Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Wants Patent On Finding Areas Lacking Patents

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the all-for-me-none-for-you dept.

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."

26 of 151 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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?

    3. 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

    4. 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!

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    5. 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.
  2. 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 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]
    4. 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...

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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?

  7. !=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
  8. 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 ]
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. Re:patent patents! by ribuck · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Paid Q&A/Research
  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.