Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO Rejects Many of Oracle's Android Claims

Posted by Soulskill on from the get-outta-here-with-that-nonsense dept.

sfcrazy writes "In yet another setback for Oracle, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected 17 of 21 claims associated with one of the patents in Java that Oracle asserted Google had violated with Android. Groklaw reports, 'In the reexamination of U.S. Patent 6192476 the USPTO has issued an office action in which it rejects 17 of the patent's 21 claims.'"

25 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Software Patent Rejections by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    17 down, tens to hundreds of thousands to go.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    1. Re:Software Patent Rejections by c++0xFF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correction: 46 down, 122 to go.

      There's seven patents in question, with a total of 168 claims being made. 17 of those claims from one patent were just rejected. Two other patents were also examined with claims rejected. Groklow projects that a total of about 48 claims will survive after all is said and done. After that, the question is how many of those 48 are independent claims.

      Surprising statistic: over 90% of claims are rejected when reexamined. Really?!?

    2. Re:Software Patent Rejections by c++0xFF · · Score: 2

      First, IANAL.

      The surviving claims are 8, 9, 17, and 18, which read as follows:

      8. The method of claim 7, wherein:

              the method further includes the step of setting a flag associated with said first routine to indicate that said first routine is privileged; and
              the step of determining that said next routine is said first routine includes determining that a flag associated with said next routine indicates said next routine is privileged.

      9. The method of claim 8, wherein the step of setting said flag associated with said first routine includes setting a flag in a frame in said calling hierarchy associated with said thread.

      17. The computer readable medium of claim 16, wherein:

              the computer readable medium further comprises one or more instructions for performing the step of setting a flag associated with said first routine to indicate that said first routine is privileged; and
              the step of determining that said next routine is said first routine includes determining that a flag associated with said next routine indicates said next routine is privileged.

      18. The computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the step of setting said flag associated with said first routine includes setting a flag in a frame in said calling hierarchy associated with said thread.

      My understanding is that all four of these claims are dependent claims, but I'll leave it for others more knowledgeable in patent law to comment.

  2. Let's see Florian Muller spin this ... by dc29A · · Score: 2

    Let's see Florian Muller spin this ...

  3. Liability by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It looks like costly mistakes were made by the USPTO. In a fair world, the original patent examiners should be held personally liable for all of Google's legal fees in this matter. That lesson would most likely make them take a little more care to properly evaluate the next bogus patent application that crosses their desks, before millions of dollars of unnecessary costs are created.

    1. Re:Liability by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If patent examiners would be "liable" then you can as well ask that judges should be ...

      What I mean is: if people working for any government agency would be liable (and not the agency or the government) then all those agencies would come to a grinding halt.

      Or even more likely no one would want to work for them ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Liability by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Personally liable"? What kind of asshole are you? If it's truly an individual examiner's fault, maybe hold them personally accountable, such as a bad mark on their annual performance evaluation. But extracting financial restitution for multi-million dollar damages between two major corporations, from some mid-level technician doing what they thought was their job, is not reasonable. Hyperbole does not help the discourse.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    3. Re:Liability by mr1911 · · Score: 2

      In a fair world, the original patent examiners should be held personally liable for all of Google's legal fees in this matter.

      Yeah, that will fix the patent process for sure. Implement that rule and you will have exactly zero patents issued moving forward.

      There is no way a patent examiner will have perfect knowledge, and having an expectation that they will is not reasonable. There is nothing "fair" about your concept.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    4. Re:Liability by robot256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The correct answer is that the organization should absorb the costs and have internal disciplinary rules to penalize or terminate the employees in question. This is what any organization would do if they took the problem seriously.

    5. Re:Liability by fnj · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that will fix the patent process for sure. Implement that rule and you will have exactly zero patents issued moving forward.

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

    6. Re:Liability by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doctors get paid a lot more money. Doctors are virtually forced to buy insurance to cover those liabilities, too.

      If we made the patent examiners individually liable, they would have to also buy insurance, which would mean we'd have to pay them more to cover it. In the end, it doesn't help -us-. It just costs us money.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    7. Re:Liability by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      Doesn't this insurance and the constant barrage of lawsuits contribute to the astronomical cost of health-care in the US?

    8. Re:Liability by LibRT · · Score: 2

      Actually, they often do, when the insurance rates for a particular specialty become prohibitively high. And fewer people go into that particular specialty too. As an example, there was a significant shortage of ob/gyns until various states passed tort reform (which limits damages and in the process reduces insurance premiums): https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Obstetrics_and_gynaecology#Recent_shortage_in_US

    9. Re:Liability by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why not? Doctors are held personally liable for their mistakes.

      Hahahahah seriously, you believe that?

      Preface: my wife is a doctor.

      My wife never even SEEs her malpractice insurance bill, the group she works for pays it. Second, assuming they kill a man, intentionally, and its proven in court, the absolute WORST thing that happens to them ... they can't practice medicine again ... IN THAT STATE, they just go somewhere else. Insurance pays the bill. They get boarded in the new state, and go one continuing to be a shitty doctor. Maybe they can't practice in California, because they bother to look at things like that, but thats just California, no body else does (well, no body else where you'd actually want to live, North Dakota and those states might, never bothered looking). The feds really don't give a flying fuck, the state boards are the ones that pull licenses.

      Doctors are no more liable than I am if you shoot your wife. They are supposed to be, but theory and reality are entirely different in most cases, especially this one.

      Doctors are even less liable than drivers. Drivers of cars are required to have insurance as well, but you're a lot more likely to go to jail for doing something stupid in a car than any doctor.

      I've seen doctors get their license revoked for being complete scumbags in our state, literally move their office 2 blocks down the street, to the other side of the state line, and open up for business a week later. We're talking about a doctor who prescribed drugs at levels that were unacceptable to any other doctor, gave out pain pills like there was no tomorrow (I know people who have signed prescription pads from the guy so they could refill themselves.), put people on long term IV antibiotics and destroy their bodies in various ways, and flat out lie about all of it, with video and audio taped evidence ...

      The ONLY, and I do mean ONLY reason he lost his license? The BlueCross and BlueShield were tired of paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient every month. Not because of all the bad shit he was doing, not because he was hurting people, but because the insurance company of patients didn't want to pay anymore.

      The idea that doctors are liable is about as funny as the idea that politicians are liable for what they do.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    10. Re:Liability by Dunega · · Score: 2

      Yes, but we'll ignore that while we're doing some irrational patent bashing.

    11. Re:Liability by mr1911 · · Score: 2

      Until we see you here next week whining about how your valid patent was rejected and now you can't commercialize your idea.

      When you make the game completely fair, you reduce it to the least common denominator (usually much lower than what you thought it would be), such that no one wants to play anymore. Your proposed cure is worse than the disease.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    12. Re:Liability by iceaxe · · Score: 2

      Why? It is just taxpayers money. There is always more where that came from.

      No, I don't really beleive that, but many government workers seem to operate as if they do.

      On the contrary, most 'government workers' are struggling to meet the incredible demands of a public which wants all sorts of services but refuses to pay for it. The average government agency is far under-budgeted and far under-staffed for the work required of it.

      There are, of course, individuals who don't do a good job, are not well qualified, or are simply burned out and cynical. It's difficult to replace people like that, though, since hardly anyone wants to be overworked and underpaid, and simply firing them would mean even fewer people to do the work. Most of the workers you'll find, though, are busting their humps to get the job done under piss poor circumstances and knowing full well that their work is unappreciated.

      This myth of the lazy, overpaid fat cat bureaucrat is a bunch of bunk. You might find a handful if you look long and hard enough, but the vast majority that you had to sort through to find them would disprove your thesis.

      Taking a few anecdotes of waste and corruption and generalizing them to the legions of honest, hard working government employees is a vast disservice, and intellectually dishonest. It's propaganda cooked up by politicians to get themselves elected, whereupon they add to the real problems rather than solving anything.

      --
      WALSTIB!
    13. Re:Liability by HermMunster · · Score: 2

      What he should mean is that all patents should be rejected outright upfront and only approved when the patent applicant can prove that the requested patent is really novel and there's no prior art. It should be up to the applicant to prove his patent not just submit the patent. He has to prove his process, like school kids are required to prove their work in long hand. Cheating the system and lying or deceiving should result in them being fined and their patent given to the public domain and all derivative patents also put into the public domain.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    14. Re:Liability by TheLink · · Score: 2

      There's no need to rely on a monopoly government. The question "who has standing" depends on the rules of the specific arbitration organization you're dealing with.

      Huh? So if I'm not a member of any of the organizations I can infringe on any of the patents?

      Saying there's no need to rely on a monopoly government does not make sense at all. Whether I'm a member or not, who is going to make me stop infringing?
      a) The Government?
      b) The armed employees/contractors of the organizations?
      c) Nobody can force me to stop?
      d) My customers who are not getting an inferior product?

      Governments are entities that maintain a monopoly on violence in a particular zone. Whoever gets to force everyone in an area to comply to a law/rule is the defacto Government/Ruler of that area. There's a reason why some cannons have "Ultima Ratio Regum" inscribed on them - "The Ultimate Argument of Kings".

      So anyone who thinks they can get rid of government is living in "la la land".

      And anyone who thinks that quantity of Government matters more than quality is rather stupid. Saying smaller government = better government, is as stupid as saying fewer voters = better government.

      Letting everyone vote doesn't necessarily produce a better government, but it means everyone on _average_ gets the government they deserve ;).

      --
  4. Re:3... 2.... 1... by Lifyre · · Score: 3, Funny

    That makes correcting the flaws in humanity they represent relatively easy. Take away their food.

    --
    I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
  5. Personal liability already applies by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    If a government employee directs a contractor to do work outside of the scope of their contract, the government still has to pay for it. The government then, in turn, bills the employee for the total cost of the work so ordered. There is no limit that I know of to how far the government will bill their employee for the damage; if they cost the government 2500 man hours at the rate of $200/hour, the employee has to reimburse the government to the tune of $500k.

    Every year, a handful of government employees find out the hard way that the government still has some accountability here. Yet the system works just fine.

  6. Require originality bonds instead by gregor-e · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Liability would never work. The USPTO should require all applicants to post a bond of, say, $10,000 per claim that guarantees the originality of each claim. Then there would be a period of testing time during which a team of challengers who are knowledgeable in the field would be given the opportunity to come up with an invention to satisfy the claims made. If any of the ideas they come up with is substantially similar to the invention in the application, then the challengers get the bounty for whatever claims they invalidated. If the claim challengers don't come up with a substantially similar invention, then the spark of originality is proved, the applicant is refunded their bond(s) and the patent is granted.

  7. 17/21 by Que914 · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who's thinking that someone needs to be asking some senior management at the USPTO about that 80% failure rate?

  8. Re:What damages has Oracle suffered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sun/Oracle gives java away for free. Even if Google has infringed a patent, how has that resulted in any loss of money to Oracle?

    Java for mobile devices has always required a paid license. (not free, never was and still isn't)

  9. Re:What damages has Oracle suffered? by gtall · · Score: 2

    Java for mobile devices. Please try to keep up.