Inventor Has Waited 43 Years For Patent Approval

An anonymous reader writes "If you think the average wait of 28.3 months for a patent to be approved is ridiculous, don't complain to Gilbert P. Hyatt. The 76-year-old inventor has been waiting over forty years for a ruling on whether his electronic signal to control machinery should be granted a patent. 'It's totally unconscionable,' said Brad Wright, a patent lawyer with Banner & Witcoff in Washington who specializes in computer-related applications and isn't involved in Hyatt's case. 'The patent office doesn't want to be embarrassed that they might issue a broad patent that would have a sweeping impact on the technology sector. Rather than be embarrassed, they're just bottling it up.'"

Comments

That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent !

[Taco Cowboy]

Haven't carried out a detail search on the said patent, but if TFA's description is to be believable

electronic signal to control machinery

...that gonna be one heck of a very broad and very VERY valuable patent !!

'The patent office doesn't want to be embarrassed that they might issue a broad patent that would have a sweeping impact on the technology sector. Rather than be embarrassed, they're just bottling it up.'

Oh sure! With the issuance of that patent now many manufacturers / users of devices that use that technology may start receiving lawyer's letter demanding $$$, if that patent ended up being sold to some patent trolls.

Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent !

[icebike]

Hyatt refers to it as his square wave machine control patent.
But that's about all that is known.

I'd speculate It would flow out of his digital processors patents, and probably has something to do with controlling motors with a microprocessor via pulse width modulation or some such other common technique.

His problem is that the world plus dog independently discovered a variety of means to do the same thing in the interval since his first filing, if for no other reason than once you have a microprocessor (which he also invented), it is the obvious and natural way to control external devices.

Still, patents should be granted or denied. No reasonable excuse to sit on this forever. No way should the PTO get a "pocket veto" authority.

Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent !

[JWSmythe]

I doubt it's a stall. There are more likely reasons for it.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. (2001)

Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory. (1985)

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice (sometime after 1973)

You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity. (1941)

Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives. Do we not often afflict others undesignedly, and, from mere carelessness, neglect to relieve distress? (1812) ... misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent. (1774)

Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent !

[delt0r]

I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.

First of all its easy to show patents are not about protecting inventors hard work. Otherwise at the very least independent invention would be a defense. Since if you have done the same amount of work and invented something presumable valuable enough to get a patent. So its not about inventors. A quick look at some of the fist patents with Watt and steam engines and its pretty easy to see that patents are only justified via "protecting inventors" but where never really implemented for that reason.

Secondly if 2 different people faced with the same problem come up with the same solution, then it is clearly not as unobvious as lawyers would like to claim it is.

At the end of the day, patents are a win for lawyers. Guess who defend the current system the most? Its not the inventors.

Re:How could it be valid?

[ThatAblaze]

Well, it can be valid if it covers a set of methods relating to how to use relays.

This guy seems to only want the patent so he can sell it to patent trolls. It seems that the patent office doesn't want to deny the patent because they know that as soon as they do he'll sue (again). I wouldn't call this guy an inverter, I would call him another part of the patent troll machine.

Re:How could it be valid?

[Charliemopps]

This guy invented the microprocessor, holds over 70 patents, is a self made millionaire (maybe billionaire) and has successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him. So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/...

Re:How could it be valid?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy submits wildy broad patents and wants to use them to sell to patent trolls. Fuck cutting him some slack, just reject the damn patents already.

Re:Seriously

[AK Marc]

Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.

Before modern bars, you'd go to the local shopkeeper, and place an order for flour, sugar, salt, and you'd walk out the door, usually without paying. It was "one click pay" where the shopkeeper would collect later based on previously negotiated terms. There's thousands of years of documentation of "one click" transactions. It's not just a modern bar tab, which fails because you one-click each item into the cart, but then settle with a non-preciously agreed payment on your way out. Though some do it more like one-click. But regardless of the details, the idea of a near-authorizationless transaction based on previous agreement is thousands of years old.

Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor less patentable than a novel mechanism for making a physical lock, even though it has a mathematical/software basis.

I agree, but the nuance is lost on most, so we'd be better off with none than having it similar to now, with lots of room for error.

Re:How could it be valid?

[queazocotal]

Well - yes and no.
The fundamental problem with the patent system is that it gives patents to 'actual engineers that create things'.
This wouldn't be a problem - but for a major fundamental flaw in the system.
Patents were originally granted (amongst other less noble reasons) to foster innovation and encourage the spread of knowledge, rather than having ideas locked up as trade secrets and lost.

Unfortunately, it should be clearly obvious to anyone that if:
An averagely skilled engineer, faced with the same problem could solve the problem in under the time it takes to do a full patent search, and apply for the patent including all the time to write the patent and get it through all the steps - patents are not actually fostering innovation at all.

Should patents be abolished - no.
But - patents should only be granted for inventions that take - at the very least - several months for the averagely skilled engineer in the same field to come up with a solution to the same problem.

Patents should be for the benefit of society.
If society is burdened by patents - innovation and business is slowed, competition is harder - and advances in technology are slower - why do we have them?
In their current state, they are broken.
https://www.google.com/patents... - is the most recent english patent I can find.
It describes - broadly - something very similar to NTP - and is basically the same way any sensible engineer approaching the problem would do it.
The problem is it has a lot of superfluous crap implying it's special to one tiny area - and hence as it's not been patented before - it gets a patent.
This helps _nobody_.
There is no inventor in the conventional sense in this patent - as there isn't in most patents.
If you claim there is - you need to claim that every 4 year-old faced with the problem of making a lego model that looks like something is an inventor.
It's plugging obvious blocks together in obvious ways.
May sometimes the blocks be hard to fit together, and require a bit of thought - sure.
This doesn't make the arrangement of blocks not likely to be replicated in 17 (or more) years if anyone else hits the problem.