Slashdot Mirror
US PTO Gives Microsoft Credit For Lotus's Homework
theodp writes "On Tuesday, the USPTO granted Microsoft a patent for 'Email Emotiflags' despite ample evidence of a circa-1996 Lotus Notes precedent called Mood Stamps — sender-chosen emoticons that appear next to inbox messages. Among those seemingly aware of the existence of Mood Stamps is Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie, who appears to have fielded questions about the feature while at Lotus. While simply Googling for 'Email Emotiflags' would have turned up evidence of this prior art (including a Slashdot discussion), the USPTO came up empty after instead going with the more-upscale Google Scholar and patent databases for its search effort. Think we can count on Ozzie to do the right thing and give the USPTO a heads-up?"
Legally speaking, there is a duty to disclose any known prior art when filing a patent. In theory, we shouldn't have to depend on him doing the right thing, merely the legal one(typically a lower standard).
I've been involved in a few patent litigations. They almost always settle out of court or the plaintiff loses outright in court. The problem is that even when the defense 'wins' the case, they still spend millions in that defense. Why not force the plaintiff to compensate the defense for causing them to waste so much money?
Among those seemingly aware of the existence of Mood Stamps is Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie ...
Isn't it possible that (since he worked on the Lotus Notes project) Ray Ozzie is the originator of this idea and Lotus Notes did not have the foresight to patent this technology when he worked for them? Isn't it possible that he thought this idea patentable and in a better late than never fashion he patented it?
... I just find this summary to be very short sighted and subjective:
I don't think this is a novel idea and I think it should not be patentable
Think we can count on Ozzie to do the right thing and give the USPTO a heads-up?
What is "the right thing?" He works for a company with the priority to rake in cash. It's "right" in his boss' eyes, I'm sure.
My work here is dung.
The USPTO has already stated that they won't be doing real prior art checks themselves. And why would they? They're self-funded, and each patent they grant is more money for them.
The way I see it, the USPTO got their money, Microsoft got an extra patent to impress their shareholders, and anybody else who wants to use similar technology would have a rock-solid legal defense. It's not the way it should work, but it works.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Yes, it's a self-serving, unethical system. And that's the problem.
In my world, if you knowingly filed a patent with prior art, you would be fined 10% of your gross worth, you would be forbidden for filing any patent for a period of not less than 10 years, and any officer on your company would be forbidden to file any patents for 10 years, and any other company that they sat on would be forbidden for filing patents for 10 years, and any attempt to use another company (shell or partner) would be a criminal offense that would see your company stripped of all assets, you to spend no less than 10 years in federal prison and forbidden to ever have any direct or indirect dealings with the patent system ever again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's known as "loser pays" and will have such a chilling effect on frivolous litigation that the legal lobbies will not let it happen without a huge fight.
Merely suggesting it is political suicide.
What sanctions can be brought against Ozzie if it can be shown that he withheld knowledge of prior art? Can he personally see jail time for this?
Since this would be a Federal crime, how would Slashdot request an FBI investigation of Ozzie's allegedly criminal behavior? Should we put it to a vote or will someone just step forward and do whatever is necessary to inform the FBI?
Will