Slashdot Mirror
More Oracle Patents Declared Invalid
sfcrazy writes "The validity of another Oracle patent has become doubtful in the dispute with Google about the infringement of Java patents and copyrights on Android devices. The US Patent Office and Trademark Office (USPTO) has provisionally declared all 24 claims of patent number 6,125,447 as being invalid. The USPTO based its decision on a patent that had been used in another case. This patent was granted in 1994 – three years before Sun filed its Java patent application. The US patent office also considered two publications released in 1996 as evidence that Sun's described method for protecting applications via 'protection domains' was anticipated by 'prior art.'"
this is getting good. screw Oracle!
Wasn't there alleged Copyright infringement in this case too? I thought someone had copied hotspot code straight into harmony/dalvik...
So in light of a lawsuit, the USPTO finds out that a granted patent should not have been granted. Or many. Everyone is focusing on the impact this may have on the case, but no question asked about the USPTO? (besides Slashdotters?)
Who the hell cares about corporate winners (modulo folks with stock, or other stakes)?
I care about good tech.
Eat it. It tastes good, if you chew a bit. No, there's a bit on your chin, see, there. No, well, let me help.
Jim, me need a helmet.
I'm sure this is just an episode.
Well, whatever, then. We'll need VB coders until we can't pay the cooling bills on those boxes, so... Can't fix everything.
I forget what 8 was for.
Before Android zealots rejoice, let them remember that Oracle can still appeal. Overall though, things do not look that promising for Oracle.
And here's why:
How were the patents 'certified' in the first place? Actions as such, which project incompetence or ineptness, waste court's time and provide opportunities for folks peddling FUD.
I am still looking for a single government agency that actually works. Does it exist?
I believe that the USPTO should be fined when patents are declared invalid. Who those fines should be paid to is another matter. I also believe that the examiner who reviewed the patent should, at the very least, get a mark on his or her record to indicate any patters within the organization with regard to issuing poor patents.
I do not believe in software patents. They are, fundamentally, wrong and indefensible. Every other country in the world has rejected them except for the United States. What I mentioned above, however, would remove the cavalier attitude of the USPTO with respect to issuing patents of poor quality. It would make them think twice about the novelty of an idea and would make them be VERY sure that the patent covers something worthy of patentability.
Software patents need to be struck down in general.
GC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Well, here's to hoping that most of sun's software patents are found to be wrong. If so, then Oracle will have to re-think when they buy up companies.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
when is microsoft going to sue redhat/debian/torvalds for patent violations in linux? i guess there's more money in fud so maybe never. they might start a fight if the linux community pokes n prods a bit more; a new distro that blatently violates as many questionable microsoft patents as possible? the open investion network (oin) might be able to offer some legal advice to defend the distro, and the whole community could get behind the case providing evidence of prior art. lets force microsoft to prove patentability!
so when a patent is marks as invalid, does that mean you get your fees refunded from the start? as there was no protection in the first place.
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
Considering the amount of money it takes to file and get a patent approved, I think they should be required to refund any fees when a patent is declared invalid. That would be enough of a fine, and hopefully enough of a deterrent against rubber stamping patent applications.
None of these Oracle patents are "promoting science or the useful arts". They're obviously just ways for Oracle to compete without doing anything for anyone, by buying a monopoly impeding the progress of others who are investing in doing something with invention.
A corporate repeat offender should be prohibited from getting any new "temporary" government monopolies like patents when proving they are a serial abuser. That might make their corporate boards think twice before trolling, and costing the people and the markets so much in lost time and expensive government mediation.
--
make install -not war
So they're forced to give back the money they weren't even allowed to keep and use for their comically understaffed department in the first place? I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.
It's a non-final rejection in an Ex Parte Reexamination.
It means nothing. SoP in reexam is to initially reject the claims and then ultimately withdraw the rejection.
You'd have a good idea, except the courts continue to reinterpret the laws used to determine whether inventions are patentable. Some patents that were valid become invalid, and sometimes the other way around. So, your idea of penalizing examiners is actually quite unfair. Also, it's not the examiner's fault that he only has X number of hours to search and read hundreds of pages of prior art, apply them to dozens of claims, and issue a written action. The fault lies at least partially with the point system devised by the patent office that is used to track examiner workload.
One answer to ease the workload burden is to hire more examiners. This has been tried for the past several years, with limited success given the steep learning curve and high turnover rate. Another answer is to raise the fees for filing and prosecuting patents to cut the number of new applications. However, PTO fees are a huge political football right now, and in any event the patent office can't raise them too much without backlash from the big players in the industry. Another answer is to change the "count" system used to track examiners. This could result in higher quality patents issuing, if longer is taken with each application. Doing so would of course increase the backlog of applications, another political mess.
The USPTO does not have a cavalier attitude, based on my personal experience having spoken with many examiners and supervisors over the course of several years of patent practice. They're doing the best with what they have, and what they have isn't good enough.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
The USPTO does not have a cavalier attitude, based on my personal experience having spoken with many examiners and supervisors over the course of several years of patent practice. They're doing the best with what they have, and what they have isn't good enough.
Thank you for that. I'm not even American and I realize that the USPTO has a massive job that would be ridiculously difficult even with infinite funding, simply because of the limited number of hours in a day, the volume of patents they receive, and the range of topics covered that each have a gigantic body of work contained within that could supply prior art or previously patented ideas, not to mention that if someone's not familiar with a field, the novelty/obviousness of something can change.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Let's just declare ALL existing patents registered through the USPTO null . Start fresh and any existing patents (before today) are considered "prior art". Think of the paperwork burden lifted, the leap in efficiency, and the immediate ROI for the world at large. Staggering.
The patents in question were filed nearly 15 years ago. It's possible that the examiner is still working at the USPTO, but more than likely he's moved on to another job or just left the organization.
The problem with most of these patents is that they were examined during the 1990s, when anyone with an ounce of technical skill could command a huge salary from a .com business. So the people who took government salaries at the USPTO at that time were, to a disproportionate extent, drooling morons. The USPTO has somewhat rectified the hiring situation, but the patents are still around.
Innovation in SW, even when instantiated in epochal releases like Java, is evolutionary. Every SW patent was at most a few percent extra improvements on some other techniques being developed elsewhere before it, usually directly adapted by the "inventor". Patents on those filings are BS. They don't "promote progress in science or the useful arts", their only Constitutional justification. They just interfere with the free expression of the programmers and incremental inventors.
--
make install -not war
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim of brain drain stealing talent from patent examiners?
Or are entirely unrelated factors the basis for the PTO's looseness and even silliness in freely granting patent protected monopolies to anyone buying them.
--
make install -not war
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"other than giving it a name that doesn't sound like Java it is the SAME SHIT that MSFT pulled in the 90s. I guess if old Bill would have called it a Capuchin it would have been cool?"
Yes, it would have been cool. The MS case was about trademark, not software patents.
"I doubt Sun would have ever filed any of these lawsuits."
Bullshit. MS paid big bucks to use "Java patents", such as Just In Time compilation in .net.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-5188012.html
http://news.cnet.com/Sun-gets-second-Microsoft-patent-payment/2100-1016_3-5671576.html
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6910205.PN.&OS=PN/6910205&RS=PN/6910205
Have you seen the crap that the patent lawyers generate out of very reasonable patent applications? I don't blame the examiners for not knowing what the hell that patent talks about. What I would like US and any other patent system to have is the requirement of clarity. If a professional in the field can't understand the legalese of the application - it should be deemed as gaming the system and rejected immediately. Patent's should not have ambiguity...
Copyright covers expression. Patent covers the method. But if you patent code, you have to patent the expression since in code, that is the method too.
When you patent something, you allow it to be seen. The diagrams can be copyrighted, but you CAN create a copy of them from the patent because otherwise you cannot use the patent.
Therefore if you patent the method, you must allow someone to use that method and that is the source code.
The problem bigger is that the patent lawyers know that all you need to do to "build a better moustrap" is to use a different expression of the moustrap. Therefore patenting the method is pointless: just change the patentable bits, keep the algorithms (since they are not patentable) and you now have a clean implementation. Hence they patent the problem, NOT the solution.
Have to sue congress for the money since they're the ones who took the dosh.
Kill SW patents, kill business method patents, kill algorithm patents.
That will reduce the load of the PTO massively all on its own.
Kill SW patents can be done by saying that software that is compiled CAN NEVER be considered an infringement of a patent. NEVER. Done, dusted, stick a fork in it it's done.
All that would do, would encourage the USPTO NEVER to invalidate or re-examine a patent!
Have you read Antony C Sutton's works ? ...
Open some links, spend couple of days - you will see how helpless little citizen(you, me) these days against multinational corporations and people behind them. These very people are there for world dominion. They print money, they give it to you, then they ask their interest - you can't give it back since everyone else is indebted by same people, so you take even more debt
No, governments print fiat, that's why I don't hold fiat, because governments print them. Large corporations have no competition from the market, because governments protect large monopolists from competition so that they get their kickbacks and campaign contributions back from monopolists, since in real competitive markets there is no government interference and there is no extra money and more importantly reasons to bribe politicians.
As to 'little citizens' - so why don't you do something about it? Start your own business, work your ass off and become somebody.
You can't handle the truth.
As to 'little citizens' - so why don't you do something about it? Start your own business, work your ass off and become somebody.
Gee, why didn't this ever occur to me before? I'll get right on that with my vast amount of wealth and resources. I'm going to be somebody!
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Too much whining, disguised as sarcasm, not enough work doing something.
You can't handle the truth.
That's backwards. If anything, you should be forced to pay triple if your attempted patent is not valid.
Yeah, upon further reflection, it makes sense to fine both the office who granted it, and the party who held the invalid patent. No sense in giving back the money of the party who wasted everyone's time in the first place.
In my experiance legalese reduces ambiguity at the expense of brevity.
It is written in such a way as to. Explain to a new born (with adult language skills) what is meant, answering every possible ambiguity that arises.
It must be waded through, but after the effort of reading it things become very specific.
this is not patent specific though, it is only in the context of loans and laws that I have read it (areas where people say it is too hard to understand).
Loans now have a "plain english" portion, which is great for people that don't have a grasp of the language, but it's hardly unambiguous.
Paying x% of interest computed how?, what day do I pay?, if I pay late, are my late fees paid before or after my next payment?
The answers to these questions and hundreds more make it harder to read, but more clear too.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
> a patent that had been used in another case. This patent
> was granted in 1994 â" three years before Sun filed its
> Java patent application.
Doesn't, wouldn't this arm that 1994 patent holder? Now that pre-Oracle patent guy can sue for monies. No?