Slashdot Mirror
IBM "Invents" 40-Minute Meetings
theodp writes "On Thursday, the USPTO disclosed that self-described patent reform leader IBM wants a patent covering its System and Method for Enhancing Productivity. So what exactly have the four IBM inventors — including two Distinguished Engineers — come up with? In a nutshell, the invention consists of not permitting business meetings to be scheduled for a full hour during certain parts of the day. From the application: 'The observation is that if an hour were shorter, by a small amount, we would be more focused, and accomplish the same amount of work, but in less real time, thereby increasing productivity.'" I just knew someone would one up my 43-minute-meeting patent. That's why I've already begun intense R&D on my latest invention: the 37-minute meeting! Register early for an early-bird discount. Register even earlier for more of one.
No one yet seems to have mentioned a 42 minute meeting as the perfect time. (for any time over 0, zero minutes is more perfect)
Actually, that's not what it says. By my reading, the patent is actually reasonably innovative. At least, I've never heard of any calendaring system doing it as described.
What the claims of the patent say, in essence, is that the day should be broken down into schedule-able blocks of differing sizes configured by a system administrator. So if you have a 40 minute meeting, you can reserve the 40-minute block during that day and not the 30 or 60 minute block. Instead, most people today would say, "Well, it's going to run longer than 30 minutes, so I'll reserve an hour." I actually think I'd love it if Outlook operated in the way described in the patent instead of making it easiest to reserve meetings on 30 minute boundaries.
E pluribus unum
Congratulations on proving why Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. IBM does not have a patent on a 40 minute meeting, they have a patent application that claims setting up a time template on a scheduling server (claim 1) that allows for using different time intervals (claim 3). If you actually look at the file history on the USPTO site, you'll see the patent office hasn't even picked the case up to examine it yet. But that would assume people on slashdot care about things like facts.
The article quoted says "wants a patent", not "has a patent." The Slashdot editor then implied IBM had a patent. And what you did, seriously, is spread FUD because you took something you read on slashdot (but clearly don't know anything about) and posted it to a place people read and rely on as an accurate source of information. Pat yourself on the back. You spread misinformation today.
Informative my ass.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.