Microsoft Patents 1826 Choropleth Map Technique

theodp writes "A newly-granted Microsoft patent for Variable Formatting of Cells covers the use of 'variable formatting for cells in computer spreadsheets, tables, and other documents', such as using the spectrum from a first color to a second color to represent the values in or associated with each cell. Which is really not a heck of a lot different from how Baron Pierre Charles Dupin created what's believed to be the first choropleth map way back in 1826, when he used shadings from black to white to illustrate the distribution and intensity of illiteracy in France. By the way, beginning in March, the U.S. will switch from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system of granting patents. Hey, what could go wrong?"

Comments

I reject your patent, M$.

[Yuff]

How can We The People put an end to this nonsense? They are not patenting, so much as stealing. How can we petition the US PTO to have a patent re-examined and to have the a$$wipe who accepted the patent application be fired for incompetence?

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[geekoid]

What nonsense?
did Baron Pierre Charles Dupin describe how to implemented his idea on a computer? the technical details? No?
The patent is on how to do it with a computer; which is a different thing.

There are many things wrong with the patent system, this is not one of them.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[WillAffleckUW]

How? I don't know, how many US Senators do you own?

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[X0563511]

The patent is on how to do it with a computer; which is a different thing.

No, it isn't.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

If that patent actually contained source code, maybe you'd have a point. It likely doesn't though.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[localman]

Please tell me this is an example of Poe's law. Please.

I "invented" this years before they did. There are no technical details that are not obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[fustakrakich]

How can We The People put an end to this nonsense?

Haven't you heard? It's legal to vote the incumbents out.. The 98% of voters and the folks complaining here who reelect these people ought to try it some time. The results might surprise them, pleasantly or otherwise, but until they make a feeble effort at it, they can't possibly know.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[tolkienfan]

The patent system grants monopolies on machines in order to encourage people to put in the effort to invent. They are supposed to have time to earn back the money spent inventing.
This patent covers something which isn't new, and probably cost more to patent than to "invent" since it already existed.
It also doesn't achieve any if the original goals of the patent system.

And just because someone takes an existing method and patents executing it on a computer that doesn't make it new or novel or worthy of protection.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you heard? It's legal to vote the incumbents out..

Uh, hate to tell you, but you can't 'vote the bastards out', you can only 'vote another bastard in'.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Entropius]

Grandparent is being snarky, satirizing all of the patents for "X on a computer!" or "X on the internet!", where X is a well-known thing.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[DM9290]

The patent is on how to do it with a computer; which is a different thing.

yeah cuz its so hard to do things with a computer.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[wierd_w]

... how is this semantically different from the "X with a digital clock!" And "X with a built in radio!" That happened in the 70s and 80s?

Didn't it get shown that simply adding (random X) to (Known product Y) does not constitute a new invention?

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[qweqazqsc]

There are multiple processes available to kill this patent (reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review). However, they are all fairly expensive.

We are talking the government here. Mistake happen. If we are gutting the government for incompetence, the PTO is really not my top concern.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, this is not fixed by petitioning the PTO, the problem in a nutshell is: laws are for sale to the highest bidding lobbyist and if you don't like they can always come 2am in the morning, kick in your door, shoot your dog, point a gun into your pregnant wife's face and disappear you into indefinite detention (NDAA). If I had advise how to get started on fixing this, I would say this:

1. Get rid of your television.

2. Stop eating junk food. Junk food is pretty much boiled and pasteurized GMO food scraps (you thought they were using prime cuts in those burgers, right?) devoid of vitamins and other nutrients and laced with a cocktail of toxic chemicals. Yes there is silicone in McDonald's Chicken McNuggets.

3. Stop taking their (prescription) drugs.

4. Start educating yourself. Get in the habit of researching for yourself instead of watching History Channel or using Wikipedia.

5. Spend time away from everybody and everything else .. go for long walks and sort out your thoughts.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[cbiltcliffe]

Hey, give them a break!
  They're running it on Windows, after all.....

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the old calculus: X+(known product Y) = (known product XY) and you only pay for the X component. With the new
"math" they can do this: (known product Y)+(new patent) = 0 and so: (new patent) = - (known product Y).

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[pla]

Wow, you only left out "buy a gun", and we'd have a dead ringer for the Unibomber! ;)

(That said, I agree with you on all but #3, which you'd understand why if you'd actually followed #4)

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[GameboyRMH]

Expensive?

http://patents.stackexchange.com/

Knock yourself out.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one bastard. You can freely choose whether to get squeezed by the left fist (blue glove) or the right fist (red glove). This gives you the comforting illusion that you have a real choice.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's legal to vote the incumbents out

The "incumbents" are the entire system. By the time you vote, it's like wagering on a polo match. You may have a "winning" ticket in your pocket, but it's a $2 bet. You still can't afford to sponsor a team, or even one lousy pony. See over there, under that canopy? You know, the one where the team sponsors sit and sip champagne? THOSE are the incumbents, and you can't vote them out.

You can, however, march onto the field and feed beef-a-rino to their horses. And yes, that's a Seinfeld reference; because revolutions don't have to be violent. We can have a sense of humor about this. We don't have to tear down the system like the crypto-communists you meet at Occupy rallies have suggested. Their thesis that our system can't be reformed is demonstrably false, as we've done it TWICE and by coincidence under guys named Roosevelt.

Now get cracking on REAL reform, which means a credible 3rd party that somehow manages to marry the sane grievances expressed by the Tea Party and Occupy movements. In other words, we need a neo-progressive movement. Note--Progressive doesn't necessarily mean "leftist", it means just what it says, and be similar to the original movement: Progress in a new direction based on flaws exposed through new media.

It just so happens that the original Progressive movement could be easily categorized as leftist because the right was in firm control when it took place. Today, we see loci of control imposed by both the left and the right. Entrenched public employee unionism and the military-industrial complex would BOTH be routed out under a new progressive movement. It can be done without violent revolution. It can be done "American style" without the bloodshed we've seen in Europe.

Get crackin'.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandparent is being snarky, satirizing all of the patents for "X on a computer!" or "X on the internet!", where X is a well-known thing.

He, geekoid, is such a regular troll and full of so much bitterness and sarcasm, I haven't the slightest clue what his intent is. Sarcasm is almost useless as a form of communication. If you have a point, have the balls to clearly make it.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooooooooooosh!

I think that's the old way to reply. Sorry, maybe there's a new way?

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[sonamchauhan]

Quick: someone tell the IPhone 'Flashlight app' guy to patent his amazing invention ... its done with a computer.

Reminds me of a cartoon where a hobo looks in amazement at a neighbouring hobo with a sign saying 'beggar.com' and a queue of banker-types lined up to give him money.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really that's interesting because well I have a habit of doing #4, so let's pick a rather popular class of
prescription drugs. Statins. The way they work is they prevent the production of cholesterol by
interfering with an enzyme needed to produce cholesterol. What is inhibited is also known as the
Mevalonate pathway. Cholesterol is merely one of the products of the MVP and cholesterol is a
steroid. In fact, all steroids are synthesized from cholesterol so by shutting off cholesterol synthesis you
are also shutting off steroid hormone synthesis. Testosterones and estrogens are steroid hormones
and I'm sure you heard of these but Aldosterone for example regulates the sodium and potassium
in your kidneys and Cortisol is required among other things for Gluconeogenesis, that is converting
dietary proteins into sugars. But it gets better, interfering with the Mevalonate Pathyway you are also
shutting down Coenzyme Q10 synthesis (which is why outside the US they routinely give Q10 supplements
to statin "users"). Q10 is required for ATP synthesis in your mitochondria, your cells all run on ATP
for fuel do I have to say more? But keep taking it like the doctor "ordered" it, if it makes your pecker
go limp well there's viagra for that and we can give you testosterone shots (that in turn also downregulate
androgen production but oh well).

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly the answer is probably guns. Power only knows money and violence. If you don't have power you only have one other option.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not willing to elect people with agendas like repealing Roe v. Wade, eliminating the EPA and public education just to get some progress on the patent front.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

People would notice if it "shutdown" their ATP production... the actual effects are much more subtle. Like many drugs, they have side effects. It is not some big conspiracy, but just part of life. That doesn't make the drugs necessarily bad, but it is something you need to factor into you decisions. Sometimes the side effects are worse than the benefits, sometimes the benefits are much, much better than the side effects. If you just avoid all drugs, you are being as stupid and blind (if not more) as accepting all drugs without reading up on things yourself. Of the list of 5 recommendatinos above, if people did #4, #1-3 wouldn't be necessary or even good advice, as people would be able to sort out things and decide for themselves. Without #4, you would just be another egoist thinking they are the only one that can offer the one true path.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[chrismcb]

No, it isn't.

This is why we can't have nice things.

You HAVE nice things.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Inf0phreak]

No. The patent system grants monopolies in order to encourage people to share the knowledge that goes into the things they invent. The fact that there is money to be had from licensing patents is an incentive against people locking up their inventions as trade secrets that die with their inventors.

Of course with software patents that sort of doesn't work because you can keep the actual implementation of your idea under wraps, so society doesn't really benefit much from granting a monopoly in this case.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now instead of attacking a drug you cherry picked, try attacking something like insulin.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[tolkienfan]

Sharing was also a goal, true.
But without an invention there isn't anything to share.
It's not terribly relevant considering it wasn't secret to begin with.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[tolkienfan]

Actually, the patent is supposed to give enough detail that someone else can implement it.
Of course, there is so much legalese and obfuscation that the inventor may not even understand it.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Phil06]

Back in the 80s I wrote a tip that was published in PC Magazine showing how to trick the new Excel spreadsheet program into having conditional color formatting, they later added this as a feature. Where are my royalties!

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[oursland]

That's a great argument against ever trying to improve the status quo.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

We can start by stopping the juvenile use of dollar signs in place of the letter "s". Seriously, I agree with you, but it makes you look like a douchebag.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Mathinker]

I think he meant better things, but it didn't have the same linguistic punch.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there are only so many maps and statistics you can represent with a bluescreen..

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[cyclomedia]

Yeah and I'd go further than that what with the fact that a LOT of things are software and a lot of other things are "a chip"... Take for example the iPhone, we had touch screen PDAs for at least a decade before that, yet apple just* stuff in a GSM chip and suddenly it's a new invention?!

Someone takes a phone and stuffs in a CCD chip ... Someone takes a camera and stuffs in a wifi chip.... Someone takes a TV and adds an RJ45 socket and an IP stack...

This is NOT invention. This is digital Lego

* yes yes, antenna, sim card, etc, but you get the idea = Modules

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[hankwang]

There are multiple processes available to kill this patent (reexamination, post-grant review, inter partes review). However, they are all fairly expensive.

Normally, a patent application is published 18 months after filing, well before the patent is granted. Why do I never read here about attacking silly patents when they are still an application?

About this patent: when I saw the slashdot summary, I hoped that it was a bit exaggerated and that the patent claims actually were much more narrow. But no, the essential part of claim 1 is actually:

A computer-implemented method for formatting a range of cells according to a spectrum of cell formats, .... for each respective value between the minimum value and the maximum value, causing a processor to apply, to the cells of each respective value, a respective cell format ....

In plain English: automatic color-mapping cells based on a range of numeric values corresponding to a range of colors. To me, this sounds rather obvious: I did once search for such a feature in Excel (or was it LibreOffice?) and was irritated that I had to make a verbose list of conditional formatting (if value > 0 and < 1, then green; if value >=1and <2, then cyan, etc.).

But apart from the question of obviousness, which is a bit subjective, I wonder whether the claims cannot be attacked directly for unambiguous prior art. The word 'cell' does not seem to be defined strictly as applying to spreadsheet cells, since the patent summary talks about "cells in spreadsheets, tables, and other computer documents", where the term "document" is not defined. If e.g. MatLab files or finite-element model files can be considered as a special kind of documents, that would immediately invalidate claim 1.

Unfortunately, if you invalidate claim 1, the following claims may still be valid. They treat cases where the numerical value of a cell is not color-coded, but e.g. as little bar or pie charts.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can vote them out, it's called impeachment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment) However, as Clinton proved apparently there is a way around it.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should file a patent for an "algorithmic model of arriving at patentable solutions" - you'd make billions out of settlements...

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apply for a job at the patent office - of course.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

How can we petition the US PTO to have a patent re-examined

The simple answer is to sue to have it invalidated. If someone wants to do so I have some prior art from not that long ago that should invalidate their patent. It even has colored cells, although not in a spreadsheet fashion, but does use the value for a cell and start and end color transitions. As an added bonus it is date and time stamped by a reputable source. I have a really crappy one that stated going towards this from even earlier but yet still provides useful information.

Re:I reject your patent, M$.

[Theaetetus]

Grandparent is being snarky, satirizing all of the patents for "X on a computer!" or "X on the internet!", where X is a well-known thing.

The ones that don't exist?

Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

It is time to go back to a 13 year patent and 17 year copyright cycle, with a renewal of patent available only to a Natural Person (e.g. not a fictional Corporation) holding a patent for one period, and with copyright renewable only by the Natural Person who authored the work, in 17 year periods, assignable to one spouse, children or heirs (other than Fictional Persons such as Corporations), until said person is deceased for three years.

If it worked for our founding fathers, who didn't have the Internet, and thus had longer lag times, it should work for America.

Exisiting patent and copyright grants should be allowed to conclude their grant cycle, provided it is less than or equal to said period, with the holder reverting to the Natural Person at the expiry of such lease. But not created and renewed.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[b4dc0d3r]

"If it worked for our founding fathers..." is a terrible argument. Even when you're trying to say that things get old faster so they same time period is effectively longer.

I take the opinion that most of the copyright-based industries are actually false economies. They have built up a business model based on the scarcity of a tangible object (vinyl or paper), and expect to continue that via artificial scarcity. It doesn't make any sense.

The duration argument has already been made. Optimum length for a copyright for both the owner and society as a whole is 14-17 years, depending on who you ask. It has nothing to do with the circumstances long ago. We adjust as times change.

http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years/

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe just abolish the system altogether and replace it with nothing.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Agreed, with the exception of the "Natural Person" language. "Person" should cover it quite nicely. And we can reinforce the point by sending anyone--particularly, but not exclusively, any judge or politician--who claims that corporations are people to labor camps in some American version of Siberia, say North Dakota, where they will be clothed in rags, housed in huts, fed on gruel, and worked to the edge of death. When their sentences are up, we can ask them if they understand the difference between corporations and people yet.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

Both arguments work. But the insanity of continuing with our out of control system is just that - insanity.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[westlake]

It is time to go back to a 13 year patent and 17 year copyright cycle, with a renewal of patent available only to a Natural Person (e.g. not a fictional Corporation) holding a patent for one period, and with copyright renewable only by the Natural Person who authored the work.

Say goodbye to the corporate research lab pioneered by Edison, Steinmetz, Westinghouse. How much of a debt does the geek owe to AT&T and Bell Labs, Xerox and PARC?

The geek doesn't like to see himself as a small part of some larger corporate entity.

But in the real world that is how the big jobs get done.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[retchdog]

i don't disagree, but isn't 13 years of patent implicitly much longer now than it was then? i mean, it would take years for an invention to be produced in any quantity and finally make it across a few states. since an invention can nowadays be fabbed up within a week and sold in millions within a month, i'd say that the patent term, adjusted for production and innovation rate, should be on the order of months.

however there is perhaps greater risk today (there isn't, but then again we've also become much more risk-averse), so maybe we should be generous and leave the patent term at a year (with extension for a second year), at least for software and electronics.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

I am sorry, but ACs are clearly not Natural Persons and thus have no say in either Copyright or Patent.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

After long thought, I am not going to agree to allowing AIs, ACs, Cyborgs (we have a cool seminar on advanced robotics and remote imaging this Thursday at 3:30 pm), or Robots to be included.

Or Corporations.

But I like your idea of a Gulag for Corporate Believers.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

True. Good argument. Time to market, time for distribution, even the money markets work faster in venture financing than they used to.

However, I think sticking with a base 13 and base 17 cycle grants us a reasonable time period. When looking at pharmaceuticals, and medical devices, the human trials period can be many years in duration.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

In the real world much of the funding is by foundations, which have no choice but to spend the money on research, based on their charters.

Nice try, though.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[DMUTPeregrine]

Corporations are Soylent Green.
Made of people is not the same as people.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Dishevel]

Well while I see your point on the whole "Corp as a Person" thing it started out so that a company could own property so that it could continue on and it made growth and continuance easier.
Just removing person hood from corporations would be bad. You have to change the law so that corporations can own property.
Then I would want every company to have a "person responsible" for the company. this is a person who...
A) Makes the largest percentage of the companies profit or its largest salary.
or
B) The person who has control over the company as a whole.

This person would be the one to go to prison or be put to death for the crimes of "The Company".

Then you can yank person hood from companies.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Just removing person hood from corporations would be bad. You have to change the law so that corporations can own property.

That's what the law always said, at least until the idea of corporate personhood was invented. Corporations are legal entities to which we grant certain privileges, some of which happen to correspond to the rights of people: owning property, signing contracts, etc. Corporate personhood is a completely unnecessary addition.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[retchdog]

yeah, patent term should scale with how regulated the industry is. pharma is an extreme outlier and should be handled separately.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, with the exception of the "Natural Person" language. "Person" should cover it quite nicely. And we can reinforce the point by sending anyone--particularly, but not exclusively, any judge or politician--who claims that corporations are people to labor camps ...

I hate to have to be the one to inform you of this, but corporations were invented by the Romans for the purpose of being considered a person under the law. "Corporations are people" has been the quick legal definition of what a corporation is for over two thousand years. This is why the founding fathers used language like "Natural Persons" to distinguish living people from fictional legal entities.

The Supreme Court's error is not in stating the obvious but in finding that Congress, which allows corporations to exist, has no power to regulate their activities.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Say goodbye to the corporate research lab pioneered by Edison, Steinmetz, Westinghouse.

We already have.

How much of a debt does the geek owe to AT&T and Bell Labs, Xerox and PARC?

See above. Time to stop dreaming about the glory days, because they're gone and not coming back.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[ultranova]

And we can reinforce the point by sending anyone--particularly, but not exclusively, any judge or politician--who claims that corporations are people to labor camps in some American version of Siberia, say North Dakota, where they will be clothed in rags, housed in huts, fed on gruel, and worked to the edge of death. When their sentences are up, we can ask them if they understand the difference between corporations and people yet.

So basically, you're saying that anyone who thinks that corporations are (legal) persons should be sent to concentration camps?

Do you get paid by corporations? Because you certainly sound like a discredit shill. You, and all like you - whether you're paid or just plain evil - are part of the problem. The problem being that humans are willing to do bad things to other humans in the name of profits, ideology, religion, or whatever. And when they do, you? You're right there, waving cheerfully as the newest bunch of victims is shipped off. Fuck you.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

Interesting point. Yet, when we allow exemptions and exceptions, we find that they are always used as justification to extend more exemptions and exceptions to other non-worthy classes.

Better to keep to a Golden Mean, or median, and let the chaff fall by the wayside.

Other countries get along with far shorter periods for their pharma and medical patents.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

And, since you post this as an AC, we can see that you too are Not A Person, and thus unworthy of being considered.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I hate to have to be the one to inform you of this, but corporations were invented by the Romans for the purpose of being considered a person under the law. "Corporations are people" has been the quick legal definition of what a corporation is for over two thousand years.

I hate to have to be the one to inform you of this, but asserting a thing doesn't make it so. Evidence?

This is why the founding fathers used language like "Natural Persons" to distinguish living people from fictional legal entities.

When and where did they do that, exactly? The phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. OTOH, the latter document refers to "person," "persons," and "people" repeatedly, with no indication whatsoever that these words are supposed to refer to anything other than actual living, breathing human beings.

Protip: don't be this guy.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I was mostly joking. No, I don't seriously want to throw them in gulags, if for no other reason than that countries which do such things tend to be pretty crappy places to live. I do, however, quite seriously think that acceptance of the doctrine of corporate personhood ought to be a deal-breaker for anyone seeking judgeship or elected office.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I can assure you that I'm au natural right now as I type this.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[retchdog]

bullshit. different fields have different timescales. yes, there are dangers involved, but what we have now is totally broken. two of your patent generations ago i was using a fucking commodore 64.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[retchdog]

to clarify, shortening the term is just one solution.

the other solution is to be much more vigilant in terms of prior art and non-obviousness. this will never happen, so adjusting the terms is all we have left.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[MrL0G1C]

Optimum length for a copyright for both the owner and society as a whole is 14-17 years

There is a very terrible downside to your argument, that is, 1980's music would become free, perhaps an exception clause for that decade should be built in.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

If it worked for our founding fathers, who didn't have the Internet, and thus had longer lag times, it should work for America.

Yep; And flintlock muskets worked pretty well for our founding fathers, who didn't have the Internet, so they should be all America today needs too, right?

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

If it worked for our founding fathers, who didn't have the Internet, and thus had longer lag times, it should work for America.

Yep; And flintlock muskets worked pretty well for our founding fathers, who didn't have the Internet, so they should be all America today needs too, right?

Well, there are marauding bands of wild turkeys endangering the Mid-West and South, but them's make good eating.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[mcgrew]

After long thought, I am not going to agree to allowing AIs, ACs, Cyborgs

What do you have against cyborgs, you insensitive clod? You would restrict my rights just because I'm not 100% human? You must not realize that there's a good chance you have a grandparent who is a cyborg. I'm a cyborg because of a device implanted in my left eye that gives me better vision than yours. Other cyborgs have pacemakers, artificial joints, and cochlear implants.

You will be assimilated. Especially if you're a runner (dumbest possible form of excersize) -- you'll need new knees and hips before you reach my age.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[WillAffleckUW]

My knees are perfectly fine.

Mild to moderate exercise is the key, however.

None of my grandparents were cyborgs, they just had good DNA.

Re:Time to return to 13 yr patent 17 yr copyright

[mcgrew]

There is a very terrible downside to your argument, that is, 1980's music would become free, perhaps an exception clause for that decade should be built in.

Although I appreciate teh humor, I must pedantically point out that every decade has had shitty music. 70s? Disco, for example... but then again, that was the decade of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. The 80s music only seemed worse than disco because you were watching empty-v, who played the worst music on the planet.

If I were going to pick the decade of the shittiest music, I'd pick 2000-2010. I've heard very little new music this century that doesn't suck donkey balls.

First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, beginning in March, the U.S. will switch from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system of granting patents. Hey, what could go wrong?"

The entire rest of the world works just fine using first-to-file for patents. The US is an anomaly with first-to-invent.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[ThatsMyNick]

Exactly. Prior art is still considered when awarding a patent. If the map really is prior art, the patent can be invalidated (through courts or through the patent office). What first-to-file solves is having two inventors almost simultaneously filling for a patent. They may have never heard of each others work, and it becomes difficult to find who really invented it first. The only sane thing is to award it to the first person to file.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[reebmmm]

Agreed. First-to-file is a bit of a misnomer. It's more like a first-inventor-to-file regime. If anything, the first-inventor-regime is actually more protective because it has an absolute novelty requirement. If someone else publishes before you file, you get nothing. You get no grace period over someone else publishing, using or marketing an invention -- you do get a grace period with respect to your own publication.

There is not going to be a rush to the patent office to file a patent on sex.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Narrowband]

Thanks, this is actually pretty informative. I had actually been thinking over the implications of a first to file system in the sense of truly first to file, without prior art being considered... and taking out a patent on "a process of generating heat by igniting combustible materials" (read: inventing fire) was starting to sound appealling.

I was in the process of thinking up arguments for defending the invention on grounds that wasn't obvious (whole generations of early man probably lived without it) and that nobody had yet filed a claim on it, when I read your post.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Get rid of them all. Time for new system: First to sue!

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior art is hardly ever considered. Just look at all the patents have been successful. They pretty much all have tons of prior art. The patent office's job is to make things easy for the big corporations that own the government.

But not looking at prior art was a problem that existed long before "first to file". Microsoft, IBM, Apple, etc., wanted "first to file" as it gives them a huge advantage over small companies who can't afford an expensive patent team. It takes small companies longer to file patents. If a big company invents second and files first, then they win. It works even better when you have access to customer data as Microsoft, IBM, Apple, and others do. The various disadvantages small players face was well documented when "first to file" was first introduced.

In short, the net effect of "first to file" is to fuck over everyone except for big, rich corporations. This is really just common sense. Microsoft, IBM, Apple, etc. payed to get "first to file" adopted because it is good for them and their ilk and bad for competition.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Drishmung]

You appear to inhabit a different dimension to mine, for in mine, first to invent seems to most benefit big, rich corporations. Are you arguing that the current system is NOT broken? Are you arguing that 'first to file' as used everywhere else in the world is better than 'first to invent'? The evidence for this is?

The patent system is broken. Making 'first to file' is not going to fix the whole thing. It probably won't make any significant difference (other changes are needed as well), but it won't make it any worse or any more corrupt.

Start by throwing out business process patents, then software patents. That will fix a lot. I'm almost persuaded that we should just abolish patents altogether, because I don't see much economic justification for them. Are the big companies, at least the ones that actually make something, going to stop innovating because of a lack of patents? Really? REALLY?

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[ultranova]

If the map really is prior art, the patent can be invalidated (through courts or through the patent office). What first-to-file solves is having two inventors almost simultaneously filling for a patent.

/blockquoteA>

If two inventors simultanously apply for the same patent, shouldn't it be denied of the basis of obviousness?

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Desler]

Yeah because first-to-invent has really stopped all those megacorps from getting tons of patents, right?

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[codepigeon]

> the patent can be invalidated (through courts or through the patent office)

Sooo, with the first to file system, it is not only first-to-file, but first-to-file-with-the-most-money to tie you up in years of litigation before you give up. Sounds great.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[greenbird]

What first-to-file solves is having two inventors almost simultaneously filling for a patent. They may have never heard of each others work, and it becomes difficult to find who really invented it first. The only sane thing is to award it to the first person to file.

Huh. I would have thought the only thing to do in that case is to reject the patent as obvious to someone skilled in the art. But I guess that's just me.

[shakes head in amazement] What have we gotten to...

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[catmistake]

By the way, beginning in March, the U.S. will switch from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system of granting patents. Hey, what could go wrong?"

The entire rest of the world works just fine using first-to-file for patents. The US is an anomaly with first-to-invent.

The only trouble with the America Invents Act of 2011 is it is not an Amendment to the Constitution, which it needs to be in order to change the original text of the Constitution which clearly specifies (re: "Inventors") the "first to invent" system over the "first to file" system. What could go wrong is the first time the first-to-file system is challenged in court it will necessarily be declared unconstitutional.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[thirtyfour]

So if two companies set out to solve a problem and eventually develop the same solution after each investing thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars in R&D, you think that means the invention was obvious? Really?

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What first-to-file solves is having two inventors almost simultaneously filling for a patent. They may have never heard of each others work, and it becomes difficult to find who really invented it first. The only sane thing is to award it to the first person to file.

It shouldn't matter who invented it first, it's probably too obvious for protection if multiple people invent the same thing. Patent protection is there to ensure the invention will be available to society and not a trade secret. If enough people have the same idea it will be available without protection. Two inventors showing up with the same idea almost simultaneously is a clear indication that the idea is too obvious to be patentable.

To test if an idea is non-obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art is ridiculous. The idea should be non-obvious to everyone exept a small number of geniuses to be patentable. I think there are close to a million software engineers in the US. Just the 1% most brilliant are close to 10,000 people. Anything in this area that needs to be invented to solve a problem that is felt because the world is ready for it will be invented with so many sharp brains floating around. That is probably true for many more fields than software. No patents are needed in that situation, and certainly not if more than one person solves the same problem.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[WillerZ]

The only trouble with the America Invents Act of 2011 is it is not an Amendment to the Constitution, which it needs to be in order to change the original text of the Constitution which clearly specifies (re: "Inventors") the "first to invent" system over the "first to file" system.

No it doesn't. It specifies that the rights over their discoveries shall go to the Inventors but it nowhere specifies the process that inventors shall be required to undergo to secure those rights.

Under first-to-file as it is practiced elsewhere it is still illegal for anyone other than the inventor to secure a patent on a discovery. It is really a very minor change which only makes a difference in the case of near-contemporaneous discoveries. It mostly benefits accidental inventors who are less likely to be able to provide any evidence for the date of invention than the industrial-scale patent-generators who receive most patents.

A secondary effect which may turn out to be rather more important is that the current US system requires that you file within 1 year of the discovery or never file for patent protection; so an invention cannot be kept a trade-secret and used for 40 years before being patented by that same person/corporation when they feel there is a risk of someone else working it out, effectively securing them a 65-year monopoly. First-to-file elsewhere generally allows this; I am not familiar with the US statute in question.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The only trouble with the America Invents Act of 2011 is it is not an Amendment to the Constitution, which it needs to be in order to change the original text of the Constitution which clearly specifies (re: "Inventors") the "first to invent" system over the "first to file" system.

No it doesn't. It specifies that the rights over their discoveries shall go to the Inventors but it nowhere specifies the process that inventors shall be required to undergo to secure those rights.

Yes, it does. This clause of the Constitution specifically prohibits a first-to-file system because the term "inventor" refers to a person who has created something that has not existed before. It is irrellivant what the rest of the world does.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

FALSE. PRIOR ART IS CONSTANTLY IGNORED.

Go away or I shall taunt you a third time. CAPTCHA: biased :XD

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

First to file would make the abuse come faster because there would be less risk. Corporations can file a lot faster than the average company.
So 2 points against.

First to file is also idiotic.

The first to file isn't useful.
The first to produce a working prototype is.

First to invent forces some initial effort before filing.

You linear thinkers drive me up the wall.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So if two companies set out to solve a problem and eventually develop the same solution after each investing thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars in R&D, you think that means the invention was obvious? Really?

Yes.

What's 2+2? Is that obvious to a person skilled in the art of addition?

What cos(30*)? Is that obvious to a person skilled in the art of trig?

What's dx/x of x^2? Is that obvious to a person skilled in the art of calculus?

Wah wah wah, that's math you say. Now...

What's the escape velocity of Earth's gravity? Is that obvious to a person skilled in the art of interplanetary rocketry?

If I file a patent today on blasting things with chemical propellent into earth orbit, and I'm first to file, should I be allowed to stop the deployment of satellites by chemical propellants? What if I also file a patent on "using a space elevator" or "railgun style propulsion"etc. Should we stop using satellites?

It's a stupid system we have, and it encourages land grabs without the need to homestead, to continue the historical analogy. Bring back the "working model" constraint and 90% of this BS goes away.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Rakarra]

You appear to inhabit a different dimension to mine, for in mine, first to invent seems to most benefit big, rich corporations. Are you arguing that the current system is NOT broken? Are you arguing that 'first to file' as used everywhere else in the world is better than 'first to invent'? The evidence for this is?

I think he was arguing (at least I would argue) that the current system is broken, and the changes that will be implemented will have the effect of making it far MORE broken. So it's not like it works fine now, just that it can (and will) get worse.

Hey, at least under first-to-invent, a smaller company that invented has first-to-invent as a defense if it is sued. At least you could bring up prior art. Now there is nothing, nothing stopping the big corporations from getting everything they want, all the time.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, beginning in March, the U.S. will switch from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system of granting patents. Hey, what could go wrong?"

The entire rest of the world works just fine using first-to-file for patents. The US is an anomaly with first-to-invent.

The summary was written by an idiot. To clarify, first-to-invent means as long as I have proof I invented it first, I can keep that locked in a safe then when you file a patent I can bring out my hidden documents, file a patent, and get the patent. The life of the patent starts from when it's granted, not from when I invented it.

First to file means it doesn't matter who actually came up with the idea first and hid it in a safe for a hundred years... the first guy to file the application gets it. But along with that comes the fact that ANY published prior art invalidates any attempt to file after publication. In fact, in a first-to-file system prior art is even stronger than first-to-invent. It's a good move for our patent system, but more needs to be done. Specifically, for any software patents I want to see actual source code. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to tell if your code infringes on their patent... it should be something that a programmer can tell just by reading the patent itself.

And we actually used to work on first-to-file.. that's why Bell got the patent on the telephone instead of Gray.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Drishmung]

Hey, at least under first-to-invent, a smaller company that invented has first-to-invent as a defense if it is sued. At least you could bring up prior art. Now there is nothing, nothing stopping the big corporations from getting everything they want, all the time.

Prior Art still exists. That has not changed at all.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The various disadvantages small players face was well documented when "first to file" was first introduced.

I call bullshit and as a Citation point to your lack of one, well-documented my ass.

When Bell beat Gray to the patent office, we had first to file. It got changed later in time, now we're realizing how stupid first-to-invent really is and are going back.
First to invent means a big corporation can invent something and keep it as a trade secret, if someone files a patent which their secret would infringe upon... they just show proof they invented it first and now the patent is theirs. As long as it doesn't get published they can keep it secret as long as they want.
Prior art is stronger in a first-to-file system, as any publication prior to the filing date invalidates the patent.
In a first-to-invent, something can be published and used for years and the patent can still be granted as long as they can prove it was invented prior to publication. The patent holder can then collect royalties from everyone who didn't even know the shit had been invented.

This is the first step to fixing the patent system. The next step is to require the patent office to have actual experts. And for software patents, we need to start requiring source code as the equivalent to a blue print for a physical device, and a binary executable as an equivalent to a working prototype.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The initial reason for patents, afaik, was the ability for people to disclose their inventions without being afraid of someone else with larger backings to steal the idea and mass produce it, thus taking over the market. When the patent expires, everyone can benefit of the invention, and the inventor has been rewarded.
The alternative to a patent system is for companies to hide everything they can to protect their potential market, which makes it very difficult for the rest of the world to benefit from it (one could even imagine some self destructing device to protect her IP from reverse engineering - I am talking physical mechanisms, not software by the way).

Of course, nowadays, most companies doing patent fillings have enormous funding to begin with, thus the David vs Goliath problem is less important than it was.

In other words, if the goal is promote innovation sharing, then we can see that certain patents are useless in that respect : software cannot resist reverse engineering for as long as, say, a cooking recipe.

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[redlemming]

Huh. I would have thought the only thing to do in that case is to reject the patent as obvious to someone skilled in the art. But I guess that's just me.

And how would this policy make more money for patent lawyers or provide better job security for the folks making decisions at the patent office than the current one?

Re:First-to-file isn't a problem

[Rakarra]

You are right, after seeing the other explanations, I retract my statement.

This is old stuff

[cvtan]

I remember doing this in Excel ten years ago to make semiconductor device wafer maps and crude gray-scale images. You change the color palette to add more gray levels and then use conditional formatting to color the cells. Ta Da! An image! A patent on a fancier version of this is obvious so there should be no patent. Pfft!

Pillage and Plunder!

[Anonymous Coward]

"By the way, beginning in March, the U.S. will switch from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system of granting patents. Hey, what could go wrong?"

Oh really. So I do have an invention and I'm trying to bring it to market but I can't afford the many patents I need to protect my business.. with the current system I can at least claim prior art, go to court and pay a lot of money and if I'm lucky I might still be able to do what I was doing. .. but with the new system they can just come anytime, afford the huge patent attorney fees and filing fees and take it all away. Fuck this shit, this country really sucks ass. For real, how much more evil can it get? How much more unbalanced, unfair and skewed? The way I see it this is carte blanche to pillage and plunder because I can't afford all those fees, but for them it is peanuts. Again: fuck this shit.

Re:Pillage and Plunder!

[viperidaenz]

If you don't like it, move to another country.

Oh wait, the rest of the world already does it that way.

Re:Pillage and Plunder!

[DM9290]

If you don't like it, move to another country.

just boycott american products.

Re:Pillage and Plunder!

[Anonymous Coward]

When did we start having products again?

Re:Pillage and Plunder!

[Desler]

You do realize that the whole rest of the world is on a first-to-file system for patents already, right? theodp is an idiot an a troll who doesn't understand what the "first-to-invent" and "first-to-file" part even means. It's about when there are patent applications from two parties for the same idea. It has nothing to do with prior art.

I already "invented" this in 2005

[localman]

When I was working on internal sales tools for a company that sold shoes, I created a heat map of their sizing grid: I colored each data cell a lighter or darker shade depending on the sales number in that cell. It was so exciting and original that I think a couple people said "thanks, that's neat" before we moved on.

How the hell did this get patented, and how can I submit my prior art to invalidate it?

We've been experiencing this corruption of the patent system for over a decade now. It costs our nation millions and millions of dollars. Is there any serious effort to fix it?

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[EmagGeek]

I have you beat by four years. In 2001, as part of my Master's research, I was plotting power supply efficiency against two variables, using different colors to represent different efficiency values. Sorry, patent is really OURSES!

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[qweqazqsc]

Why do you automatically assume it was corruption?

More than likely, it was just a poor job by some junior examiner.

I never understand why people are so surprised that the PTO screws up so often. They are a giant bureaucracy that has to handle a really complex job.

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was working on internal sales tools for a company that sold shoes, I created a heat map of their sizing grid: I colored each data cell a lighter or darker shade depending on the sales number in that cell. It was so exciting and original that I think a couple people said "thanks, that's neat" before we moved on.

How the hell did this get patented, and how can I submit my prior art to invalidate it?

We've been experiencing this corruption of the patent system for over a decade now. It costs our nation millions and millions of dollars. Is there any serious effort to fix it?

Excel has had conditional formatting since at least Office 2000 apparently.

And apppaaaaaaarently, you can't use someone's own earlier work to invalidate a patent they file later? Or maybe you can, but I can't think of any other reason they'd bother patenting something in 2009 that their own product and individuals with VBA had been doing for years already. I just don't get any of this.

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

http://peertopatent.org/

In her TED talk Beth Noveck said a peer-reviewed patent system will be put in place as of next year IIRC. I don't know if they allow reviewing patents after they were already granted, or if this just applies to patent applications.

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you automatically assume it was corruption?

Because it's routinely condoned with no realistic attempt to fix it or to actually adhere to the sole primary goal (to advance the arts).

They are a giant bureaucracy that has to handle a really complex job.

An impossible job. Even a scientist work in a very narrow field for their entire working life will make mistakes about whether something has been done before. It is the height of hubris by the PTO to pretend they are capable of doing this job. They're not even close.

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

Conditional formatting - the feature this is patent is discussing - was released in Office '97.

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[belgianguy]

www.askpatents.com seems to be your best shot at getting Prior Art visible to the shamefully incompetent USPTO. They pay their employees peanuts in comparison to this thievery and have them stamp away at anything really, creating IP worth millions in lawsuits and fees from almost nothing. And they expect the system to correct their mistakes instead of fool-proofing or advancing their own methods.

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

Mathematica did this 20 years ago, without sweat.

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

We do the same thing in our reports going from yellow to red, been that way for 10 years, you can even buy third party tools that have this kind of thing..

Awarding a patent on this is simply wrong...

Re:I already "invented" this in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

The functionality the patent discusses was introduced to office around 15 years ago, so that would still be 5 years prior to that. the patent itself was filed in 2005.but functionality created sometime prior to 97 and released in office 97.

Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Filed Aug. 2009 with no priority claims at all? Prior art is trivial for this one.

A computer-implemented method for formatting a range of cells according to a spectrum of cell formats, the method comprising: receiving a selection of formatting criteria for a range of cells, wherein the formatting criteria includes a minimum value cell format correlated to a minimum value, a maximum value cell format correlated to a maximum value, and an interval of varying cell formats that vary in a spectrum from the minimum value cell format to the maximum value cell format; determining whether a respective value for each cell in the range of cells is between the minimum value and the maximum value; and for each respective value between the minimum value and the maximum value, causing a processor to apply, to the cells of each respective value, a respective cell format determined from a correlation of each respective value to a respective cell format in the spectrum of varying cell formats

Lab results. There's a maximum and a minimum for each of your test results, and a spectrum of badness which typically choose more alarming colors and/or styles as you stray from the normal result range. And yes, your lab results have been on a computer for over a decade now. Some computer systems can even show all of your blood tests over time as a table, with each cell color coded for abnormality.

All of the mouthbreathers who come out in force to defend retarded patents and scream "read the claims" are now welcome to explain how the invention, as claimed, differs from what is already done.

Re:Prior art

[cvtan]

Isn't this exactly a false color image like the IR imaging folks do all the time? Or a colored map showing rainfall levels or...etc. etc. etc.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, this is no different than any graphical image representation. The cell values of any raster data can be represented as a color, and all those data are stored as a grid of values... All your GIFs, PNGs, JPEGs, TIFFs and other various binary formats are belong to Microsoft...

Poster is a moron who doesn't understand Patents

[CajunArson]

This is Slashdot where every grandmother who can't write her own kernel drivers is considered sub-human scum but where IT geeks who barely made it through community college consider themselves experts on patent law.

Once and for all: First to file only applies when two different parties each file a patent application that covers the same subject matter within a short time period of each other (less than one year for all effective purposes in the U.S.

  First to file does *NOT* change the rules on prior art and actually makes it *harder* to overcome prior art because there is no longer an ability to swear behind the filing date of the patent.

  Other countries including Europe (you know, that magical perfect continent where nothing bad ever happens because it isn't the U.S. and that we should all just try to be like?) ALREADY USE FIRST TO FILE.

I haven't read the patent in question (but then again neither has the poster with a trained eye), but just because Microsoft is doing something that has some similarity to an existing mapping technique does NOT mean that Microsoft's technique is the same!

In much the same way that engines for cars already exist, it is perfectly possible to get a patent on an improvement to an engine even though engines existing all the way back in 1846!

Now please return to the standard recycled bigotry that passes for discussion on this site these days.

Re:Poster is a moron who doesn't understand Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent sig... and so true. Believe me, I know

Your strawman is on fire

[DragonWriter]

Other countries including Europe (you know, that magical perfect continent where nothing bad ever happens because it isn't the U.S. and that we should all just try to be like?) ALREADY USE FIRST TO FILE.

Whose ever said that Europe was magical that way? Certainly, some people have said some aspects of the European patent system (specifically, the fact that it doesn't recognize software patents) are superior, but that's pretty far from saying it is "magical" or "nothing bad ever happens", even in the narrow domain of the patent system.

Re:Your strawman is on fire

[Anonymous Coward]

J.K. Rowling did.

Re:Your strawman is on fire

[Anonymous Coward]

"Software" patents are granted and issued all the time in Europe.

This from the EPO (European Patent Office) website:

"Approximately 5,603 results found in the Worldwide database for:
Yahoo as the applicant"

Why first to file crap in summary

[bloodhawk]

Why bring up first to file in the summary? it is completely irrelevant, first to file doesn't mean prior art is ignored or that you can just go patent someone else's ideas. It merely means if 2 people/organisations are working in secret on their invention then it is whoever patents it first that gets the patent not whoever can spend huge amounts of lawyers and paperwork to try and show they had the idea 5 minutes before the other person.

Re:Why first to file crap in summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bring up first to file in the summary? it is completely irrelevant, first to file doesn't mean prior art is ignored. It merely means if 2 people/organisations are working [on the same] invention then it is whoever patents it first that gets the patent not whoever can [...] show they had the idea [...] before the other person.

Point taken.

Re:Why first to file crap in summary

[AK Marc]

If anything, the current system is broken in that someone willing to spend enough and lie, could file every patent the day after it was filed and claim they invented it first, but didn't file it earlier.

With first to file, you are incented to file as soon as you can, not to wait for anything, as someone could file for something similar or overlapping before you, and you don't get the patent. Incenting early filing is what it's supposed to be doing.

Absolutely ridiculous

[abhi2012]

This is like patenting the layout of a chess board. Absolutely ridiculous!

This is absolutely ridiculous

[dread]

1: There is a ton of prior art in general
2: There is a ton of prior art for Excel specifically

Exhibit a) Microcharts from Bonavista Systems, released in 2006 or even earlier (http://www.juiceanalytics.com/writing/microcharts-a-different-take-on-excel-charting/)
Exhibit b) EVERY OTHER BI TOOL IN THE UNIVERSE

How incredibly incompetent are the people at the Patent Office? There is a mandated discovery process after all. What the hell is going on?

FTF : I win

[Fuzzums]

As inventor, life gets more interesting. Just publish your inventions.
If somebody files a patent that involves your invention, tell them you want your share of the money or you'll have their patent invalidated by prior art.

Oh, and tell them win-win and Ying Yang as well :)

Re:FTF : I win

[Anonymous Coward]

As inventor, life gets more interesting. Just publish your inventions.
If somebody files a patent that involves your invention, tell them you want your share of the money or you'll have their patent invalidated by prior art.

Oh, and tell them win-win and Ying Yang as well :)

And they say "We disagree, sue us."

Years and $10k-$10M later, let's say you win. You have a judgement against the holding company for that patent, which, by sheer coincidence, has no assets, lots of debt and had licensed and indemnify a completely different legal entity, owned by the parent company.

Congrats, you won a moral victory. But that's about it.

Fuck the patent office

[AndyKron]

Ya, Fuck the patent office.

First to file -- horrific rip-off from Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as the first to file system goes in place, it will be the end of line for all Open Source projects, and even most small for profit enterprises that depend on new development. Even now patent trolls and large corporations have teams of thousands of examining every open source project for patentable code, all scrambling to beat each other for the March 2013 change of rules. All who object will become terrorists? Amazing that the elections coverage doesn't even mention issues like these.

Re:First to file -- horrific rip-off from Open Sou

[Alain Williams]

As soon as the first to file system goes in place, it will be the end of line for all Open Source projects,

It should not, if something is released Open Source then that will count as ''publication'', ie demonstrable prior art; thus anything that comes after that should not be patentable. The problem is in ''should not'', the patent examiners don't have enough time (and finding something in some Open Source bit of code will take a looong time) and I believe that the patent office is paid by patents granted - so has motivation to grant patents and let people battle it out in court; but court is do stupidly expensive.

so what

[Anonymous Coward]

has anyone noticed a lack of innovation or change in our society ?
No - I thought not; innovation is occuring at a dizzying speed.

Has anyone noticed that it is harder to start a startup and get funding ?
No - I thought not; startups are hard as He**; always have been, always will be.

Has anyone noticed that in mature industrys (autos) they all have huge patent portfolios, and cross license each other ?
No - I thought not; why should computer nerds not think that their industry is special in some wierd god given way ?

Re:so what

[oxdas]

Apparently it isn't just computer nerds. Appeals court judges and Economics professors also believe our industry is "special" and patents are failing the industry.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/09/do-patent-and-copyright-law-restrict-competition-and-creativity-excessively-posner.html

Re:so what

[Anonymous Coward]

has anyone noticed a lack of innovation or change in our society ?

At what cost? Some big companies are now spending more on patent lawsuits than on R&D.

Here's a question for you: did you notice a lack of innovation prior to 1998, before State Street opened up "business method" patents?

Has anyone noticed that it is harder to start a startup and get funding ?

Since they stopped requiring that you actually create a prototype of what you're patenting, of course it's not harder.

Has anyone noticed that in mature industrys (autos) they all have huge patent portfolios, and cross license each other ?

Yes, that's exactly what we need, a sewing machine combine! All 50000000 patent holders can get together, pool their patents, and demand licenses from everyone. Now we can get Windows 8 starting at only $2000000 per copy to make sure that everyone gets their cut!

That sewing machine combine thing was pretty cool back when 4 people had one patent each and were holding each other hostage and the one troll involved was retarded enough to let everyone know he was gonna sue them before they started working instead of waiting until they had a few years of sales/damages under their belts. Now there's hundreds of thousands of patents out there that may or may not apply to your product. Half of them are held by trolls who make nothing but lawsuits and will refuse to join any patent combine (why make 1/100000th of some paltry RAND license fee when you can just sue the practitioner directly for 5-25% of their entire gross?) The patent combine idea gets floated OVER and OVER and is cited by all sorts of people who think it's just so awesome... and yet it never happens, because it simply cannot be arranged for so many patents. So instead Microsoft cross licenses with Apple, and everyone else is just fucked in the ass. And then Eolas comes along and fucks Microsoft in the ass. And then PanIP comes along and fucks everyone else in the ass again. And then...

Re:Poster is a moron who doesn't understand Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you read the specification or file wrapper, do they define "cell" (an inventor is his own lexicographer)

Hey, what could go wrong?

[John Hasler]

Nothing. It is "first inventor to file". Under the present system if two inventors file for a patent on the same invention the one who invented first gets the patent: the order of filing is irrelevant (provided it was "timely" and the inventor "diligent"). Under the new system if two inventors file for a patent on the same invention the one who filed first gets the patent: the order of invention is irrelevant. Thus there will be no more lawsuits in which inventors strive to convince the court that they thought the widget up first and then worked diligently to reduce it to practice right up to the date they filed and therefor deserve the patent even though the other guy filed first. However, you still must be prepared to prove that you invented it independently.

Pixmap

[lahvak]

Hm, seems to me like they reinvented pixmap.

Shitty research or fancy journalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beginning in March the US will switch from a first to file to a first to patent system? Really...beginning in March? Of 2012? Samuel Morse did not invent the telegraph,he was just the only one who cared about the money that could be made with the system and so he was the first to patent the telegraph. The same can be said of a couple of dozen different inventions that have surfaced. This is nothing new.

First to file

[Anonymous Coward]

| By the way, beginning in March, the U.S. will switch from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system of granting patents. Hey, what could go wrong?

Baron Pierre Charles Dupin had better get on the ball...

Idea!

[evenmoreconfused]

At the risk of giving away a possibly lucrative idea, my plan is to patent the use of a gavel to bring order to courtrooms. Hopefully, this will allow me to collect royalties for every day of all the various trials I have to attend defending my patent: the more they fight, the more they pay.

In bed

[goombah99]

This is like the secret fortune cookie decoder. add "in bed" after the phrase. Always works. IN this case it's take any known thing and add "using a computer".

What that does it

[Anonymous Coward]

In March I'm going to patent FTL travel. That way, when someone invents it, I'll be rich.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anybody out there who both knows what a choropleth map is and read the claims in the patent that thinks the patent could be construed to cover choropleth maps?

The patent seems completely unrelated to me. It talks about applying formats to cells based on their values. In choropleth maps, there are no 'cells' that have 'values.' There are regions, which are shaded to represent the value of some property for that region.

Why the need to be first in the first place?

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"...they had the idea 5 minutes before the other person."

And that is what needs to be fixed in the patent system, short of abolishing altogether. Why do patents have to winner-takes-all when the historical record is full of examples of parallel inventions and discoveries, like the wheel, caculus or the theory of evolution? Why can't patents be awarded like the winners of sports competiton or American Idol, where even those who didn't place first gets a diminishing share of the prize money?

Re:Why the need to be first in the first place?

[Theaetetus]

"...they had the idea 5 minutes before the other person."

And that is what needs to be fixed in the patent system, short of abolishing altogether. Why do patents have to winner-takes-all when the historical record is full of examples of parallel inventions and discoveries, like the wheel, caculus or the theory of evolution? Why can't patents be awarded like the winners of sports competiton or American Idol, where even those who didn't place first gets a diminishing share of the prize money?

Because patents aren't an award or reward for winning a competition. You're thinking Nobel prizes. Patents are a temporary monopoly granted in exchange for an inventor disclosing their invention. Once it's disclosed, we don't care about any other inventors, because the public now has access to it (which is also why you can't disclose an invention publicly, and then get a patent on it later, after the one year grace period). So, only the first to file gets the monopoly.

Re:Why the need to be first in the first place?

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

That part about "disclosing" would eliminate a whole lot of patents. What do you need to disclose about an Apple-style design patent?

This also doesn't eliminate the OP's comment about inventions made "5 minutes before the other person". Let's say, I invented Gadget X while Inventor Y has a pending, unprocessed patent application for it. If inventor Y's patent is eventually approved, I now have to license Gadget X from him despite the fact that I didn't benefit from any of his disclosure.

One option to change the Patent system.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it would be funny to try to Patent various governmental systems. or maybe patent voting. Or Patent systems..

Re:Poster is a moron who doesn't understand Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Once and for all: First to file only applies when two different parties each file a patent application that covers the same subject matter within a short time period of each other (less than one year for all effective purposes in the U.S.

Yes, so in conclusion: First to file is not needed at all because when multiple people invent the same thing within a short time period this is the very definition of OBVIOUS, and such subjects are UNPATENTABLE. What we need is First To Demonstrate, you fucking idiot.

More than the sum of its parts

[Anonymous Coward]

You seek to mislead.
First to file *IS* a problem, because you can always make an 'invention' new by differentiating it under appeal, eliminating the prior art.

e.g. "Choropleth ON A COMPUTER" and if that's been patented, "Choropleth on a COMPUTER WITH WINDOWING OPERATING SYSTEM", and if that's been patented, "Choropleth on a COMPUTER RUNNING A SPREADSHEET IN A WINDOWING OS"

None of these can be blocked by the Choropleth.

Also the patent office can't consider trade secrets during development, so the patent system favors the vague early patent not the person actually making a working invention who then patents the finished *working* invention.

So you can look at what's being developed in the world right now: computer vision, and slap in a load of vague patents covering those: "Computer vision used to identify Train and Buses and show a map of their route on your visor" and bingo you've prevented one use of any future computer vision system without doing any more work than you'd put into a Slashdot post!

The Supreme court ruled that obviousness requires an invention be "more than the sum of its parts". The Federal Appeal court overturned that, it argued "to prevent hindsight bias" you could patent simple "X on Y" even if X exists and Y exists and X on Y is just X on Y the same as it was on X on Z.

So prior art is a joke, and the recent change, means the most important prior art (the prior art being made at the time the patent is applied for) is completely ignored.

Stealing ?

[Taco Cowboy]

They are not patenting, so much as stealing.

I have a deep suspicion that the United States government is actually encouraging the act of stealing by maintaining the patent system.
 
By filing a patent on a technique somebody had invented some 186 years ago Microsoft (and the United States Government) is essentially telling people to steal as much as they can, before someone else steals it from you.
 
BTW, has anyone patented the compass yet?
 

Re:Stealing ?

[JasterBobaMereel]

Can I be first to file on the design of the US patent system then band USPTO from using it?

Re:Stealing ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, probably.
If you use some fancy words and use some other known techniques like burying the patent examiner in work, they'll probably rubber stamp it through.

Re:Stealing ?

[warichter1]

BTW, has anyone patented the compass yet?

Having seen a number of articles on the state (or lack thereof in regards to the patent system), the question becomes how many times has the compass been patented and how many compass manufacturers are forced to pay loyalties to patent trolls on these bogus patents? Would think that by now that patent office should have a database to track patents or if one exists, write a search for duplicate records!

World's Stupidest Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent my shiny metal a$$.

Microsoft HAS patented Choropleths

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Microsoft HAS patented Choropleths and that patent will be issued.

Firstly 'first to file' creates a simple problem. The quickest to file is the person who has done less work inventing. So it lets the trolls look around at an area that's being developed and file a lot of vague patents around that.

So people are inventing computer vision, and troll can stick in a load of patents "computer vision used for OCR", "computer vision used as traffic collision warning system" etc. etc. None of this takes time to invent, but when Mr computer vision finally perfects his systems, all of the uses of his systems are shut off to him and those parts of his patent are invalidated.

This Choropleths problem is more the fault of the comedy act known as the Federal Patent Appeals court. They overturned the Supremes judgement that "an invention needs to be more than the sum of its part". Enable troll Microsoft to simply USE choropleths on a problem and patent that use.

Re:Microsoft HAS patented Choropleths

[Anonymous Coward]

geez another idiot that doesn't understand first to file or the patent system at all. Yes the patent system sucks, but NO you can't just go around patenting other peoples ideas and inventions and no you can't just sit there coming up with every idea possible and patenting them, besides it costing a fortune to do you have to specify all the claims and methods. Patent trolls are not generally companies randomly patenting stuff, they are companies buying old patents in a shell company of lawyers and then using those to basically blackmail their way into big paydays, worst case for them the shell company folds with no consequences, best case they get a huge payday.

First to file == forced to file

[WOOFYGOOFY]

It's a joke; it's pure class warfare. Doesn't matter if you invented it, if you can't afford to patent it, then fuck you. Why not reinstate poll taxes while you're at it? Why let non-property owners vote at all? Fuck it, just kill the poor.

Fuck you. Who the fuck needs to sell into America anyway? Think I can't make a living selling into the the EU, and a good one at that? Just fucking watch me.

America cares about one thing and one thing only- how much coke can the CEOS and lawyers shove up their noses? America is so fucking fucked. Don't sell software in America- that's the only lesson here.

If you wanted to have a great career you might do what Michael Phillips did, spend 30 years learning the arcana of some academic microworld and be widely known as one of the if not the most brilliant researchers in that world and then apply that knowledge in a societally useful direction by forming a software company and bringing a product to market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

All that would be great, it's certainly what society says it wants, it represents a best case scenario in terms of societal investment and payback in an individual citizen.. and you might think that this is a successful life, a life worth imitating.. but you'd be wrong.. You'd be wrong because it all ends when a lawyer knocks on your door the first time with the strategy to file baseless software patent cases against you until your money is gone, then force you to sell your company to him .. and oh, and become his employee so the integration of your product goes well for him.

Fuck America. don't sell software in nations that permit software patents. That's the ONLY solution. America is the sole possession of the coke snorting class .. we just had that genetic junk tank the entire economy and whine for a bailout and now this slimy take over artist / con man stands to win the Presidency and turn them loose to do it again. Obviously, we're in a societal death spiral we're not going to be pulling out of because at least half the electorate believes in creationism, the magic market bunny and denies global warming. Pretty much it's the end of America as a super power and the beginning of the the rise of Europe as the guardian of the Enlightenment. America is a nation of religious and political / social zealots whose zealotry is unfortunately the kind that closes itself off to self correction. Too bad, but it's time to face reality.. America is past its prime, WAY past its prime and is in the throes of unraveling. That's what happens when you permit religion to lay claim to knowledge superior and truer to science.. citizens are trained up to believe just anything that comes out of the mouths of preachers and politicians because they lack critical thinking skills and worse, are suspicious of them. A population like that is nothing but a societal death sentence being played out over generations.

Re:First to file == forced to file

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a joke; it's pure class warfare. Doesn't matter if you invented it, if you can't afford to patent it, then fuck you.

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
So many fucking morons equating first-to-file with the end of the novelty requirement and the death of prior art?

The ignorance, it burns.

Re:First to file == forced to file

[konekoniku]

And I don't think he realizes that the EU he wants to move to now adopted the first-to-file system long before the US did....

Re:First to file == forced to file

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound insane, you know the rest of the world already operates on a FTF system right.. and the coke sniffers (generalize much?) are the ones who want to keep first to invent, because its easier to sue for a billion dollars... your rant is nothing more than keyboard diarhea.

Um...

[Tenebrousedge]

...American version of Siberia, say North Dakota...

Hi! I can see Russia from somewhere in the US, and I don't think it's North Dakota.

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're on Little Diomede?

Re:Poster is a moron who doesn't understand Patent

[Malenx]

Ah Europe, where everything is so jacked up and tied together that we consider the entire continent a singular country.

Hello Industrial Espionage

[wakeboarder]

With the patent switch now companies can steal IP and make it theirs. We should just get rid of patents altogether, although the sycophantic lawyers and there money will never let that one fly.

Re:Poster is a moron who doesn't understand Patent

[greenbird]

First to file only applies when two different parties each file a patent application that covers the same subject

Once and for all: If 2 people file for a patent at the same time it should be taken as pretty strong evidence that it's obvious to someone skilled in the art. So unless you're an idiot that thinks the patent system actually serves some useful purpose as it's currently implemented first to file just makes a bad system worse.

It's obvious to people WITHOUT ordinary skill...

[langelgjm]

There are no technical details that are not obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

I'm not a programmer. I was a social science major in undergrad. My languages of choice are Perl and Visual Basic for Applications.

Why do I open myself up to the scorn of the /. community by revealing these facts? Because just this summer, I was about to implement EXACTLY what this patent describes when I was happy to find that the functionality already existed in Microsoft Excel. Thanks, Excel, for saving me some time. You deserve credit for that. But a patent? 20 years of exclusivity?

If the idea to do this, and the implementation (gee, look at maximums and minimum, set up a color scale or other visual indicator corresponding to certain values) was readily accessible to me (a person WITHOUT ordinary skill in the art), there is no reason this should have been granted a patent.

As the summary suggests, the claims seem broad enough that some of them (1, 8, and 15) might be invalidated by chloropleth mapping techniques present in GIS software.

Why didn't you read the patent, then?

[langelgjm]

Seriously, the claims aren't that had to understand, even though they're drafted in legalese that intentionally obscures how trivial the "invention" is.

Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the patent are broad enough that they very well could capture a chloropleth map. After all, a chloropleth map is really just a bunch of "cells" (regions) that you're assigning visual cues (colors) to based on a value they're associated with.

Maybe, just maybe, some of the finer dependent claims would meet the threshold of patentability, but the broader claims are obvious to anyone who's done more than dabble in Excel VBA.

IANAL (thank God), but FWIW I have taken IP law courses at one of the top two law schools in the country.

Ideas for new patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go...
- "Hand-held, rapid motion powered surface residue removal tool" - a sweeping brush
- "Anti-blister feet protectors with various levels of warmth retaining capacity" - socks
- "Work enabling surface with space for fitting human legs underneath" - a desk
- "Enclosed space, fit for a human, with a broad array of applications" - a building ...I'm filing today. At least some of my ideas will get through and then I'll sue the shit out of you lot!

Free tip

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Be the first to file for the patent of putting on pants one leg at a time.
2) ???
3) Profit!

USPO is rubber stamp

[Anonymous Coward]

USPO is a rubber stamp that has a date on it. It is of no use when prior art is considered. When it is "First to File" the date on the rubber stamp will count, a little.
The courts over rule what ever the USPO does, so what ever it does, does not matter.

Slashdot, please stop!!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I'm done punching the wall. But every time I see one of these idiotic patent stories in Slashdot, it makes me crazy. I'm definitely not getting involved with another Peanut Gallery debate about whether IP is bad, and I'm sure that, as usual, posters who work in the profession will eventually point out just how misleading this story is. But please humor me as I make two points. It'll help me sleep better tonight:

i) Just because a filer patents a broad concept that is already in common use doesn't mean that the patent covers every feature of that concept. A patent needs just one point of nonobvious novelty to be issued. One tiny, tiny, new thing. And -- now this is the important part -- the patent protects only that tiny, tiny new thing. So if I patent a tire that has a tiny twist in the tread, where that twist has never been used before and is not obvious, I could wind up owning a patent on tires. But that doesn't mean that I can extort a royalty from every tire manufacturer in the country. I merely means that nobody else could make a tire with that tiny twist (or something equivalent). The point? It's this, and you should remember it every time you read one of these outraged Slashdot patent stories: You CAN'T know what the scope of a patent is without reading the claims, and without parsing every word and every piece of punctuation in the claims in order to determine just what features are being claimed. In some cases, you can't know what patent actually covers without reviewing the prosecution history that led up to the final issued version. Seriously. And you can't have any idea about the relevant issues from simply reading the title of a patent and a one-paragraph summary by a person who thinks that, because he or she is a whiz at C++, that he or she can understand patent claim language (assuming that he or she even read the claims, which is unlikely). If you want to understand the issues, there are plenty oflegal blogs populated by posters who have some idea how the law works.

ii) I also want to join the many posters here have likely already excoriated this Slashdot story for its embarrassingly dumb implication that, in the US, you'll soon be able to obtain a patent even if you're not an inventor, so long as you "file first." Gaia, just think about that one for a minute. The US is not going to a "first to file" system. We're going to a "first inventor to file" system. You still can't get a patent unless you can show that you (or your assignor) actually invented something novel. If there's a dispute between two legitimate inventors who independently created the same thing, the patent goes to the one who files first, not the one who can prove an earlier date of invention. And this system doesn't necessarily prejudice the smaller guy as much as some claim. Filing a relatively simple "provisional" application is sufficient to obtain filing priority.

OK, I feel better now. Or I will until the next Slashdot story, when somebody will once again scream about, I dunno, how Apple is now trying to patent "telephones" and about how we're transitioning to a "first to file" system, rinse and repeat. Next time, I hope you can join me when I punch the wall.

Re:Slashdot, please stop!!

[redlemming]

You CAN'T know what the scope of a patent is without reading the claims, and without parsing every word and every piece of punctuation in the claims in order to determine just what features are being claimed. In some cases, you can't know what patent actually covers without reviewing the prosecution history that led up to the final issued version. Seriously. And you can't have any idea about the relevant issues from simply reading the title of a patent and a one-paragraph summary by a person who thinks that, because he or she is a whiz at C++, that he or she can understand patent claim language (assuming that he or she even read the claims, which is unlikely).

You are completely missing the point here. If, as you describe, someone has to parse the patent document and study it and any associated legal history for weeks or months on end, in order to understand it, then that neccesarily requires a LARGE time commitment.

If large numbers of patents are being issued, even if those patents represent really new ideas (which most of them don't) then we will end up expecting people to spend not just LARGE amounts of time, but HUGE amounts of time studying patents, as every potentially relevant patent must be studied in excruciating detail and we get a multiplication of the time per patent with the total number of patents. This time, of course, is time that can not be spent developing a person's own ideas.

Given the number of patents issued in a typical year, it is becoming more and more likely that doing this properly would leave no time left to do anything else! This is an enormously inefficient use of a person's time, and it is inappropriate for government to expect this from people.

Human time has value, because the human life span is precious, and in fact, far too short for most individuals to get anywhere near their full potential.

That doesn't stop people from wanting to try to do as much with their lives as possible, and that in turn is why so many people on Slashdot and elsewhere are objecting to the current system.

The behavior that you are seeing does not reflect ignorance, rather, it reflects an insight into what is actually happening now, and into a dangerous long term trend, that seems to be eluding you.

Recognition of the value of human time is why human societies (at least those with separation of church and state) treat actions such as kidnapping and murder as crimes -- the persons commiting these crimes are stealing a precious and irreplacable portion of a person's life.

It is not a legitimate role of government to become a contributor to the very abuses it is supposed to prevent, by acting in a manner that requires people to give up large portions of their lives, or face severe legal and financial consequences, when they are just engaging in things that should be considered reasonable conduct.

This is stealing a portion of a person's life, just as the kidnapper or murderer does.

In practice, given what a mess the patent system currently is, we can expect most people doing creative work to simply ignore the whole system, develop their own ideas, and hope that nobody else already patented the very same ideas they came up with on their own! This in turn means that ordinary people have to live in fear of an unreasonable (and in a free country, illegitimate) legal system. The legal system (and those who uphold it) becomes the enemy, instead of being a tool to limit the damage sociopaths can do to others (which is what legal systems should be focusing on). This sort of thing will invariably do tremendous long term harm to society.

Stupid Patent Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

A patent was granted a few years back for interactive digital video experience. We call them VIDEO GAMES, but RSN, you may have to pay a royalty to play what you've been playing for years.

A patent was granted for the gene that makes kidneys function. Pay to Pee anyone?

It's out of control. If they can find a new way to describe what we've been doing already for years, Patent Trolls WILL submit a new patent and then use the courts to shake down anybody who profits from it.

Hey...

[poofmeisterp]

Hey, what could go wrong?

Patent pending on the bonding of proteins to polypeptides for the purpose of amino acid creation and use.