet you can eliminate those who created the weapons with a brick and a rope?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:Too meta for me... by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I say let them do it. If they can find a way to find the holes where no patents exist, then they've found a way to make 90% of patents instantly obvious. If an analytical tool can figure out that something can be patented, then there was no need for creativity or ingenuity, right?

    4. Re:Too meta for me... by bcat24 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Incidentally, they also own the land.

      Burn the land and boil the sea
      You can't take the sky from me

    5. Re:Too meta for me... by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's exactly what I was thinking. This is a patent end game 2 yard line play. Once it's obvious what patents don't exist, all patents are then obvious with or without prior art! Game over!

    6. Re:Too meta for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* I miss firefly. Have you ever heard the acoustic version of this song by Joss himself? Good stuff :-)

      This isn't Joss but wicked good as it is: Firefly intro Acoustic

    7. Re:Too meta for me... by keithius · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, they also own the land.

      Burn the land and boil the sea
      You can't take the sky from me

      Nicely done. :-)

      --
      "Programming is the fine art of making a machine that has absolutely no intelligence act as though it does."
    8. Re:Too meta for me... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Funny. Try to launch a plane, or a satellite, or set up a radio transmitter. See how quickly you get caged or shot.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    9. Re:Too meta for me... by Catil · · Score: 1
      While that may be true, the public probably won't be informed that a pending patent was basically generated by a computer. Actually, looking at all those articles about ridiculously obvious patents here on Slashdot, they may be using it already.

      It kind of reminds me of that professor who wrote a program to automatically write books on any given topic. I don't know the numbers anymore but I think he released hundreds of books without anyone noticing (he didn't sell that much though.)

    10. Re:Too meta for me... by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!


      I guess you never were much of a Firefly fan?

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    11. Re:Too meta for me... by citizen_senior · · Score: 1

      I never meta patent that I really liked, and this idea aint gonna change that.

    12. Re:Too meta for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone ever noticed that it's hard to eliminate an armed and active military force, and yet you can eliminate those who created the weapons with a brick and a rope?

      No, because it isn't true.

    13. Re:Too meta for me... by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That doesn't work. It may be obvious that patents don't exist, but it is not obvious what the patents that fill the space would be. There are probably few patents on time machines and matter transmitters. But knowing that doesn't tell me how to invent one to get a patent to fill the space.

      A bit like cryptography. I may have an encrypted message, and I may know which algorithm it was encrypted with, but the key is hard to find, and until I have it I know nothing.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    14. Re:Too meta for me... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      And if they come up with a novel solution, then they should get a patent. However, if they identify something like the fact that there are patents on adjustable brake pedal height, and patents on using electronic sensors for brakes, but not a patent on using them together, well, that's obvious as soon as someone sees what the space is. Identifying a problem is part of finding a novel invention, and this program can show that the problem is an obvious one.

    15. Re:Too meta for me... by msormune · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? What about Highlander 2?

    16. Re:Too meta for me... by nimbius · · Score: 0, Troll

      i for one welcome our new super-patent overlords.

      --
      Good people go to bed earlier.
    17. Re:Too meta for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They took the sky. Get over it

    18. Re:Too meta for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern. - William Blake

    19. Re:Too meta for me... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Funny. Try to launch a plane, or a satellite, or set up a radio transmitter. See how quickly you get caged or shot.

      Turn in your geek card and go away if you can't figure out what the poster was referring to.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    20. Re:Too meta for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because KSR is the new standard doesn't make it right, dammit! :( The Supreme Court needs to stay out of matters it clearly knows nothing about.

    21. Re:Too meta for me... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Only a geek would say that last paragraph.

    22. Re:Too meta for me... by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I think that's only true if you have a space faring vessel. :p

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    23. Re:Too meta for me... by bcat24 · · Score: 1

      Nicely done. :-)

      Not really. :-(

      I screwed it up by quoting less of ShieldW0lf's post than I intended to. Oh well.

    24. Re:Too meta for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a deep-pocketed company looking to change your Intellectual Property image (based in Redmond, hypothetically) you can use this information to strategically direct your research spending. They ARE doing this - their IP people say they are, and they're evil but not liars.

    25. Re:Too meta for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As usual IBM finds the most creative way to be completely stupid.

    26. Re:Too meta for me... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Funny. Try to launch a plane, or a satellite, or set up a radio transmitter. See how quickly you get caged or shot.

      On a serious note (though you missed the joke), I can hop in my GA aircraft and take off without asking anyone (from a non-towered airport). I can pretty much go damn near anywhere without checking with someone if it's nice out, and I don't run into Class A through D airspace.

      With regards to a satellite, if you launch it you've just got to let the relevant people know that you are launching. They don't get to say no.

    27. Re:Too meta for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only an idiot would think that was clever

    28. Re:Too meta for me... by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Except that non-obviousness is a condition of the solution, and not of identifying the problem.

      This process would identify research areas, not patentable results of that research. Everybody knows there aren't any teleporter implementations. That doesn't mean the inventor of a teleporter has created something obvious to someone skilled in the art. IBM is just hoping to identify gaps in research, by using patent volume as a proxy, and thereby use the results to pump money into research in those gap areas, thereby innovating where there is a lack of innovation (and, just so it doesn't raise any philanthropic-alert eyebrows, these areas are also easiest to patent because of their relative inactivity--lack of competition and lack of prior art).

  2. Holy crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A patent to patent things that haven't been patented yet, so they can later sue for patent infringment? :)

    Respectfully,
    Department of Redundancy Department

    1. Re:Holy crap... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      That sounds Patently Unpatentable(tm) (patent pending)

    2. Re:Holy crap... by pak9rabid · · Score: 0, Redundant

      That sounds (C) 2008 Patently Unpatentable(tm)(R) (patent pending)

      Fixed that for ya.

    3. Re:Holy crap... by jjrockman · · Score: 1

      Department of Redundancy Department

      I always thought it was the Department of Redundancy Reduction Department.

      --
      Quit jabbering on the phone while driving. You are not that important.
  3. patent patents! by Mach5 · · Score: 1

    that's it, its time to patent the act of patenting. and then patent thinking about patenting things. and also patent every number up to a few hundred billion.

    --
    - my userid is lower than yours
    1. Re:patent patents! by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: This was IBM's effort to patent thinking about patents. They just patented a method of finding new areas that don't have patents.

    2. Re:patent patents! by CaptainPatent · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: This was IBM's effort to patent thinking about patents. They just patented a method of finding new areas that don't have patents.

      Newsflash: This is not a patent, it is an application for a patent.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    3. Re:patent patents! by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      And the process would never end, according to Godel's Incompleteness theorem...

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    4. Re:patent patents! by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: I have the patent on newsflashes.

      I am currently seeking out other similar patents that would allow me to deliver quips with similar stunning terms, but if this patent goes through, I'll only be able to patent things that I haven't discovered.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    5. Re:patent patents! by ribuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep. And, as usual, xkcd said it best.

    6. Re:patent patents! by Zarf · · Score: 1

      Yep. And, as usual, xkcd said it best.

      You can't link to that. I patented linking to XKCD.

      --
      [signature]
    7. Re:patent patents! by lucas_picador · · Score: 1

      and also patent every number up to a few hundred billion.

      You can't generally patent numbers. But you can secure copyright protection on them (e.g., the number encoded by the bits on a DVD of When Harry Met Sally).

      And you probably thought you were being hyperbolic...

    8. Re:patent patents! by Kooty-Sentinel · · Score: 1

      Here we go.
      I have a patent on patenting newsflashes.

      Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go.

      --
      Your evaluation period for Productivity 1.0 has ended. Please purchase more coffee to continue using this product.
  4. Ingenious by kraemate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isnt that called creativity or something?

    Can they really get a patent on that? Really? Wont this start an infinite cascade of similar statements?

    1. Re:Ingenious by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Basically what IBM wants is a patent that makes applying for a patent a patent infringement unless you pay them first.

    2. Re:Ingenious by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm can't expressly give my opinion of patentability, but I can say that there is a lot of case law on applications about filing patents (how, for what, automation, etc.) and none to my knowledge have gone through.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    3. Re:Ingenious by dword · · Score: 1

      No, it won't be infinite. The cascade will end when we find the one that can patented fire.

    4. Re:Ingenious by Zarf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wont this start an infinite cascade of similar statements?

      And that's how we'll break the patent system. They'll get so caught up in recursive patents that they'll chew up all available resources in the US government eventually causing an out of memory error. The whole government will crash because there will be no space left for log files. The result will force a reboot of the US government.

      --
      [signature]
    5. Re:Ingenious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The result will force a reboot of the US government.

      One can only hope!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Ingenious by Timosch · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can actually imagine IBM lawyers sitting in a room and laughing themselves to death after they files this patent...

    7. Re:Ingenious by mounthood · · Score: 1

      Up next: Patent on attacking a bureaucracy by creating recursive regulations.

      US Patent law, rule 6: There is no rule six.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    8. Re:Ingenious by jonas_jonas · · Score: 1

      too much catch 22?

    9. Re:Ingenious by eggnoglatte · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. It makes it an infringement to, without license, write or use software that is based on the specific analysis algorithm IBM is attempting to patent.

      Nice FUD, though.

    10. Re:Ingenious by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      It all depends on whether they are trying to patent a software that achieves this, or the actual IDEA of searching for unpatented ideas. If you think I'm being paranoid here, behold Namco's US patent for the idea of putting minigames within loading screens: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5718632.PN.&OS=PN/5718632&RS=PN/5718632

    11. Re:Ingenious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets show them who's boss by patenting the process to get a patent.

    12. Re:Ingenious by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      And a judge will be able to tell the difference because of what? Suing people for things your patents doesn't actually cover is standard practice.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    13. Re:Ingenious by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Woohoo! Death via Divide By Zero!

    14. Re:Ingenious by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      Glad to see you got modded funny because your wrong. I had a read of it. It is quite interesting. From what I can gather it uses dictionary systems to analyze a product or functional area and cross references against disclosures existing and points to areas that may have potential IP.

      I can see it working in reverse as a way to look for existing prior art in your product to ensure you are not infringing.

  5. Is it can be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...divide by zero tiem now plz?

  6. IP aka Mortgage Backed Securities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Intellectual Property suffers from the exact same problems the real property market does. It is another market that is artificially inflated. Wait and see it all crash and burn within the next 10 years.

    So when you see the word Patent simply think Mortgage Backed Security and you will understand

    The problem with patents is a great number of them are "junk" and worthless but no one has realised this yet. When the cat gets out the bag its gonna crash down.

  7. The ultimate recursion... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    The patent that invents itself.

    I wonder if IBM's next innovation will be programs that write themselves.

    Does a black hole get created when this happens? It seems like the universe would suffer a stack-overflow.

    1. Re:The ultimate recursion... by HisMother · · Score: 1
      > I wonder if IBM's next innovation will be programs that write themselves.

      Hells yeah, ever hear of MDA?

      --
      Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
    2. Re:The ultimate recursion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I foresee patents becoming self-aware sometimes next year.

    3. Re:The ultimate recursion... by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Informative

      We already have programs that write themselves (within limits). They are rather useful in the field of AI.

    4. Re:The ultimate recursion... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      1) Write a Perl script that knows how to write more Perl
      2) Wait till it evolves the ability to access and read the internet
      3) ????
      4) Emigrate to Mars

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  8. IDEAS by arizwebfoot · · Score: 0

    You can't patent an idea, it has to be a working model or a workable model.

    --
    Oh well, Bad Karma and all . . .

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:IDEAS by TinFoilMan · · Score: 1

      So, if I come up with the concept of a - say a ion powered car - that just the concept is not patentable?

      --
      In my other life, I eat cats.
    2. Re:IDEAS by arizwebfoot · · Score: 0

      In short, yes.

      Now if you had an actual working ion engine in the vehicle, you could patent the engine as it relates to ground transportation. You could also patent any new technologies to integrate the vehicle with the engine.
      Of course, if it flew as well, there would be a whole bunch more patentable possibilities.

      --
      Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    3. Re:IDEAS by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      You'd have to come up with a method or process that actually works.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    4. Re:IDEAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The design is patentable.

    5. Re:IDEAS by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Uh, no.

      If that were the case, then a huge fraction of patents would be invalidated because as we all know, stuff doesn't work.

      One doesn't have to show up at the patent office with a working model. Sorry.

      But once you do patent something, remember that patents aren't valid in perpetuity-- although there's quite an effort to make them that way.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    6. Re:IDEAS by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      "One doesn't have to show up at the patent office with a working model. Sorry."

      Actually, I never said that. But I wasn't clear, so I'll make a second attempt. My point was that you cannot patent mere hypothetical concepts. Like a "process by which a time machine works." Your patent should be able to actually work, if it does not, there is no actual process or method that you patented. Thus, unless it can actually work, the patent is invalid.

      The most famous of such a patent involved patents over the automobile. Henry Ford was sued by George Baldwin Selden who held patents on the automobile. Ford's lawyers argued that the patents were nonsense and were not physically possibly to implement. The judge ordered Selden and his lawyers to prove the patents were valid by actually implementing them in a real world design. It did not fully work so Ford eventually won.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    7. Re:IDEAS by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      You cite a case where a design actually was forced to be proven through litigation. This comes after the patent was granted. One merely has to prove that the patentable object not just an idea, that it's unique, and that it hasn't been done before within legal constraints, and that it doesn't somehow occur in nature. It must be described in this way as well. Ford won the litigation, and had the patent invalidated subsequently, to my recollection.

      Still, the object of a patent application doesn't have to be demonstrated or proven to get a patent grant. Indeed, it can be challenged, but the patent can be granted for things that don't work at all. As an example, you don't need to go into the patent office with your PC and working algorithm to have that algorithm patented.

      Lots of inventions that don't work and can never work, have been granted patents. This is a part of the problem. More often than you think might be the case, patent applications are drawn where the object is in progress, and is theoretical-- to beat the competition. The legality of this, or its ability to withstand additional scrutiny (whether through litigation or not) is dubious. But it's done. Lying about prior art happens all the time, as well.

      Inventing science fiction things when they truly are fiction is an abuse of the system. But more than one fictional item has been made into reality when challenged. The fact that it didn't quite exist at the time of filing then becomes a point of contention as your research has shown.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    8. Re:IDEAS by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      "Still, the object of a patent application doesn't have to be demonstrated or proven to get a patent grant."

      Once again, I must not be making myself clear, because I never said that. I'll just say it again, in a slightly different way... If your patent cannot be physically implemented in reality, and if someone challenges it, the patent will almost certainly be found invalid. This is done a posteriori, not a priori. There is simply no way the examiners can implement each and every patent for such a determination.

      "The legality of this, or its ability to withstand additional scrutiny (whether through litigation or not) is dubious. But it's done."

      Very true indeed!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  9. And next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... patenting the methodology of patenting new methods on finding empty patent areas. *STACK OVERFLOW ERROR*

  10. Uh, nobody should file patents, because uh... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Funny

    We're filing them all. Trust us. It will work ok. You just keep writing that stuff openly and let our lawyers take care of the paperwork...

    --
    This is my sig.
  11. No worries here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No worries here, we only patent already existing ideas.

  12. Looks like a technically good patent. by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's useful. It's novel. It's non-obvious (at least to me, but I don't claim to be an expert).

    Unlike so many other business method patents, which fail the last two tests miserably, this one cuts through the implementation details and shows why the whole concept of a business method patent is fatally flawed. I doubt that's what IBM intended however.

    1. Re:Looks like a technically good patent. by Oddscurity · · Score: 1

      Who knows, maybe they intend to let it discover un(der)-patented areas, to then fill them up with prior art to preclude patent trolls later on cashing in on obvious ideas.

      Meaning that just because you haven't had a problem yet, doesn't mean that its solution can't be straightforward when you do run into it, particularly since a lot of ideas build on previous ideas. It'd be a shame to find out that once you do, someone else pseudo-randomly generated a patent purporting to cover your implementation.

      --
      Indeed!
    2. Re:Looks like a technically good patent. by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      It's non-obvious (at least to me, but I don't claim to be an expert).

      People have been joking about patenting the "idea" to make patents. Although because they implement this a different way (by "finding ideas that are NOT patented yet"). They may still have a case...

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    3. Re:Looks like a technically good patent. by mashiyach · · Score: 1

      It's useful. It's novel. It's non-obvious

      I agree that it's useful...
      Almost exactly the functionality they try to patent was a sub project in an EU-application we applied for 2007, which unfortunately wasn't accepted though.

      It overlaps with a patent we applied for 2004, but we don't do the clustering in the same space. This method is anyway part of our business model. If we can not invalidate their patent it implies we have to cooperate...

    4. Re:Looks like a technically good patent. by Hertzyscowicz · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but I'd be a lot more relaxed if it was EFF or just about any nonprofit org that was doing it.

      The implications of a megacorp patenting methods of patent trolling are... a very good reason to use an ellipsis during an asynchronous discussion, for one thing.

  13. Joke Becomes Reality by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to love it when a common joke on Slashdot - that of patenting the process of patenting ideas - has finally come to pass. Reality has become a joke when a joke becomes reality.

    1. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      totally it sounds like a monty python sketch

    2. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by CaptainPatent · · Score: 1

      You have to love it when a common joke on Slashdot - that of patenting the process of patenting ideas - has finally come to pass.

      Fortunately for us your above summary of the situation is dead wrong. This is an application for a patent and not a patent itself. We do get tons of crazy ideas that come in our offices here everyday and if every one of them became a patent it would be a crazy world.

      This application has around 2 years before it's even touched by an examiner and while there have been mistakes in the past (see Amazon one-click which did become a patent and then was repealed) I don't think you'll hear too much about this down the road.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    3. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by ShinmaWa · · Score: 1

      This is an application for a patent and not a patent itself.

      Even better then! It's an idea for patenting the process of patenting ideas!

      It'll be interesting to watch this snake eat itself.

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    4. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by samkass · · Score: 1

      You have to love it when a common joke on Slashdot - that of patenting the process of patenting ideas - has finally come to pass.

      In Soviet Russia, the process of patenting ideas patents you! If patents were cars, this would be like patenting blank areas on your road atlas. And does this patent application run linux?

      --
      E pluribus unum
    5. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to love it when a common joke on Slashdot - that of patenting the process of patenting ideas - has finally come to pass.

      That's business 3.0, aka "go for the ridiculous". They probably got the idea here. The problem is that Slashdotters come here and post these ideas openly and people at companies like IBM can read. Slashdot is actually one big open think tank. Or is that open septic tank? Er, open sewer?

      Reality has become a joke when a joke becomes reality.

      Yup. Almost eight years of Bush will do that to you.

    6. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone should submit that joke as prior art.

    7. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The question I have is, did they use this method to discover that there was "whitespace" in this area of patents before deciding to try to patent it?

    8. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Reality has become a joke when a joke becomes reality.

      Next thing you know, Bush will end the long national nightmare of peace and prosperity, and Gillette will make a five bladed razor with two lubricating strips.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    9. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by labnet · · Score: 1

      The Patent system is just showing the same signs as Americas current version of capitalism.
      ie.. huge greed and poor government oversight that eventually leads to the destruction of the whole system.

      --
      46137
    10. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by edsousa · · Score: 1

      I'm not 100% sure but I would say that someone told a similar joke some months ago saying that he would patent a method for finding things not yet patented and submit one.
      Was he an IBM employee?

    11. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by owlstead · · Score: 1

      You mean like bootstrapping a patent?

      Yikes.

    12. Re:Joke Becomes Reality by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Actually, they seem to have patented the absence of ideas, which is to say, they've patented -- Nothing. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  14. !=Innovation by Xerolooper · · Score: 2, Informative

    After reading TFA it seems the patent application is about going back over things they have already made. Then if they don't hold alot of patents on it they try to find new ways of patenting it. In their mind trying to protect what they see as theirs. You see most new innovations have multiple patents. Take the case of item A, B, and C. A = 2 patents B = 24 patents C = 12 patents Under their suggested method they would identify A as an item that has greater potential to find new patentable features.

    --
    "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
    1. Re:!=Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lost you on the maths. Can you put it into a car analogy?

  15. Obligatory Yakov Smirnoff joke. by Chas · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, white space patents YOU!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Obligatory Yakov Smirnoff joke. by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, you might be more insightful than you think. Russians came up with an invention methodology by analyzing massive numbers of patents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ. It's used mostly for finding solutions in those white spaces, but could be adapted to find the white spaces.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  16. Clarke's variant. by DrYak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reality has become a joke when a joke becomes reality.

    Or to misquote Arthur C Clarke's 3rd Law :
    Any sufficiently advanced joke is indistinguishable from reality.

    (Or Maybe shall we say : Any sufficiently advanced reality is indistinguishable from a joke.)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Clarke's variant. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      That would explain the US electoral process.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Clarke's variant. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Any joke distinguishable from reality is insufficently advanced.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  17. I think I know where they're going with this... by eagee · · Score: 1

    Maybe, just maybe if the USPTO grants this patent it'll open up an absurdity rift in the space time continuum and suck all existing and future software/ip patents into a temporal garbage heap where-they-belong. It's a long shot, but let's hope they can pull it off!

  18. I KNEW IT!! ha ha ha ... by 3seas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... actually this is not a bad idea so long as it is used to support open source rather than to stifle it.

    However, the idea of Open Source As Prior Art being used to help just such a patent or use of such a process as this article is about. It shouldn't supprise anyone that IBM is a contributor to this OSAPA.... And IBM being a huge software patent holder.... uh errr FLOSS supporter...

    Apparently if you try to help improve the patent system and you support software not being patentable, you then risk screwing yourself.

    Stallman was right. The best thing to do is to ignore the patent system as it applies to software. OR Support "End Software Patents", Or better yet help prove Software is not of Patentable nature!

    This way mapping open source software for reuse becomes a clear benefit rather than a risk.

    I too was on the OSAPA list and contributed in support of open source.... as non-patentable Abstraction Physics.

  19. Given Industry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methodologies and Analytics Tools for Identifying White Space Opportunities in a Given Industry

    Am I the only one wondering what rolls out if you input Porn-industry here?

  20. This may not be an evil thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But more or less IBM challenging the patent system bullshit and seeing if they can actually get the patent.

    Weren't they even pointing out how flawed the system was a while back? I'm sure even though they have a ton of patents, they're threatened by the patent system because of all the overly broad patents that are being granted, especially those that overlap on some of their patents. Despite having the higher legal ground, they're bound to be faced by companies like SCO again over frivolous patent suits that will drag on for ages again at this rate.

    1. Re:This may not be an evil thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: The SCO lawsuits were never about patents and only about Copyrights.

  21. Perhaps it's fighting fire with fire by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    It sounds like a goof â" especially coming from a company that pledged to raise the bar on patent quality

    Taking this approach with patents could be a strategy similar to how the FSF and EFF approach copyright. Stallman was offended by how copyright was being used to rob software of its freedom, so he developed a license enforced by copyright that could protect software freedom. EFF will, to the best of its abilities, enforce open licenses using copyright law to ensure those who incorporate copyrighted Free software is used as intended.

    Perhaps IBM has this in mind when patenting a process to find areas of "white space" and locate opportunities for patent applications. IBM is known to be in support of reforms to the patent system to increase quality of submissions, and it has declared for some of its patents that Free software communities would not be subject to royalties, licensing or injunctions. It is a promising track record and hopefully it reflects what they would do with patents issued as a result of their new "invention".

    Filing a patent application is probably the most iron-clad "prior-art" that one could provide, so anything that would make it easier for "good guys" to file patents would probably help. I do wish, however, that tactics like those used by "big corporate" IBM were being employed by the EFF or some neutral foundation or other organisation. Big corporate legal depts. are not altruistic and always act in the self interest of the company to some degree. The best idea would be to establish an "anti-troll" corporation as a foundation that would accumulate patents and offer them up under a Free-software-like license.

    Sometimes fire really is best fought with fire...

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Wait... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

    It sounds like a goof especially coming from a company that pledged to raise the bar on patent quality.

    That IS raising the bar on patent quality. Golly, you have a lot to learn about how business works.

  24. Gotta love recursion by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

    I want a patent on the generation of patents created by large companies. Top that, blue!

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
  25. where's that eternal golden braid by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    around the lawyer-class necks we so desparately need?

    Someone crank up the rpms; this reality is ready to shatter.

    1. Re:where's that eternal golden braid by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They call it "creation of additional IP". Their word creation is newspeak for finding prior art that hasn't been codifed yet.

  26. Its not the patents ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... its the licensing terms that matter. Go ahead, patent everything. But license it under GNU/OSS-like terms.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Re: Snake eating itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snake Pr0n!

  28. lots of work cut out .. by savuporo · · Score: 1

    Just today, to my delight i found out that some chap in australia has patented the wheel back in 2001 and won the prestigious IgNobel Prize for it too.

    Oh what other marvellous things have we forgotten to patent still, IBM will you enlighten us ?

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  29. Hmm, a meta-patent, eh? Two can play at that game. by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

    So, they patented a method of figuring out what to patent. Well, I'm going to file for a patent on the method of getting patents on ideas concerning how to patent things. Or maybe even just cut to the chase, and get a patent on patenting methods of patenting ways to generate things to patent.

    Wait, can we just define this as a recursive function, and patent that, therefore patenting all conceivable levels of meta-patent-analysis in one fell swoop?

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  30. They might use it in a beneficial way by JackassJedi · · Score: 1

    Namely to stop patent trolling once and for all.

    I'm all sure they're "just" a company too, but they indeed Think Different in a way that i can not yet fully grasp, but which shows. Everyone can clearly see that patent trolling (in the described form of "looky there's nothing invented here yet; let's make a patent, bring it through USPTO, do nothing with it and sue people to death") is not good for general business and the market as a whole.

    It definitely makes me feel a lot better that IBM has filed this patent and not Microsoft, SCO, and/or other scourges ;)

    --
    Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
  31. My head has crashed... by MindKata · · Score: 2, Funny

    "if we could write a software to find out all the areas lacking patents and suggesting patents for that area"

    The software would also recursively generate ever more patents as it searches the patent idea trees, until its patented everything and the value of all patents worldwide = $0.00

    Then again, if it was a really smart program, it would see it was undermining the value of patents by flooding the world with ever more patents and so it would then have to invent an entirely new patent system, which it could then start to sell new patents from.

    You could then get it generating ever greater generations of patenting systems, and ever smarter versions of its own program, until all computing power on the planet gets used up by its searches, until it achieves the Technological Singularity and all patents become worthless. :)

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:My head has crashed... by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 1

      That's it! I'm patenting the idea of granting exclusive-use rights of an idea or invention to an individual or group. I will then proceed to charge the US government $1 trillion/day for violation of my patent with their patent system. ...on second thought, I think I'll wait a few weeks after the patent is granted, then sue them for damages in addition to charging them fees for using my patent.

      --Ender
      (I know, I know: It's probably already been tried. Maybe I'll patent the idea of a bank instead.)

      --
      Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
    2. Re:My head has crashed... by Loko+Draucarn · · Score: 1

      Kurt Gödel would like to patent device G, a device which can not be derived from the patents in the system, nor can be rejected on the basis of existing patents.

    3. Re:My head has crashed... by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      I know, I know: It's probably already been tried.

      That's because you're doing it wrong. What you really want is the idea of granting exclusive-use rights of an idea or invention to an individual or group over the internet.

  32. == Relational Database? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    A method for analyzing predefined subject matter in a patent database being for use with a set of target patents, each target patent related to the predefined subject matter, the method comprising: creating a feature space based on frequently occurring terms found in the set of target patents; creating a partition taxonomy based on a clustered configuration of the feature space; editing the partition taxonomy using domain expertise to produce an edited partition taxonomy; creating a classification taxonomy based on structured features present in the edited partition taxonomy; creating a contingency table by comparing the edited partition taxonomy and the classification taxonomy to provide entries in the contingency table; and identifying all significant relationships in the contingency table to help determine the presence of any white space.

    Does this not sound like a relational database utilizating a free-text search, where someone inputs all the text regarding the patent?

    It would need a lookup table having concise information regarding the industry of the company in question or there would be too much ambiguity. TFA doesn't say anything about searching for prior art before identifying whether something can or cannot be patented. I assume the software in question would just spit out a list of things it thinks could be patented based on the function of the company vs. the existing patent portfolio. To me, it looks like IBM is trying to profit off the chaos present at USPTO.

  33. None of You are Actually READING the patent app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have any of you people actually read the Claims of this patent application?

    First as some have mentioned it's an Application, not a patent yet.

    Second, it's not as extreme as some are making it out to be.

    In short form, what this is:

    is a method of searching through existing patent databases with standard query options (such as searching by Company name), defining and editing categories of patent areas, and then sorting through the info. and categorizing the patents of a certain Company based on these areas.

    The user then has to look at the data output and actually figure out if there is a "whitespace" area to pursue new patents or further research in based purely on the fact that a certain company has more or less patents in a certain defined area.

    It may be obvious but it's certainly not "patenting the act the of patenting."

  34. Most disturbing to myself by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Is that this would be a patent on finding whitespace.

    Look, as an ethnic white person, our ethnosocial rights to our own space are under attack by IBM, the Big Blue.

    If this is allowed to go forward, the entire world will be blue, and then our meals will look really really yucky.

    Well, except for the blueberries. Those are good.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  35. Is simple, again. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Simply ignore software patents.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  36. Overreaction by IPCanuck · · Score: 1

    First, you can't patent something that is already public knowledge. Since people have been inventing things for millennia, and patenting for centuries, this is an absurd fear.

    Second, just because you run to the patent office with your money in hand doesn't mean you get to patent 'the wheel' or 'automobiles' or 'the page down key'. In typical /. fashion, someone read the title and assumed that was a good summary of the patent. I don't know how many patents I've read with the title 'semiconductor device' - does that mean the inventor claimed a patent on all semiconductors? No, of course not.

    The patent application describes one particular novel system that could be used to identify areas with little patenting activity. This has been done for decades in many ways, so to get a patent IBM will have to prove that THIS method is substantially different from ALL OTHER ways that people have disclosed doing it in the past. If successful, IBM gets a patent on this and ONLY this system.

    Before we trash the patent system (and it has its flaws), we should have at least a grasp of how the system works first.

    1. Re:Overreaction by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "just because you run to the patent office with your money in hand doesn't mean you get to patent 'the wheel' or 'automobiles' or 'the page down key'."

      or "one click shopping", or linked lists. :-)

    2. Re:Overreaction by IPCanuck · · Score: 1

      Precisely. :)

  37. For my first wish, I wish for more wishes! by Infirmo · · Score: 1

    Aren't I a clever multinational?

  38. Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (playing Devil's advocate)

    Perhaps IBM is trying to find and file a patent so obviously ridiculous and bad* that it invokes an avalanche of patent law revision.

    That would be raising the bar in my opinion.

    *I'm not a lawyer nor do I know the faintest thing about lawyering so I kept my adjectives mundane to avoid legal confusion.

  39. Re:What about brownspace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    troll? Looks like the moderator doesn't like sex with women.

  40. No way. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Won't fly unless they pay me royalties big time.
    I've allready patented the patenting of patents involving technologies that deal with patents.

    Yeah, I'm rich!

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  41. Missing mod... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1 Spoilsport

  42. Read Accelerando by Charles Stross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main character in Accelerando invents new things before lunch, patents them, and has his patented algorithm patent all possible spin-off patents too. Cool book! You can read it online, or buy a hard copy:

    http://www.accelerando.org/

  43. Extra! The exclusive method patented by IBM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    select * from db_all_patents pt where COUNT(DISTINCT pt.id_patent) 1000 group by pt.field_of_human_knowledge

  44. WRONG. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Ever hear of design patents? All I need is a DETAILED DRAWING.

    I highly suggest you re-read what patents one can obtain and what they entail, because you're obviously missing a lot of stuff. And as a patent holder, I can easily say you're DEAD WRONG - you do not need an actual product. You can atent a METHOD of making something - you don't need the actual end-product to obtain the patent on the manufacturing process of said product.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:WRONG. by IPCanuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Design patents are very different from utility patents. They don't last as long, and the unique design features don't need to have any particular utility. They also aren't nearly as valuable, and don't prove that anything was actually invented. That's why the Q-Ray bracelet proudly proclaims they have a US Design Patent - no-one else can copy their design, but they don't have to prove that it actually has any of the claimed benefits.

      As to your second point, you're correct that you don't need a working model or prototype of your product to obtain a patent. You do, however, have to have the invention 'reduced to practice' - i.e. someone with the right resources could implement your invention given what you've described in the application.

  45. Signs of the end by Darren+Hiebert · · Score: 1

    I believe that this is just further evidence that Americans have ceased to value hard work as the means by which to create wealth. Wealth is now appropriated by gaming of the system in order to tax the value of work performed by others. This is much in the same way that a parasite pilfers its sustenance from the result of effort invested by others.

  46. So, This is What Wall Street Does Next by mencomenco · · Score: 1

    Reprogram those old algorithms for synthetic mortgage derivatives and voila -- instant synthetic patents. Hooray for higher math.

    Coming next: Synthetic Patent Pool Bonds and Intellectual Property Default Swaps!

  47. Accelerando comes to life by sl0w · · Score: 1

    Charles Stross would be elated to hear that someone of power at IBM took his novel and made it real. The next step is their Cell Processor AI array (Sure it exists!) starts auto creating meta-corporations based on their new "whitespace" ventures.

    Free downloadable book
    http://www.accelerando.org/

  48. I am going to patent creating patents by birrddog · · Score: 1

    oh bollocks, I just told the world and am now ineligible. oh wo is me. This is confidential so if you read this you owe me big $$$ I have a p4t3nt. f34r m3.

  49. Travel the thicket,find open spaces,&pollute t by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    Of course, half of /. posts, elaborating how to patent patenting (for 4. Profit!!), might qualify as prior art...

  50. Travel the thicket,find open spaces,+pollute them? by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    The ampersand slashbug strikes again.

  51. This is the one... by FunkyRider · · Score: 0

    The one patent to patent all patents! If the methodology of find and patenting patents has been patented, then it means each and every patent that is being patented must be found using the patented patent, thus it violates the patented patent for the patent being patented to be patented! Want more?!?

    --
    just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
  52. Patentus patentum avocat by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    If IBM were more bold, it would let this trifle go in lieu of richer fields of conquest. Why seek to patent the patenting of possible somethings when the known universe is teeming with so much less -- that is, with so much more of nothing?

    Today, there exists a great untapped opportunity that, for mysterious reasons, is still awaiting those pioneers who will man its papery frontiers: I refer, of course, to patenting ideas that do not nor ever shall exist. This area has been called "the ultimate white space."

    I do not mean ideas that should not exist -- the so-called Cthulhu Codex (see Cox, J., Von Wolfgut, T., "The Patent Out Of Time," Journal of Patents, Vol. 27, No. 4).

    No, far sexier and lucrative are those patents that haven't been devised yet because the ideas at their root are in a highly theoretical state of pre-existence.

    Exploiting these synaptic absences is a vast project going forward. Moreover, it is timely. As the American economy reels from the devastating evaporation of fictitious wealth on Wall Street, new imaginary sources of wealth generation are clearly needed if our economy is to return to a robust delusional grandeur.

    It is unknown exactly how much wealth can be derived from ideas that do not exist, but it is believed the sum is nearly incalculable, or, alternatively, "huge."

  53. It's been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you have to do is take something like the old Unix utility called spew (great for generating National Enquirer style headlines), set it up with a file full of favorite IBM technologies and then use it to do full text searches against a patent database. If it doesn't come up with any hits, you file a patent. Come to think of it, a patent category for online spew might be kind of fun.

    See http://michaelthompson.org/unix/spew.php?type=headline