Slashdot Mirror


Halliburton Applies For Patent-Trolling Patent

An anonymous reader writes "Halliburton, the company many folks know as Dick Cheney's previous employer, has apparently taken an interest in methods of patent trolling. In fact, according to Techdirt, the company has applied for a patent on patent trolling. Specifically, it's applied for a patent on the process of finding a company that protected an invention via trade secret, figuring out what that secret is, patenting it ... and then suing the original company. Hopefully, the patent office rejects this patent, because I somehow doubt that Halliburton is trying to get the patent as a way to block others from patent trolling."

37 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. This by jeffasselin · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is hilarious on SOOO many levels. I don't even know who to root for in this story! Help me Slashdot, should I go for Hallburton, the Patent Office, the trolls?

    --
    If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    1. Re:This by crypticedge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The first case i'd support Halliburton for. Think of it, they get this patent, and anyone who trolls patents are in violation.

      Its a self obsoleting patent. Eventually they will bankrupt all the other trolls and have little left but hang up their hats.

    2. Re:This by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Funny

      This makes me so mad I just wanna shoot someone in the face.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:This by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Seriously hilarious. Though as long as it's not illegal, and it meets all the 102 requirements and is not obvious, it will probably be granted.

      Maybe the best we can hope for (besides dying in our sleep) is that this kind of slap-in-the-face application can spur some of the much needed reform.

      --
      We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
    4. Re:This by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Though as long as it's not illegal, and it meets all the 102 requirements and is not obvious, it will probably be granted.

      It may or may not be legal; the patent office and the courts have (finally) started to take a dim view of "business method" and other types of patents that circumvent the original intent of the patent system.

      It is obvious, and there exists substantial prior art -- if not, people wouldn't have immediately had a ready-made phrase ("patent troll") to describe what the patent covers.

      No doubt buried in the requirements is something that Halliburton hopes will make this bullshit business method patent different from all the other bullshit business method patents, but I'm actually hopeful that they'll get the smackdown they deserve.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I already have a patent on angry face shooting, please do something else. I might sue you.

    6. Re:This by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt it, more likely they'll just take a small piece of each settlement as a licensing fee.

      But, it's not like nobody saw this one coming so I'd suspect that it'll get blocked on the grounds of the inherent obviousness of it.

    7. Re:This by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like you're assuming that Halliburton will indiscriminately go after anyone who violates their patent, thus making patent trolls everywhere tremble in fear. I don't think it will work out that way. What seems more likely is that they'll hold onto it, using it only against their competitors when it's to their advantage and having little effect on the world of patent trolling as a whole -- and meanwhile, setting yet another precedent for the granting of truly horrible patents. The best thing is for this and every other business method patent (and software patent, and patent on a naturally occurring gene, etc.) to be denied until people get the message that patents are intended to cover physical inventions, and nothing else.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:This by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't wait to hear from the other patent trolls whining about being trolled.

    9. Re:This by srussia · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its a self obsoleting patent. Eventually they will bankrupt all the other trolls and have little left but hang up their hats.

      Goedel strikes again! Hooray!

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
  2. Sorry... by Aix · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, they can't do this because it violates MY patent on patenting patent trolling!

    1. Re:Sorry... by internerdj · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was waiting for you to exercise because I have patented patenting patent trolling.

    2. Re:Sorry... by Kratisto · · Score: 4, Funny

      In summary...

      Halliburton...Dick Cheney...patent trolling...patent...patent trolling...patent...patenting...suing...patent office...patent...Halliburton ...patent...patent...trolling.

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
  3. hmm... by MorderVonAllem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...I would think that the very act of finding "prior art" (the very fact they found an invention) as described in this system would invalidate any patent attempt of the trade-secret...

    1. Re:hmm... by TheMCP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Moreover, their attempt to patent this procedure would seem to indicate that they were knowingly violating prior art, in fact intentionally doing so, which would seem to imply that they could be charged with fraud or something similar.

      I'm surprised they filed this patent attempt, and that their lawyers let it happen - it's like saying "I would like explicit government recognition of my plans to violate the law to ensure that when I do so everyone will recognize exactly what I did."

    2. Re:hmm... by shimage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The patent system was created to encourage people (or companies) to reveal their trade secrets. That is, in return for fully documenting your idea, the USPTO will grant you a temporary (say, 20 year) monopoly on that idea. The point of a trade secret is that no one else knows what it is. If you want to own an idea for longer than 20 years or so, then you can't patent it. If, on the other hand, you don't think you can keep an idea secret for that long, it's best to patent it. Ergo, I'm not entirely sure what the patent system is good for. If your idea is not patentable in the first place, then I guess you can hide your method's mediocrity by claiming it's a "trade secret", although I was under the impression that this did not happen all that often. That said, I could easily be wrong.

    3. Re:hmm... by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't get it though, the US system is 'first to invent'. So you invent something, keep it as a trade secret, Halliburton reverse engineers and patents it, Halliburton sues you, you produce copious quantities of documentation showing that you invented it first and walk out of the room with their patent under your arm.

      In the mean time, they can't get this patent elsewhere because the first-to-file world doesn't recognise business method patents. Or do they propose to patent in the US a method of patent trolling in the rest of the world.

      What have I missed?

      --
      FGD 135
  4. I'm gonna apply for first post patent by pwnies · · Score: 3, Funny

    and sue the guy above me.

  5. Like Radar Detecting by Aix · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm reminded of something that happened to me a few years ago in a Circuit City or Sears or someplace. I was looking for a radar detector for my car. The salesman was trying to upsell and said "You know, cops can detect radar detectors now, so you should get this upgrade with a radar-detector detector." I said, "Why do I want a radar-detector detector? Obviously I want a radar-detector-detector detector." The salesguy did not appreciate my point. I ended up just buying my original level of detection.

    1. Re:Like Radar Detecting by zarthrag · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's funny is that there actually are units with a radar-detector-detector detector circuit in them, in order to to protect against police units such as the Spectre III.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    2. Re:Like Radar Detecting by MrMista_B · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course, the police don't tell you about the Spectre IV, which has a radar-detector-detector-detector detector circuit in them.

  6. Let Them Patent It by sexconker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The methods of figuring out trade secrets are almost always illegal, and can be sued over.

    1. Re:Let Them Patent It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The methods of figuring out trade secrets are almost always illegal, and can be sued over.

      Only if those methods involve illegal methods of corporate espionage. I was recently co-author of a patent for a product with a certain chemical formulation. Some details of the formulation & production were deliberately left out of the patent in order to retain trade secrets. But figuring out those secrets is easy enough by either 1) research or 2) espionage. The former is perfectly legal, but may involve large expenditure of resources - i.e., difficult enough that it might not be worth a company's time and money to re-create the R&D of the original patent.

      So in a way, you can see that our current patent system tends to discourages inventors from complete disclosure and tends to incentivize corporate espionage.

    2. Re:Let Them Patent It by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some details of the formulation & production were deliberately left out of the patent in order to retain trade secrets.

      Then your patent should be invalidated for not disclosing sufficient information to allow a practicitioner skilled in the art to build the patented product.

      Similarly, any patents produced via Halliburton's method should be invalidated on the basis of fraud -- if I figure out, through reverse-engineering, the trade secrets embodied in someone else's invention, I still haven't actually _invented_ them. It's not the same as a case of independent invention.

  7. Patent being a dick. by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Funny

    So basically halliburton is trying to patent being a dick... I think there's some prior art for that...
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    1. Re:Patent being a dick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So basically halliburton is trying to patent being a dick... I think there's some prior art for that...

      You mean Cheney?

  8. In re Bilski by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a silly business-methods patent application that will certainly be rejected by the PTO after Bilski. And no, a trade secret certainly does not qualify as prior art in the US. Nor should it.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:In re Bilski by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, the US uses first-to-invent, with no prior user rights.

      If GE invents a fancy new molding technique for making plastic parts for a widget of some sort, and keeps it secret for over a year, they lose all rights to patent it, having "suppressed concealed or abandoned" the invention. In a similar vein, if Big Bad Drug Company (tm) invents the 5 cent cure for AIDS and tells the researches to lock it away and never bring it up again or publish their findings, and somebody else invents it, all the documentation in the world that they invented it first won't save them, now the other drug company owns it! At the very worst, you MIGHT be able to invalidate their patent if it wasn't under NDA, just unpublished. But under no circumstances can you take control over their own patent, if you made any acts to conceal or otherwise hide your invention from the public eye.

      Business Patents, on the other hand, do have a prior user right codified in law, where you cannot be liable for infringing on a patent if you were using the patented process prior to the "invention" date. HR.2795 and HR.1908/S.1145 both broadened this defense to all patents but neither was passed into law. These bills also would have change it from "first to invent" to "first to file" like the rest of the world has.

      In your specific example, were recipes patentable in the USA, then yes, KFC would have to licence Haliburton's new patent or change their own recipe. On the other hand, if somebody invents a new widget and doesn't patent it, it's not a secret even if the manufacturing technique is not published, because anybody can go and buy the widget. The manufacturing technique could still be patented out from under them though!

      As long as patent rules are enforced (they aren't!), meaning that it has to be non-trivial, and non-obvious, then there's nothing wrong with this. The reason it's designed this way is to punish people who try to hide their inventions from the public. If GE invents a new manufacturing technique, and refits all their factories under an NDA, but waits 5 years to patent it so their monopoly lasts longer, they should lose all their rights for trying to subvert the system! I don't think it's right that they could get sued over something they invented first, especially since it's open for abuse where they didn't so much suppress it, as think it was trivial and therefore not patentable anyway, and then got sued for billions! But they certainly shouldn't be able to take control of the patent, no way.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  9. Sound's good to me. by Jaywalk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I somehow doubt that Halliburton is trying to get the patent as a way to block others from patent trolling.

    Actually, I'm not sure what else it could be used for. A patent on patent trolling can only be used against other patent trolls. If Halliburton wanted to be a patent troll, they wouldn't need a patent to do it. Besides, patent trolls typically don't have any other source of income that can be threatened by their "business", so Halliburton wouldn't really qualify.

    Looks like someone's stab at a defensive patent to me.

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
  10. It's in the USPTO's best interest to grant it by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Hopefully, the patent office rejects this patent, because I somehow doubt that Halliburton is trying to get the patent as a way to block others from patent trolling."

    It's in the USPTO's best interest to grant this patent because their revenue is largely driven by trolls patenting prior art and mechanisms/methods which are obvious to those skilled in the trade/art/science.

    Take DAC (digital analog converters) for example: radio was there, then someone came along and said "Zomg! I'm gonna patent using a DAC to send voice over the radio waves using digital" and "ZOMG! I'm gonna use a DAC to send ethernet over the radio!" and so forth. The DAC is a physical implementation and ought to have been given a patent, but the uses for which DACs are implemented are obvious to anyone skilled in the trade and ought to not be granted patents.

    But, if the USPTO rejects such patents, where is their job security? Or, if their jobs would still be secure, why, not rubber stamping a patent would require actual WORK. They can't have that now, can they? Just rubber stamp the patent application and let the courts sort it out, letting the little guys go bankrupt in the process.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  11. Re:Need a better search function. by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not "patenting patent trolling" that needs to be non-obvious, it's the action they're trying to patent - "patent trolling". Patent trolling, although it may not have been obvious back when it became a major problem, is now so common as to be laughably obvious. Unfortunately, prior art exists everywhere.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  12. Excerpt from patent by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 5, Funny
    What is claimed is:
    1. Being an asshole.
    2. Effectively wielding the trait in claim 1.
    3. Using the trait in claim 2 for the purpose of making money.
    4. Using the trait in claim 3 as a business weapon.
    5. Using the trait in claim 4 to pursue litigation against entities with desirable assets.
    6. Using the methods and techniques in claim 5 to transfer ownership of desirable assets from the prior owner to the new owner, the user of the trait in claim 4.
    7. Using appropriate legal contracts and agreements to ensure that the prior owner in claim 6 cannot publically disclose the use of the methods and techniques in claim 5 or the successful results therefrom in claim 6.
    8. ...
    9. Profit!
  13. Re:Need a better search function. by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 3, Funny

    You cannot find them because I send thousands of DMCA requests to slashdot to have them removed for infringing on the copyrighted document we had containing the patent idea.

    Our lawyers will be contacting you shortly as well.

    --
    ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
  14. Huh? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, IANAL, and in /. tradition I didn't RTFA, but what's the point of applying for patents in cases where you specifically know there's already prior art?

    That's a rhetorical question - I don't even want to know the answer.

  15. From TLWA by Emb3rz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although patents normally go to the first inventor under a first-to-file system, an inventor who keeps the information secret or just does not publish generally loses the right to the patent and also does not establish prior art. Without prior art, a later inventor can get a valid patent on the same invention and then apply it against earlier inventor(s). All this is easily prevented simply by recognizing the invention and applying for a patent, or by publishing details of how to practice the invention, thus creating prior art.

    Emphasis mine.

  16. Why stop there? by Nerdposeur · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you get to the level of paranoia where you want this, perhaps I could interest you in my radar-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector detector.

    It consists of a black box with a little red light, which always blinks to indicate that you're always being watched.

  17. Wow by Ambitwistor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Halliburton, you magnificient bastard! Making patent trolls pay you license fees for violating your patent trolling patent? I revel in your sheer self-referential evilness. My hat is off to you. That takes huge balls — I think I saw one of them chasing Indy in a Peruvian temple.