IBM Wants Patent For Regex SSN Validation

theodp writes "What do you get when you combine IBM contributors with the Dojo Foundation? A patent for Real-Time Validation of Text Input Fields Using Regular Expression Evaluation During Text Entry, assuming the newly-disclosed Big Blue patent application passes muster with the USPTO. IBM explains that the invention of four IBMers addresses a 'persistent problem that plagues Web form fields' — e.g., 'a social security number can be entered with or without dashes.' A non-legalese description of IBM's patent-pending invention can be found in The Official Dojo Documentation. While IBM has formed a Strategic Partnership With the Dojo Foundation which may protect one from a patent infringement lawsuit over validating phone numbers, concerns have been voiced over an exception clause in IBM's open source pledge."

Comments

More to it than that.

[gurps_npc]

The numbers in your social security number mean things. By State originally. I am sure, IBM is at least including double-checking that information, to make sure that you can't type in 741-99-0000 and have the machine mistakenly think it is a valid social security number. How do I know this? Because the numbers mean things, you can tell that certain things are obviously bad social security numbers. For example, no field can have all 0. 111-00-1111 has never been assigned. Similarly, no number above 740-##-#### has ever been assigned.

You can read more about it here

Re:Prior Art so Prior It Hurts

[Zordak]

Also, from discussions with my attorney, it's really hard to get away with the "bloody obvious" software patents anymore after all of the blowback from things like the Amazon 1-click patent.

Somebody mod parent up. The days of the patent office just rubber stamping software patents (if there ever were such days) are over. Those guys have gone absolutely freakin' nuts with KSR. Seriously, you could send them an application for a working FTL drive, and they'd just shoot back an obviousness rejection combining one of Einstein's publications with an episode of Star Trek. I'm not saying it's bad to treat obviousness as a hard fact question where we have to actually use our heads rather than mechanically use the Teaching/Suggestion/Motivation test. But these guys have gone totally the other way. They don't use their heads. They just mechanically reject everything as obvious if they can find the pieces in any prior art, regardless of whether it was obvious to put them together (and for those who think this is a good thing, the result of this line is there's no such thing as an invention, because everybody builds on what's already there).

And now with Bilski, the examiners are all hot to reject any software claim as not patentable subject matter. Really, the landscape has changed. Anybody sitting around posting on Slashdot and grousing about the USPTO rubber stamping software patents really has no idea what they're talking about.

Re:Prior Art so Prior It Hurts

[ttyRazor]

More true than you know. A friend of mine started working for the the patent office not too long ago with the explicit instruction to reject everything that comes across his desk.

Re:Prior Art so Prior It Hurts

[Zordak]

My post is flamebait and yours is "funny"? [Shakes head in disbelief]. This isn't a flame or a joke. It's absolutely true. I've seen a former examiner say, on the record in a deposition, that he had to get permission from his boss's boss to allow an application on the first action. The assumption is that you will reject all applications at least once (and preferably at least twice so you can draw an RCE with those yummy fees).

Re:Prior Art so Prior It Hurts

[Zordak]

Haha, how clever you are. Seriously, I'm stunned at your masterful retort. But here's the problem. The patent office rejecting an application is GREAT for my business. Every time the patent office sends me a rejection, whether it's legitimate and well-reasoned or flat-out crap, the client has to respond. That means I keep getting paid. So it's not like KSR put patent attorneys out of business.

My entire point, which you seemed to have missed, is that this notion that the USPTO rubber stamps patent applications (and especially software patent applications) is absolutely, demonstrably false. Now, that said, yes, it would be great for my clients if the USPTO only issued legitimate rejections. And I wouldn't really mind seeing it either, because maybe then I could help more people get patents. But in the end, even the most craptastic, infuriating rejections aren't harming my personal interests.