Inventor Has Waited 43 Years For Patent Approval

That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-03-02 10:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by eclectro · 2014-03-02 10:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Haven't carried out a detail search on the said patent,
You won't be able to, either. The article states that due to age of the patent, the application is confidential.
Without seeing the application, it's difficult to tell what its validity is. But when this patent application was filed in 1971, electronic control of machinery was already quite widespread. So, it would have to be quite specific about its implementation. Then there is the question of making companies pay for something they knew nothing about.
In the end, congress would have the power to invalidate this patent outright, if they wanted to.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-03-02 11:08 · Score: 2

This is Slashdot. Nothing written here about patents is believable.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by icebike · 2014-03-02 11:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by Blue+Stone · 2014-03-02 11:13 · Score: 3, Funny

>Nothing written here about patents is believable.
From broad patents to sweeping statements. /. has it all.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by radarskiy · 2014-03-02 11:36 · Score: 1

"if TFA's description is to be believable"
Why should this be a matter of speculation? You can look at the claims yourself.
Of course we can be fairly sure that what has happened is that somebody read only the abstract of the patent application and took the most extreme interpretation they could think of on the spot, because reading the actual claims looks like work.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by shentino · 2014-03-02 12:19 · Score: 2

Apparently, they want to stall, becuase if they deny the patent it could be appealed in court.
So, they just sit on it.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 12:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

But no one outside the patent office has seen the application, or the abstract, or anything.
It's all secret, because it's so old. As explained in TFA.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 13:01 · Score: 1

Don't they need a reason to deny it?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by Baloroth · 2014-03-02 13:34 · Score: 3, Informative

"if TFA's description is to be believable" Why should this be a matter of speculation? You can look at the claims yourself.
Unfortunately, we can't. From TFA:

Because the filings are so old, they fall under a law that keeps them confidential, said Patrick Ross, a PTO spokesman. That means the office can't discuss them or even say how many pending patent applications predate a 1995 change in the law, Ross said.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 14:05 · Score: 1

Kind of like how the IRS doesn't decide on your 503c(4) application. No decision, no appeal.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by JWSmythe · 2014-03-02 17:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

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)

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re: That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by O('_')O_Bush · 2014-03-02 18:50 · Score: 1

Self-contradiction

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by amck · 2014-03-02 21:23 · Score: 1

Yes, the trouble is that independent invention is no defence. And yes, it is the "natural" way of doing the task, used my many if not most in the field.
Hence the conundrum for the patent office: by rights he should be granted the patent, but in effect they will have given Hyatt an incredibly valuable monopoly by virtue of their delay in processing the patent. But they can't think of any valid reason _not_ to give him the patent.

--
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by delt0r · 2014-03-02 22:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by Chrisq · 2014-03-02 22:56 · Score: 4, Funny

This is Slashdot. Nothing written here about patents is believable.
I don't believe you!
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by shentino · 2014-03-02 23:10 · Score: 1

In the January lawsuit, Hyatt alleges he was told by a PTO unit director that the agency's unofficial policy in dealing with him is to give him the runaround to avoid making a decision he could appeal. He said that may be why the patent office hasn't granted him a patent since 1997.
TFA says different.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by Yaotzin · 2014-03-03 00:18 · Score: 1

This statement is false.

--
Error: No error occurred
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by drinkypoo · 2014-03-03 00:33 · Score: 1

Hyatt refers to it as his square wave machine control patent.
But that's about all that is known.
I'm guessing he tried to patent the clock pulse.

Still, patents should be granted or denied.
Preferably denied.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by thaylin · 2014-03-03 00:34 · Score: 1

It could also mean they are doing extra due diligence to ensure that he cannot appeal. Of course that would be a whole lot...

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by thaylin · 2014-03-03 00:34 · Score: 1

there are any number of reasons, broadness, obviousness, just to name 2.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by jimbolauski · 2014-03-03 01:27 · Score: 1

Unfortunately if his application were so trivial to reject they would simply do so. I imagine his patent got lost then rediscovered 20 years later, at that point the PTO realized he had a valid patient that would give him rights over a huge sector of the market and decided sitting on it was the best thing to do. All we can do is speculate as to the validity of his patent because his application is simply not available to view.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by jimbolauski · 2014-03-03 01:31 · Score: 1

I believe a screw up by the PTO was the initial cause of this issue but once the PTO realized they had screwed up and the ramifications of their screw up they decided the best course of action was to delay.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by geekoid · 2014-03-03 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Gilbert Hyatt is a patent troll of the worst kind.
His patent are always overly broad and best described as 'Ideas' He uses the courts like a club, and intimidates people. When ever he gets a patent denial(often) he makes the patent office spend million in court, and he usually looses. If not always.
This is a guy who ,in 1990, submitted a patent for a micro controller. He claims to have invented the microchip, in 1990.
It was latter overturns, but he got millions in royalties and, surprise surprise, didn't have to pay to back.
Is anyone asking why is is suing after 43 years and not, say 30? or 20 years?
And sending a signal to control something has been done for 100 years. This article is just GIlbert Hyatt attempting to bully million out of people.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by meustrus · 2014-03-03 03:48 · Score: 1

No way should the PTO get a "pocket veto" authority.
Why not? There's no other mechanism for somebody to refuse a patent for the good of the people. I'm sure that at Slashdot at least we can agree that is necessary. And if you're concerned about legality, if the director of the PTO is involved then that person should have the right to make such judgements by virtue of being appointed by the President.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by meustrus · 2014-03-03 03:50 · Score: 1

The article states that due to age of the patent, the application is confidential.
You mean the patent is not patent?
Yeah, that's the point. It's a patent application that has not been granted, and applications made prior to a 1995 change in the law are confidential while being processed.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by geekoid · 2014-03-03 04:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most likely they are tired of him taking him to court every time the deny something of his and our just sitting on it.
Of course this is GIlbert Hyatt, so there might not even really be a patent, and its near certain that f there is a patent, it's more of an idea and nothing that's actual working. It's like he grabs whatever is starting to become well know, lists what it does, and the applies for patent.
Look at this submission from 1989. It's list of idea about how a microprocessor works.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
Or this one form 1996 about how a kernel works:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by operagost · 2014-03-03 04:18 · Score: 2

Um, he filed his microprocessor patent in 1970, if not earlier. That one took forever to be accepted as well.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by wvmarle · 2014-03-03 04:44 · Score: 1

I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.
An invention may be the result of years of trying and trying, or the result of a bright spark - the latter usually after years and years of thinking about it, and at the very least knowing a lot about the subject at hand.
Independent invention just means there were two inventors trying to invent something (like on how to send sound over a long distance using electricity), and both managed to come with a solution, independent from one another. It doesn't make anything obvious.
Non-obviousness is anyway a really vague and ambiguous requirement of a patent. It's always very hard to say "Oh, that's obvious!" after seeing the patent - if it's so obvious, why didn't you think of it earlier, and, maybe, filed a patent for the idea?
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by JWSmythe · 2014-03-03 05:47 · Score: 1

You know, one guy told me once that there was an unofficial policy. That clearly makes it policy, not doesn't it.
If that's how you think the world really does work, then I not only have a man with a bridge to sell you, but a friend of a friend knows this guy who says he has real photos of bigfoot on a UFO.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by icebike · 2014-03-03 05:52 · Score: 1

Yes, the trouble is that independent invention is no defence. And yes, it is the "natural" way of doing the task, used my many if not most in the field.
It may have been in that era, since, as the story points out, secrecy about an application was required, until granted or denied.
No one could have even known there was an application covering this.
If the techniques used had come into wide use and even into publication, while the government sat on a secret patent, I doubt any court
would impose a requirement that back royalties would be do, or that new licenses must be taken.
The inventor's claims would b against the government, not innocent users of common practices.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by icebike · 2014-03-03 05:59 · Score: 1

Somehow, a specific method of controlling motors via a just invented micro computer seems a far stretch from meeting the "good of the people" designation.
The "good of the people" is ALREADY serviced by the limited duration of patents.
Hyatt licensed his Microprocessor patent far and wide, at reasonable rates, and the "good of the people" was served.
That's the way it is supposed to work. Its not supposed to be
"Oh, nice invention, we're officially stealing it, and fuck you very much."

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by JWSmythe · 2014-03-03 06:23 · Score: 1

I'm having trouble verifying your assertion. The USPTO site doesn't allow name searches on pending patent applications. They also don't show any valid patents for the inventor name Givert Hyatt.
Doing a few quick searches, I found lots of stories about his most recent claim, and the micro controller patent in the 90s.
Do you have a link with all his patents, or is 2 all of them?

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by Tharkkun · 2014-03-03 07:50 · Score: 1

Don't they need a reason to deny it?
Of course if they deny it he may end up suing the USPTO again. So instead they do nothing.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by JWSmythe · 2014-03-04 06:42 · Score: 1

Prior art! :)

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:That's one heck of a very **BROAD** Patent ! by meustrus · 2014-03-04 14:53 · Score: 1

You misunderstand. The good of the people is not served by stealing somebody's invention. The good of the people is in not letting this guy take credit for something several other organizations invented simultaneously, all of which except him chose to sell products based on the invention rather than wait until somebody else did and sue them.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.

How could it be valid? by DarkOx · 2014-03-02 10:36 · Score: 1, Informative

Seems like prior art should be easy to find, people have had relays on things longer than 43 years, or is this patent going to try and distinguish between electronic and electromechanical controls?

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:How could it be valid? by ThatAblaze · 2014-03-02 11:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

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? by artor3 · 2014-03-02 11:17 · Score: 1

You don't know what his patent claims, aside from the oversimplification in the summary.
Re:How could it be valid? by Charliemopps · 2014-03-02 11:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

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? by Pseudonym · 2014-03-02 11:55 · Score: 1

Yeah, we're not talking about Lemelson here.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:How could it be valid? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 11:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

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:How could it be valid? by ThatAblaze · 2014-03-02 12:39 · Score: 1

You don't know what his patent claims, aside from the oversimplification in the summary.
And what's your point.. or were you just stating the obvious?
Since it appears that no one knows specifically what the patent contains it's really no more than a nebulous threat to claim ownership over something that someone else did. It may or may not manifest in the future, and if it does then it was impossible for anyone in the present to know whether something they are building today infringes on it. No matter what this patent contains if it was ever granted it would be a complete abuse of the patent system.
Re:How could it be valid? by Arker · 2014-03-02 12:41 · Score: 5, Informative

He did not invent the microprocessor. He filed a fanciful patent application describing the possibility, waited until someone else figured out how to make it reality, then sued them. He might be the patent troll patient zero.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:How could it be valid? by Trogre · 2014-03-02 13:35 · Score: 2

Really? Is Gilbert P. Hyatt just a pseudonym used by Jack Kilby?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:How could it be valid? by Raenex · 2014-03-02 13:37 · Score: 5, Informative

This guy invented the microprocessor
Under dispute. Actually, he eventually lost his patent, but not until after he managed to extract millions in licensing fees from it. An anti-Hyatt page.

successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him
Whether he owes them or not is still not settled. He won money from California on the basis of a Nevada jury for California's auditory process. The bottom line is that he moved to Las Vegas to avoid California taxes from his license windfall.

So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.
From the article: "While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, Bassett said.
"I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work -- the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did.""
Re:How could it be valid? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2014-03-02 14:19 · Score: 1

his guy seems to only want the patent so he can sell it to patent trolls

To be fair, at 74, I don't think he really has any other option to try to monetize it. He doesn't have that long to enjoy the trophy wife the millions will get him.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:How could it be valid? by Hadlock · 2014-03-02 14:27 · Score: 2

The patent for the Teletype machine was issued in 1907, any variation thereof, up to and including paper punch cards would probably invalidate the patent.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:How could it be valid? by litehacksaur111 · 2014-03-02 14:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Horse shit. The microprocessor was the work of people like Bill Shockley, Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, Jay Last, etc. This guy patented some overly broad concept and tried to use those rights to patent troll.
Re:How could it be valid? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 15:55 · Score: 1

BULLSHIT, he invented nothing. You could argue perhaps he invented patent trolling. He definitely did NOT invent the microprocessor though he likes to claim he did.
Re:How could it be valid? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 15:56 · Score: 5, Funny

I wouldn't call this guy an inverter,
Yeah, you're right. I think they prefer to be called "single-input NAND gates" these days. Political correctness gone mad, I tell ya...
Re:How could it be valid? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 17:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

This asshole is running a standard 'Submarine Patent' play. Fiddle with the application until everything is using the tech and it's firmly embedded in daily use (lasers and UPC codes are other classic submarine patents) then sue everyone when the patent is finally granted.
Fuck this guy.
Re:How could it be valid? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 17:47 · Score: 2, Informative

From http://www.intel4004.com/hyatt.htm The Gilbert Hyatt Patent
A patent on the microcontroller, predating the only two Intel patents related to the MCS-4, was granted to Gilbert Hyatt in 1990. This patent described the architecture and logic design of a microcontroller, claiming that it could be integrated into a single chip. This patent was later invalidated in a patent interference case brought forth by Texas Instruments, on account that the device it described was never implemented and was not implementable with the technology available at the time of the invention.
So he made a patent without means or know how to implement it. Essentially like a patent for cold fusion even though you don't know how it would be done you patent it.
Re:How could it be valid? by tragedy · 2014-03-02 18:34 · Score: 1

This guy invented the microprocessor...
The patent he had on a "microcontroller" was invalidated. Based on what you're saying, it sounds like he's very good in the courtroom, however.
Re:How could it be valid? by Savage-Rabbit · 2014-03-02 22:25 · Score: 1

Fuck this guy.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline that offer.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:How could it be valid? by queazocotal · 2014-03-02 23:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:How could it be valid? by JasterBobaMereel · 2014-03-03 02:03 · Score: 1

If this patent has not been used in a real product in all this time, then it should be thrown out as either unworkable, or just a patent troll

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Re:How could it be valid? by meustrus · 2014-03-03 03:56 · Score: 1

At 74, with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank from the 1990 patent on microprocessors detailed in TFA, this man has no business suing anybody. He should be out enjoying his ill-gotten gains instead of holding the electronics industry ransom once more.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:How could it be valid? by meustrus · 2014-03-03 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

FYI, anybody who allegedly owes the state of California over $50 million in taxes earned way more than that. The maximum income tax rate in California in 1990 was 9.3% for individuals (although I'm not sure if individual income tax is the rate that would apply). We're looking at about $500 million in earnings for which he was allegedly dodging a $50 million tax. Not to mention that those $500 million he got was from a patent granted in 1990 for microprocessors, long after they were invented by someone else and in common use. Don't feel too sorry for him.
Damnit people, why doesn't anybody realize that the government is the people? A nearly $400 million dollar judgement paid out from the state of California is $400 million dollars in tax hikes (or college tuition hikes, or delayed infrastructure maintenance, or funding cuts for public schools, police departments, state parks, etc.) for everyone else that doesn't have $500 million in ill-gotten patent license deals to pay for lawyers.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:How could it be valid? by anegg · 2014-03-03 04:13 · Score: 1

My experience with California and residency is that California will claim you were a California resident for the prior year if you file a federal tax return by April of the current year with a California address (the idea that you could have moved into the state in the first 1/3 of the year seems novel to them). I believe California was also (at one point) trying to retroactively claim taxes owed on 401(k) deferrals made by California citizens who had subsequently moved on to residency in other states before beginning withdrawals from these retirement accounts. I would not assume too quickly that California was right and this guy was wrong just because a motivation can be identified on his part to have tried to escape California taxes. California tries to over claim taxes due whenever they can. With the amount of money at stake here, I can easily believe that they went way over the line in the process.
Re:How could it be valid? by geekoid · 2014-03-03 04:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Looka t his inventions and their timing.
1996 - Patents the Kernel
1989 - Patents the microprocessor.
A little late to the game, don't you think?
Oh, but when he gets denied, it turns into a large court case where he continually files for appeal, WHILE collecting royalties. And then when he loses he stop collecting royalties; which he doesn't have to pay back.
Go here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtm...
Search for this:
in/Hyatt AND Gilbert
Read some of his patents. He is the original patent troll. One who submits patent for things that exists, and then extract royalties from companies while it's "Patent Pending".
This Licensing = trolling is a ridiculous definition of patent troll. One that got the patent office to change in a way that is far worse for the small time no money inventor.,

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:How could it be valid? by anegg · 2014-03-03 04:22 · Score: 1

The franchise tax board of the state of California has a history of overly broad attempts to collect taxes. I wish I could have sued the state of California for the $1000 they stole from me claiming I owned taxes for a period of time when I was not even a resident (garnished from my wages when I was a resident and never returned even after I proved I wasn't a resident when earning the income they claimed taxes owed upon). If California has to pay out a $400 million judgement for their evil ways, the people to blame are the ones with the evil ways, not the ones who successfully defended themselves against them. I don't know if the guy in question really had an invention, but it doesn't seem like he was a resident of California at the time, at least not to the Nevada jury.
Re:How could it be valid? by operagost · 2014-03-03 04:22 · Score: 1

I think the number comes from interest and penalties, and was for two tax years.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:How could it be valid? by geekoid · 2014-03-03 04:26 · Score: 1

I wrote detail response to you crappy and misinformed post, then I got to this:
"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."
And I realized you are just really too dim, or unable to think outside a preconceived narrative for it to be any good.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:How could it be valid? by Raenex · 2014-03-03 06:27 · Score: 2

I'm not assuming either right or wrong. What I am assuming is that he clearly moved to Las Vegas to avoid paying California taxes. Whether it was legal or not is one thing, but it's a shady tactic either way.
Re:How could it be valid? by gnupun · 2014-03-03 08:37 · Score: 2

No, Shockley invented the silicon transistor and Gordon Moore founded Intel. The microprocessor was invented by accident:

In late 1969, a potential client from Japan called Busicom, asked to have twelve custom chips designed. Separate chips for keyboard scanning, display control, printer control and other functions for a Busicom-manufactured calculator. Intel did not have the manpower for the job but they did have the brainpower to come up with a solution. Intel engineer, Ted Hoff decided that Intel could build one chip to do the work of twelve. Intel and Busicom agreed and funded the new programmable, general-purpose logic chip. Federico Faggin headed the design team along with Ted Hoff and Stanley Mazor, who wrote the software for the new chip. Nine months later, a revolution was born. At 1/8th inch wide by 1/6th inch long and consisting of 2,300 MOS (metal oxide semiconductor) transistors, the baby chip had as much power as the ENIAC, which had filled 3,000 cubic feet with 18,000 vacuum tubes.
Re:How could it be valid? by litehacksaur111 · 2014-03-03 09:57 · Score: 1

Gordon Moore founded Intel along with Robert Noyce and they formed this company after leaving Fairchild semiconductor which was after they left Shockley.

Seriously by tarogue · 2014-03-02 10:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

But they'll let Amazon patent "one-click" shopping?

--
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp

Re:Seriously by shentino · 2014-03-02 11:05 · Score: 1

Don't you know that corporations and the "elite" have more privileges and rights than lowly peons like this inventor?
Re:Seriously by phantomfive · 2014-03-02 11:10 · Score: 1

Believe it or not, there are some people out there who believe that the Amazon one-click patent is a good patent. Sarten-X is one user who will defend Amazon's patent as being 'non-obvious' (as far as I can tell, he mainly claims that it's non-obvious because there was non exact prior art. Which isn't the same as being non-obvious, but that's how he feels).

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Seriously by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 13:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

The patent was on the business practice previously called "put it on my tab".

But all that is more proof that what should be banned is the ability to patent a process or business plan. Patent objects, or the plans to build them. Not software, not math, not genes, unless you invent a machine that does something with them. If you can tell someone the result (one click) and the rest of the process is easily guessable, it's obvious. Much like "sweat of the brow" doesn't determine copyrighability, just thinking up something new isn't sufficient for a patent.

Now all we need to do is convince the patent office of this simple truth.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Seriously by Your.Master · 2014-03-02 13:36 · Score: 1

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.
I'm not entirely convinced the object thing is the right answer, though. I think it's possible to generate a nontrivial non-obvious useful process which is as useful as a nontrivial non-obvious useful mechanism. 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.
Re:Seriously by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 14:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 16:48 · Score: 1

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.
I'm not entirely convinced the object thing is the right answer, though. I think it's possible to generate a nontrivial non-obvious useful process which is as useful as a nontrivial non-obvious useful mechanism. 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.
By that argument any idea at all, including the idea of getting up in the morning and brushing your teeth, or selecting the best location for a new business, could be patented. Patents are and should be circumscribed. Many areas of business get by well with no patents e.g. House designs, landscape gardening, fashion, recipes etc. Patents are extremely costly (one person/organization is privileged at the expense of billions of people) and as such should only be used as a last ditch way of encouraging innovation, The empire builders at the PTO and PTO lawyers want to change that at the expense of everybody else.
Do you really want to live in a world where every new decision (i.e. idea) has to be second guessed by a lawyer? I don't.
Re:Seriously by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-03-03 01:39 · Score: 1

Young ones, stop using "one-click purchases" as the poster child for bad patents.
I lived through that era, having been a programmer already for 10+ years. After being scared shitless by editors which happily exited without asking if you wanted to save, yes they really existed, programmers slapped confirmation boxes on everything.
NOooooooooo way in holy hell would you ever charge and ship without confirmation..
So it may be bad because of precedence, or it may be bad because of other things, but "obviousness" sure as hell ain't one of 'em.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Seriously by John.Banister · 2014-03-03 02:37 · Score: 1

I think that there are processes in the chemical industry that are useful to patent. One useful test for patentability might be the "If we told you to go ahead and keep it a trade secret, would the rest of society suffer from inability to license it?" test. That would take care of "one click ordering" and lots of software patents.
Re:Seriously by litehacksaur111 · 2014-03-03 06:30 · Score: 1

Amazon would have probably sued them for another 10 years if they denied their patent. Patents today seem to have nothing to do with novelty. They are just being filed to extract fees from other entities which are implementing the same common sense solutions.

He sounds like a dick by viperidaenz · 2014-03-02 10:37 · Score: 1

He pissed the patent office off and sued them, now his patents get delayed.
California asked him for taxes on his millions, he sued them for even more.

Re:He sounds like a dick by thaylin · 2014-03-02 14:57 · Score: 1

Give it a few more years, most of the population will be in jail, probably for every day things.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:He sounds like a dick by Tablizer · 2014-03-02 15:06 · Score: 1

In the USA you have a right to be a dick!
Explains our current batch of politicians.

--
Table-ized A.I.

The only thing they did wrong by folderol · 2014-03-02 10:48 · Score: 2

... was not telling him to bugger off 43 yeasrs ago. That was in 1971. As a trainee I was working on aligning servo motor controls in 1967 - it used them thar new-fangled transisitor things {bloody wickless wonders}

Re:The only thing they did wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 21:37 · Score: 1

Good grief does every Slashdot patent story have to contain "I was working on something broadly similar a few years earlier"? Please read How to Read a Patent in 60 Seconds. Patents aren't based on whether or not something broadly similar has been done before, they're based on specific claims, which in this case are confidential. Ergo, everyone who thinks they can judge this patent on its merits is simply wrong about that.
Re:The only thing they did wrong by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-03-03 01:43 · Score: 1

People have no problem opening their yappers about politics because they "worked on something broadly similar in the past, in their mind, which worked fine, in their mind", and nobody bats an eye.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

not in all cases by slashmydots · 2014-03-02 10:48 · Score: 1, Troll

"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."
Unless you're Apple. Then they're like "ROUND CORNERS? ARE YOU A WIZARD?" *granted*

He patented the microprocessor, too by don.g · 2014-03-02 10:49 · Score: 4, Informative

As Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor#Gilbert_Hyatt) says:

Gilbert Hyatt was awarded a patent claiming an invention pre-dating both TI and Intel, describing a "microcontroller".[9] The patent was later invalidated, but not before substantial royalties were paid out.[10][11]

And from http://www.intel4004.com/hyatt...:

"This patent was later invalidated in a patent interference case brought forth by Texas Instruments, on account that the device it described was never implemented and was not implementable with the technology available at the time of the invention. "

I know that 1990 (when that microprocessor patent was granted) is pre-Slashdot, but srsly, what's happening when patent trolls' whinging is front page news here?

--
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.

Parasitic Rentiers by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2014-03-02 10:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

What value has this man added to a single piece of equipment sold in the last 40 years? What part of these machines relied on his effort or ingenuity? If his patent had never been filed, are we to seriously believe that progress would have been held back by so much as an hour.

Let drop this passive-aggressive geek myth of the vital "small-guy" inventor and the civilization changing ideas which supposedly emerge from his superior brain. It is far, far easier, and far, far better for society as a whole to simply regard all patent holders as parasites, and simply stop issuing them. Inventors can start their own companies or get a job like everyone else.

Reward belongs to those who add value. To those who produce things; produce wealth. it does not belong to the people who "thought" of doing so, or who had some "bright idea" sometimes in the 1970s. It belongs to the three generations of people since who put their -- unpatented -- ideas into action and made them a reality. To the people who competed based on the merits of their results, and not the entitlement they felt their intellects deserved.

It's time to put patents away. All patents. Our society will make better progress without them. Inventors are not worth the price being paid to parasites.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Re:Parasitic Rentiers by SternisheFan · 2014-03-02 11:02 · Score: 2

What value has this man added to a single piece of equipment sold in the last 40 years? What part of these machines relied on his effort or ingenuity? If his patent had never been filed, are we to seriously believe that progress would have been held back by so much as an hour.
From the article:
While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, (Ross) Bassett, (a professor at North Carolina State University) said.
"I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work — the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did."
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by whoever57 · 2014-03-02 11:21 · Score: 1

What value has this man added to a single piece of equipment sold in the last 40 years? What part of these machines relied on his effort or ingenuity? If his patent had never been filed, are we to seriously believe that progress would have been held back by so much as an hour.
This case is a classic example of how the patent system does not benefit innovation or society. The patent that the article focuses on is secret, which means that "his invention" has not benefitted any product. On the other hand, it is very likely that others have made the same "invention" and actually used it in a product.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-03-02 11:28 · Score: 1

Brilliant, so let's say the inventor starts his or her own company. MegaCorp sees the idea, likes it, and uses its massive financial and market power to create their own version which is better, faster and shinier. MegaCorp gets a 3% rise in stock prices, the inventor gets nothing.
The inventor has another brilliant idea, but this time he or she keeps it under their hat and the whole of society suffers as a result
Seriously, why does this need to be explained. But since it does I feel obliged to also mention that patents aren't copyrights and don't last nearly as long, because patents actually do describe things of real tangible value and often neccessity which usually only have one way of getting done, unlike copyrights which cover mostly discretionary subjects or subjects that can be trivially re-expressed without any loss of meaning and without violating copyright law - see educational textbooks, for example.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-02 12:08 · Score: 2

Patents further the advantages of large companies more than independent entities by their very nature.

Regarding trade secrets, patents do nothing to reduce them as getting a patent on anything that could be kept a secret more than 20 years would be very foolish. If you intend to undermine trade secrets, then aim to get trade secret law pulled back.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by gIobaljustin · 2014-03-02 12:23 · Score: 1

It's funny how people just put forth mindless speculation when trying to show how the world would be without patents or copyright. The fact is, patents restrict private property rights (Can't use your own resources in a way that infringes upon someone's little monopoly!), and by default, laws don't exist, so the burden of proof is on you people. Yet, you can present no scientific evidence that patents are beneficial; all you do is speculate, and sometimes refer to societies that were vastly different than our own in a number of other ways.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-03-02 12:33 · Score: 1

Frivolous patents, patents which haven't been put to use (ie defensive patents), software patents, submarine patents and patent trollery benefit larger corporations, but these are abuses of the patent system. There's nothing wrong with the basic idea, and nothing that can't be fixed if the will to do so ever materialised.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by realityimpaired · 2014-03-02 13:15 · Score: 2

Patents, in theory, are actually a reasonably good idea.... the problem is, you need to find an adequate balance between rewarding innovation, and allowing others to benefit from them as well. That latter bit is the reason they expire. The former bit is because it can be very expensive to come up with and implement a new idea. Development costs, and all.
In practice it doesn't always work that way, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We should figure out how to prevent abuse, not get rid of the system entirely.
Similarly, btw, copyrights do actually serve a purpose. As wonderful a world as it would be that artists and content creators could be free to create without worrying about where their next meal comes from, they do still need to eat. Copyright exists so that people can be rewarded for creating works. It's ridiculous that it lasts long enough that your grandchildren can still profit from it, but I wouldn't toss it completely out the window, either.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 13:19 · Score: 2

Sounds like this guy did no more than if Gene Roddenberry had patented the cell phone in th 1960s based on the Star Trek communicator. He didn't invent it. He didn't implement it. He may have been the first to put something on paper and get it to the patent office, but that's not sufficient to be an "inventor".

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by ewibble · 2014-03-02 13:30 · Score: 1

because that's not how it works in real life.
If Megacorp wants to crush you, it will, It will put into play its warchest of patents, with its army of lawyers, you will go bankrupt paying legal fees long before you make any money.
Your best hope is remain unnoticed until you are successful enough to compete.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by ewibble · 2014-03-02 13:40 · Score: 2

Frivolous patents, my well be abuses but they are also a direct result of the patient system. The patents are all about controlling, obtaining a monopoly, the more "Ideas" you control the more you benefit.
It is in a companies very nature to maximize profit, as such it will always push the patent system to its limits. Using its vast resources to do so, by lawyers, and bribing, ops I meant lobbying politicians, to change the laws.
I am not completely opposed to a patent system but patents should be very short lived, just enough for you to have a good chance of establishing a market share.
Or perhaps the length of the patent should be based on the effort needed to create it.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by gIobaljustin · 2014-03-02 13:58 · Score: 1

In practice it doesn't always work that way, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We should figure out how to prevent abuse, not get rid of the system entirely.
Since copyright infringes upon free speech rights, and both patents and copyright infringe upon private property rights and are anti-free market, they should be opposed no matter how 'effective' they are. Just like it wouldn't be okay for government thugs to molest people at airports (TSA) even if they did stop terrorists.
But really, you merely stated that copyrights and patents do have a purpose, but you didn't provide proof of this claim. Again, the burden of proof is on people who propose laws or defend exists laws that were created without using the scientific method to determine their efficacy. So... without resorting to speculation, can you scientifically prove that copyrights and patents are beneficial to society? For me, this is merely a curiosity, and I'd oppose them no matter what (since they violate people's rights), but offering proof is the least people could do. Also, please don't "refer to societies that were vastly different than our own in a number of other ways."

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 14:26 · Score: 1

Why did they keep it under their hat the second time? Because they wanted to spite the public for Mega corp's actions? The way patents are abused now, we'd be better off with none, than with what we have now.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-03-02 14:41 · Score: 1

Patents further the advantages of large companies more than independent entities by their very nature.
I dunno, I make a pretty good living licensing out my patents. I make more from licensing than I do from my regular "day" job (which I do because I love doing it) - enough to live comfortably. And that includes having monster CE/tech licensees including Microsoft...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-03-02 15:17 · Score: 1

They're already reasonably short lived - most industries don't move at the breakneck speed of the IT/tech business so they may seem overlengthy here, but everywhere else they're acceptable. And even in IT, the guy that invented the mouse didn't get a cent because mice didn't become widespread till after his patent expired, so there's another side to the story.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-03-02 16:07 · Score: 2

When you patent something it's your own responsibility to monetize it. Engelbart didn't monetize the mouse patent, but by patenting it he sure claimed credit for it, which is probably more important in the long run. It would certainly be more galling if Apple were allowed to claim they invented it because he hadn't patented it.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by Bogtha · 2014-03-02 21:12 · Score: 1

What value has this man added to a single piece of equipment sold in the last 40 years?

Zero, and that's precisely the problem here. The patent system is designed to encourage inventors to publish implementation details rather than keep them secret. While the patent is active, the holder of the patent can capitalise on their temporary monopoly. Once the patent expires, everybody is free to use that implementation as documented in the patent, thus adding value to the world.
The alternative to patents for most companies is not publishing everything freely, it's keeping them as trade secrets, which never expire. The patent system is an attempt to convert trade secrets into something that is eventually freely published.
This mechanism failed here. What should have been published a long time ago and free for everybody to use a long time ago was locked up and kept secret in the patent application. This invention hasn't benefitted the world because the patent office sat on it. Saying that he hasn't contributed to the industry shouldn't be considered an attack on him, but an attack on the patent office that held up the publishing of this patent.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2014-03-02 22:10 · Score: 1

Brilliant, so let's say the inventor starts his or her own company. MegaCorp sees the idea, likes it, and uses its massive financial and market power to create their own version which is better, faster and shinier. MegaCorp gets a 3% rise in stock prices, the inventor gets nothing.
OK. So let's say a chef starts his or her own restaurant. MegaCorp sees the menu, likes it, and uses its massive financial and market power to create their own version which is better, faster and tastier. MegaCorp gets a 3% rise in stock prices, the chef gets nothing.
Explain the difference to me? Explain why inventors get monopoly protections from competition and other entrepreneurs and workers don't?

The inventor has another brilliant idea, but this time he or she keeps it under their hat and the whole of society suffers as a result
I would liken this to a cook at home with a secret recipe which they don't even serve to guests. The resulting "suffering" of society does not bother me.

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by ratboy666 · 2014-03-03 01:06 · Score: 1

Interesting... you used the word rentier! Wrong.
The point of granting patents was to OPEN the process up. Say we completely eliminate patent protection... Now, inventions will remain secret. Guilds will form and the technology will be held within the Guild (as history has shown us, even to death). Eliminate the Guild? The technology dies. Making the Guild more powerful than the Government.

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-03 02:23 · Score: 1

Or somebody else figures out how to do it, as would be the case with virtually all things patented. If you can keep something a secret, you'd be a moron to get a patent. Talking about patents as the solution to trade secrets is idiotic, and nobody every brings to the table weakening of trade secret law, which would actually do something to solve this concern.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by meustrus · 2014-03-03 05:03 · Score: 1

Patents exist for very specific situations, of which none of the obvious "patent troll" patents fulfill.
Firstly they exist for technologies which could be made secret, but would benefit society more if they were made open. That's why patents are supposed to expire after several years; so the inventor can make some good money, but then it's opened up to everyone else to build upon. The classic example is the cotton gin; without it the cotton is worthless until a lot of labor has gone into hand-picking through it. Even early 19th century slave labor cost more (in food and..."management" costs) than purchasing and using such a machine. But if the inventor didn't get a monopoly on selling the devices, there would be cheap knock-offs almost immediately. Therefore the most profitable option is to form a guild of cotton gin operators to keep the device a secret and charge a premium for its use.
Note that this does not apply to something like a cell phone; even if you formed a guild of cell phone operators, it would be far too expensive to have them around and they wouldn't sell enough to be profitable. It would, however, apply to something like a printer, and without patents then future advancements in printing technology could conceivably be sold only to printing shops (Kinko's et al) with exclusive and confidential contracts. One can imagine a world where, without patents, the Xerox machine never made it into the office. Where would we be if paper copies were still possible, but three times as expensive? In this case, maybe it's a better world...but think of the poor paper companies!
Secondly patents exist for technologies which would be nearly impossible to keep secret, but which cost huge amounts to develop in the first place. The poster child for this is pharmaceuticals. There is no free market profit incentive for developing new medications if Wal-Mart could produce generics on day one. None of the R&D costs would ever be recovered and we wouldn't get hardly any new drugs. Most of the R&D cost is sunk into FDA testing, however, and this particular case could probably be handled by the FDA granting pharmaceutical patents directly.
But what about, say, CPU technology? With the right equipment I could buy a top-of-the-line Intel processor, dissolve away the non-operative parts, and examine the silicon wafer directly. Then I could make copies and sell them. Do you think it really costs $600 to produce the top mobile i7 CPU? Certainly not; much of that cost is going towards their R&D which produces new designs every couple of years. Sure, the concept of a multi-core processor, or the concept of turbo boost, or any other concept in those units shouldn't be patentable. But the exact way they made it work? What if Apple, or Dell, or Lenovo, or whoever else took those designs, manufactured their own copies (possibly with a cheap third party chip manufacturer like TSMC) and cut out Intel entirely? Well, the argument is that Intel would never have been able to design those chips in the first place.
And what if there were no patent or copyright protections at all? Perhaps instead of selling the physical CPU to consumers, they would sell processing minutes instead. Would the PC revolution have took off without patent protection? Or would all of the advances in microprocessors have stayed in the mainframe? I'd like to think we'd still have PCs, and maybe the market would have been forced to respect our computing freedoms, but hope might not make it so.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-03 05:29 · Score: 1

Firstly they exist for technologies which could be made secret, but would benefit society more if they were made open.
But no informed, self-interested inventor is going to volunteer such information if the benefit for themselves is better as a trade secret. That's the point I'm making. Patents do nothing to interfere with trade secrets. There is the possibility of 'guilds' arising and keeping everything black box, but that does nothing to prevent independent engineering or reverse engineering. If you are afraid of trade secrets, then push to reduce the protections of trade secret law, and limit the terms of NDAs.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by ratboy666 · 2014-03-03 05:57 · Score: 1

Protection of law.... is what patents offer.
A completely laissez-faire system has no protection under law.
Trade secrets aren't that useful -- once out, there is no longer any protection under law. Only the protection of a Guild would work.
A Trade Secret or NDA under current law is a "one-time only" thing. Once the cat is out of the bag, there is not stuffing it back in. A Guild offers the ability to stuff that cat back in. Sure, it may take "mafia-style" tactics, but if the Guild is placed correctly, it WILL be allowed to get away with it.

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by meustrus · 2014-03-04 15:02 · Score: 1

Many inventions are actually much more profitable when the device can be sold, legally protected from reverse engineering, than if the details of how it works had to be protected as trade secrets. Can you imagine a world where cars were only sold to people willing to protect their secrecy? Not only would cars have not developed and improved as quickly as they did, but manufacturers would sell several orders of magnitude fewer cars. Instead of every person in a town of a million owning a car, you'd have maybe an elite group of chauffeurs serving the top .5% of that population, or about 500 people. It's ultimately more profitable for the device to be patent protected and sold than to be protected solely as a trade secret.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-04 15:22 · Score: 1

You are assuming that nobody will just try and stay ahead of the game and actually take risks. In such a market, if it could even occur, somebody would study the cars as they pass by, hypothesize, test, and beat their monopolistic pricing. You are making the faulty assumption that progress happens by miraculous breakthroughs when the reality is that it's almost always a series of incremental improvements of different parties building on each other.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by meustrus · 2014-03-06 04:42 · Score: 1

And how do those different parties build on each other? By having access to the device. If I came and showed you a working flying saucer, and said, "You too can travel by this exclusive method," how would you be able to duplicate it? All that you now know is that it is possible. Even assuming that every major technology involved is out in the open (which, again, would be theoretically in jeopardy in an unpatentable world), as they say, the devil is in the details. I've probably worked for years on picking components, integrating, miniaturizing, debugging, and iterating over this process until I had something that was commercially viable. In the worst case, it would take somebody else equally as inventive equally as long to bring a competing product to market, and even then that person (who may not exist for some time) may simply set up a competing service instead of selling it directly. And it's not worth thinking about the best case because human beings, especially very inventive ones, tend to be easily taken in by our ideas about how long we can keep a secret. Why would we even have all this patent troll/perpetual copyright bullshit if people didn't think they were entitled to exclusivity for the rest of their lives?

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:Parasitic Rentiers by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-06 05:55 · Score: 1

People are only secretive about advancements to the extent that the value of keeping it a secret is greater than the cost of keeping it a secret. It's also worth remembering that the people who might draw upon your advancement aren't even necessarily competitors. Most advancements aren't worth trying to actively protect, and many advancements are impractical to try and protect while making money.

As for inventive human beings, I would say it's quite the contrary more often, because they are driven by the puzzle, not the prize. External incentives are actually pretty bad at fostering innovative thought. They provide tunnel vision, which is great for getting someone to rotate a lug over and over all day, but bad for getting someone to engage in anything requiring lateral thinking.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

But at least a few of those years... by RandomUsername99 · 2014-03-02 11:02 · Score: 2

was waiting in line at the damn post office to mail the application in.

Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent troll. by rmdingler · 2014-03-02 11:13 · Score: 1

FTR, FTA, he won a $388 million lawsuit against the State of California for harassment and invasion of privacy, which is now being reviewed in the SCOTSO Nevada.

We could, and often do, argue all night whether the patent system should cease to exist in it's current form.

For the purposes of this argument, we are forced to stipulate that it presently exists. This is about a government patent office holding a grudge against an inventor for friggin' decades.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Re:Jerk by shentino · 2014-03-02 11:14 · Score: 1

So basically they're keeping it in limbo on purpose.

topic != claims by raymorris · 2014-03-02 11:24 · Score: 2

Just because that's the topic the patent is related to doesn't mean he's trying to patent the entire topic.

Poor journalism by radarskiy · 2014-03-02 11:40 · Score: 1

The Chicago Tribune writes an article involving a patent application but does not include the number of the patent application.

Re:Poor journalism by CaptBubba · 2014-03-02 12:06 · Score: 2

It wouldn't do you any good anyway. It is under the old laws where everything is confidential until/unless a patent actually issues on the application.
The new laws were actually put in place because of this guy's actions and the 1990 microprocessor patent (and Lemelson's claims covering all of machine vision of course).

This article reads like by Ice+Station+Zebra · 2014-03-02 11:44 · Score: 1

he might a writer told them his story and the writer agreed to write about it, hoping to make some quick cash. This guy is obviously an ass, based on the story, and since his claims are unverifiable probably not very honest either.

This guy invented the microprocessor by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 12:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, he didn't.

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by ChunderDownunder · 2014-03-02 12:16 · Score: 1

"SCOTSO", is that some Scottish demonym?

Quit making up cutesy acronyms that not even a google search reveals.

First patent troll by wiredlogic · 2014-03-02 12:17 · Score: 2

From browsing the list of his patents it looks like most of them are written with overly generalized broad claims which don't actually describe anything that wasn't obvious at the time. This gem filed in 1972 describes a "Machine control system operating from remote commands". Whoopty do. Remotely operable computers existed before the filing date. Why the USPTO awarded him so many patents on obvious things is beyond comprehension.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Re:Jerk by ATMAvatar · 2014-03-02 12:25 · Score: 1

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. If ever there was a case for incompetence, it is with the patent office.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by reve_etrange · 2014-03-02 12:26 · Score: 1

Why should we all accept lower growth so that this man, who is already extremely wealthy, can be made even wealthier? What sort of justice is that?

--
.: Semper Absurda :.

Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by Rockoon · 2014-03-02 12:50 · Score: 1

Are you suggesting that what the USPTO is doing would be unacceptable if he was poor, but it acceptable because he is rich?

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by kumanopuusan · 2014-03-02 13:40 · Score: 1

Let's not pretend that the USPTO is doing anything acceptable or would be doing anything acceptable in any hypothetical universe.

--
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-03-02 14:46 · Score: 2

Actually, delaying the approval or denial of his patent is the injustice here. Justice should relate to the proper execution of the law, not about whether or not someone thinks it's good or bad for society. We are a nation of laws, and that is the foundation of justice - a consistent set of rules by which we live.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by reve_etrange · 2014-03-02 18:34 · Score: 1

The laws themselves exist for basically utilitarian reasons, though.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by reve_etrange · 2014-03-02 18:36 · Score: 1

Does a dollar have the same value to a rich person as to a poor?

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by reve_etrange · 2014-03-02 18:37 · Score: 1

In general, yes, but as in this particular case the USPTO refusing to grant overly broad patents is acceptable to me. They should just flat out reject the patents at this point, though.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by thaylin · 2014-03-03 02:58 · Score: 1

Depends. It will buy the same amount, but the rich man will not value it as much, so some clarification is in order.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-03-03 04:37 · Score: 1

Yes they do. And justice demands those laws are exercised evenly and uniformly for everyone. Including ones that relate to how the Government is to interact with you.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by meustrus · 2014-03-03 05:11 · Score: 1

They'd certainly like to reject the patents, but this guy's got a history of having good lawyers. If they reject it, they will be sued. And they don't want to pay him $388 million like the state of California has to for trying to collect taxes on his outrageous earnings.

--
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by litehacksaur111 · 2014-03-03 06:32 · Score: 1

Mod parent up, He has hit the nail on the head. This man has perfected the art of litigation.
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by reve_etrange · 2014-03-03 08:30 · Score: 1

It's a simple fact that the law is not exercised evenly and uniformly, and indeed, that this non-uniformity is itself enshrined in the law (discretion).
This man is not an inventor, but a litigator, and the patent office has used its discretion not to issue or reject that patent for that reason. They can't approve his patents, but if they reject them he will sue, and might win regardless of patent validity. Instead, they can legally withhold a decision and keep the whole process secret, so that's what they're doing.
Conclusion: nothing in this case deals with a failing to apply the law uniformly as it is written. Nevertheless, I would be a lot more sympathetic to this guy if he was poor. His late, overbroad patents have already made him exceedingly wealthy - so I'm less sympathetic. AFAIK, my sympathy is not and has never been a basis for US law.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Why should we accept lower growth for this man? by reve_etrange · 2014-03-03 08:31 · Score: 1

The point I was trying to make is that extending or refusing sympathy to someone because of their circumstances is not the same thing as creating different laws for them.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by Ecuador · 2014-03-02 12:54 · Score: 1

In case you are not joking, he means "Supreme Court Of The State Of". Americans love their acronyms for whatever reason even if it makes communication much harder. This specific example was modeled after the common acronym SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States), so people who know that could understand (screw the rest). In fact, SCOTUS is one of the more "appropriate" acronyms, as it actually means "Darkness" in Greek, which is where the current SCOTUS is taking us...

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by ChunderDownunder · 2014-03-02 13:01 · Score: 1

scotus, potus - again sounds like hocus pocus to me.

But, whatever...

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by shentino · 2014-03-02 13:06 · Score: 1

Which is interesting in light of the 11th amendment

Alternative title: "Submarine patent issued" by arglebargle_xiv · 2014-03-02 13:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

This sounds a lot like a submarine patent. The idea is that you file a patent on some generic idea, not necessarily realisable, and then continue it for years, sometimes decades, until the state of the art has advanced to the point where it can be realised. At that point your submarine patent emerges and you've now patented a field that others have spent years developing for you. The notorious Jerome Lemelson made a billion-dollar business out of this.

Re:Alternative title: "Submarine patent issued" by shentino · 2014-03-03 03:44 · Score: 1

It's only a submarine patent because the PTO stalled.

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by ChunderDownunder · 2014-03-02 13:06 · Score: 2

Nevada's Supreme Court would have sufficed then. I guess some people like typing in all caps...

Monopoly by Tenebrousedge · 2014-03-02 13:07 · Score: 1

You assume that patents do anything to prevent MegaCorp from competing. You also assume that it is Joe Inventor filing most of the patents, and not said MegaCorp. In practice, neither of these things are true, and the primary beneficiaries of patent litigation are lawyers.

Patents are the right to squash competition. Competition in the ideal sense is a very efficient way to allocate resources. If one company is first to market, and a competitor makes a product which is "better, faster, and shinier," what exactly is wrong with letting the market decide who gets rewarded?

Your argument hinges on the role of patents in encouraging people to bring products to market, which is actually an orthogonal process. Patents are intended to promote the disclosure of ideas. All well and good, but maybe an automatic monopoly isn't necesarily the best way to accomplish either of those things.

There are two really big problems with patents. The first is that almost all knowledge is derivative of other knowledge. Certain persons with an excess of self-interest will argue that such a thing as originality exists in some distinguishable form. I submit that even for the invention of fire there was prior art, and every invention since then was either an incremental adaptation or based on some other preexisting knowledge. Keep in mind that the ones who add to our knowledge of the world are called scientists, not inventors.

The second problem is embodied in the phrase "intellectual property." Jefferson noted that there is nothing less suited to ownership than an idea. I could not possibly improve on his argument.

Patents are a granted right, not a natural one. You are as free to pursue financial gain by sweat of the brow or toil of the mind with or without their existence. I'm not, frankly, interested in pursuing a discussion of whether there is some better way to encourage inventors, but the discussion is not advanced by conjuring a trivial and misleading hypothetical situation, ignoring actual practice, and presupposing the necessity of some legal instrument unknown through most of human history.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

Re:Monopoly by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-03-02 13:28 · Score: 1

You assume that patents do anything to prevent MegaCorp from competing.
That is in fact exactly what they do.

You also assume that it is Joe Inventor filing most of the patents, and not said MegaCorp.
No, that would be you putting words in my mouth.
Since you started off with a patently (ho!) false assertion and a strawman, the rest of your argument - which also happens to be based on these two items - can safely be discarded.
Re:Monopoly by thaylin · 2014-03-02 15:03 · Score: 1

No, they dont, unless the patent is overly broad. If it is narrow, as it should be, MegaCorp could come up with a work around and continue to compete.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Monopoly by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-03-02 15:22 · Score: 1

There are posters in this very thread who say they make a good living from Megacorps who've licensed their patents. Is there some reason they haven't been "crushed"?
Re:Monopoly by Tenebrousedge · 2014-03-03 06:29 · Score: 2

One of my arguments was Jefferson's, so you are bizarrely dishonest in claiming that it was based on any fallacy of mine. You are also incorrect in identifying said fallacies.
If patents prevent competition, as you assert, then why is it that Apple is not the first smartphone inventor, nor Microsoft the first OS inventor, nor Dell the PC inventor? I would be harder pressed to find markets that were dominated by a single entity by virtue of patents; perhaps you can suggest some. In the strict sense though I am afraid the case is unassailable, since unless a potentially-infringing party is competing there is no case to be made for infringement. One may force an entity to cease infringing, but you can't prevent it. Even getting an injunction during a lawsuit can be tricky, as evidenced by the Apple/Samsung litigations. I am not the world's most ardent capitalist by any means, but a for-profit, government-granted monopoly is a hard thing to justify in any circumstances.
I admit you didn't say explicitly what I ascribed to you. Your example however utilized in the positive sense an inventor and as adversary a MegaCorp, which is a strong case for patents but not the common one. The example you chose was one where patents were a good thing for the "little guy". Far more often, patents are held by "big guys", who need much less help in dealing with their competition. Even if it were not the usual case for patents to be used abusively, there's no use pretending they are not a two-edged sword. Disputing one with any entity having a $100M patent portfolio would be risky no matter how righteous your cause.
If you have the time, you might attempt a real response, but I suspect that you will have to succumb to a more nuanced view on patents; Jefferson makes a compelling case, the more so because he served as the first Patent Commissioner. I will also suggest that you might not need to ask why people require explanations of these things, if you actually read the counterarguments.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by viperidaenz · 2014-03-02 13:12 · Score: 1

Doesn't change the fact he owed taxes and wasn't paying them.
Never said he was a troll, just a dick.
Perhaps if he was nice to people he'd be a billionaire by now.

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by RandomFactor · 2014-03-02 13:45 · Score: 1

scotus, potus - again sounds like hocus pocus to me.

But, whatever...

All right, some budding musical genius make that into a song.

--
--- Mercutio was right.

Leave it to slashdotters to not actually READ THE by bloggerhater · 2014-03-02 13:55 · Score: 1

This guy is nothing but one of the oldest living patent trolls. Because of the age of these patent applications no one will EVER get to see any information pertaining to them. All this is is a media grab. Time to move along slashdot.

Re:Companies by craigminah · 2014-03-02 14:12 · Score: 1

Why would they since he doesn't have a patent...can't be retroactive.

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by Jeremy+Erwin · 2014-03-02 14:14 · Score: 1

Supreme court of the state of oregonahomaho? Why didn't you say so?

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by Hadlock · 2014-03-02 14:38 · Score: 1

SCOTUS is bog-standard, IANAL but AFAIK you should be able to figure out SCOTSO Nevada. If he had said SCOTSN you might have had a point. IMHO.

--
moox. for a new generation.

Re: Companies by thaylin · 2014-03-02 14:40 · Score: 1

When has google sued someone over their patents? I mean that is like the largest requirement to be a patent troll.....

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

"Square wave machine control" by fyngyrz · 2014-03-02 14:59 · Score: 2

...sounds suspiciously like what (Baudot) teletypes had been doing for decades around 1970, the approximate date TFS indicates.

Seems broad, all right... and obvious, and like there would be prior art.

But since it's secret... who knows.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Re:"Square wave machine control" by Dcnjoe60 · 2014-03-03 02:27 · Score: 1

...sounds suspiciously like what (Baudot) teletypes had been doing for decades around 1970, the approximate date TFS indicates.
Seems broad, all right... and obvious, and like there would be prior art.
But since it's secret... who knows.
If it is/was too broad or there was prior art, why didn't the patent office just deny it? The explanation could be that they thought it was a valid patent, but didn't want to approve it because of the impact such a patent might have.
Re:"Square wave machine control" by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-03 03:24 · Score: 1

Given his history, it might be that they want to avoid the wasted time with the appeals that he would file, so they pass the buck to the next head of the patent office so that asshole isn't their problem. Seemed like it worked for quite a while.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:"Square wave machine control" by Shagg · 2014-03-03 03:27 · Score: 2

Seems broad, all right... and obvious, and like there would be prior art.
Actually, it's a patent for "Square wave with rounded corners machine control", so it's OK.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.

Oddly no application number is cited by Patent+Lover · 2014-03-02 16:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

If this guy's really been at it for 43 years without ever appealing a patent office rejection, he doesn't really want a patent. He's another Lemelson looking for somebody to sue.

Slanted beyond all comprehension by craighansen · 2014-03-02 16:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Article seems to be talking about patent application 05/302771, and the status of the case is miles away from the way it's described in the article. This patent has been through several levels of non-final and final rejections, appeals, and court actions. Through the USPTO's public PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval) system, you can access hundreds of pages of information and history on the case, including what are now several hundred pending claims. Even if the application itself hasn't been published, the file history is ripe with lots of information. You can see the patent examiners' rejections and there's a 494-page appeal brief filed on behalf of the Applicant, from which you can see many of the pending claims. The patent office rejections appear mainly under section 112 on the basis that the claims aren't adequately supported by the patent disclosure. It's not as if he just applied for the patent and waited 43 years - he's been trying hard not to take NO for the answer.

In addition, there appear to be about 150 additional patent cases filed as continuations on dates between 1977 and 1995 - some still pending and some abandoned. Most of them aren't accessible under the public PAIR system because of the pre-1995 filing dates. Presumably there's no continuations filed after 1995 because under the post-1995 rules, the application would expire 20 years from the earliest filing date, so they'd expire before granting. If many of these continuations have hundreds of claims like the parent case, there could be tens of thousands of claims that he's trying to get granted.

Re:Slanted beyond all comprehension by SlaveToTheGrind · 2014-03-03 08:10 · Score: 1

It's not as if he just applied for the patent and waited 43 years - he's been trying hard not to take NO for the answer.
Well, if this indeed the right application (and I have to wonder if it is given the fact that TFA claims the PTO wouldn't comment because the application hadn't been published), the PTO examiner did take about 17 years to respond to Hyatt's first appeal brief (1978-1995).
Then, after the examiner was reversed in the appeal, he took another 6 years to issue the next rejection (1996-2002).
THEN, after a few years of more typical back-and-forth prosecution, Hyatt filed another appeal brief in 2008. That's still pending, and for a while the PTO periodically mailed a letter essentially saying, "there's a relevant court case about to be decided, so we're suspending prosecution for 6 months." There's been no activity in the file since mid-2011, and given Hyatt's 2008 appeal brief, the ball is in the PTO's court.
Not necessarily saying Hyatt isn't trying for the mother of all troll patents, but at the same time I've never seen anything quite like the above on the PTO's part.

Re:Companies by invictusvoyd · 2014-03-02 18:01 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Every company that uses any kind of automation would have to pay him.

And every one having an AC power socket at home would have to pay Tesla
Every one using a electric motor would have to pay Faraday

And then companies end up patenting scrollbars and "square shapes" .

________________________________________________
Satan : vanity my favorite sin .. patents my second favorite

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-03-02 19:05 · Score: 1

Clear to you does not mean clear to me.

(And I am a US native, and a writer by trade.)

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

...and yet by CTU · 2014-03-02 20:27 · Score: 1

Software pattens that are utter crap go through like water through a hula hoop.

Hyatt invented the integrated circuit? by DTentilhao · 2014-03-02 20:48 · Score: 1

"Even Hyatt said he's not sure whether he would replicate the shock of getting a patent in 1990 on a "single chip integrated circuit computer architecture" a ruling that effectively gave him a financial claim to most microprocessors, the digital backbone of every personal computer in the world

Did he actually devise methods to overcome the technical obstacles before an actual chip could be fabricated. I'm thinking laminar flow etc. If not then he's just another patent troll. ps.The US patent system is fucked, you do know that already ?

Re:Hyatt invented the integrated circuit? by Megol · 2014-03-03 02:16 · Score: 1

He didn't. The people that did work in the IC/processor area never heard of him before he was granted that patent (sorry no link - read about it in IIRC Byte magazine).
He didn't contribute anything to processors and nothing to the technical basis of IC manufacturing - which was why the patent was declared invalid later.
The only thing the above had going for it (given that it described something that wouldn't work) is the idea that one could incorporate a processor in a chip given enough transistors - which of course is obvious to any in the field.
Re:Hyatt invented the integrated circuit? by RichMan · 2014-03-03 02:23 · Score: 1

"Integrated Circuit" the ability to combine circuits into an IC is right in the name. So the bleeding obvious part of the integration should be visible to even the patent office. There would need to be some additional innovation to qualify for a patent.

Proof of obviousness by sjbe · 2014-03-03 00:55 · Score: 2

I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.

Really? Newton and Leibniz independently developed calculus. Are you seriously going to claim that was proof of obviousness? Two of the finest minds humanity has ever had, came to the same ideas roughly concurrently but that does not remotely imply that it was obvious to anyone with "ordinary skill in the art". You have to examine what the state of skill in the art is before you can come to any conclusions about what is obvious to most.

Re:Proof of obviousness by IRWolfie- · 2014-03-03 02:56 · Score: 2

Calculus isn't an invention, it's a discovery. It's not patentable. Calling them the "finest minds" seems a bit of hyperbole, they made great discoveries, but you don't need the finest minds to do what they did (Newton looks rather all too human and of his age, particularly with regards to his Biblical literalism and alchemy). It seems likely that equally great minds concurrent with Newton and Leibniz would have made the discoveries. They weren't in isolation and the progress in maths makes certain discoveries more likely at certain periods when the necessary pieces are in place.
Re:Proof of obviousness by aichpvee · 2014-03-03 03:45 · Score: 1

wont: one's customary behavior in a particular situation.
want: have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for.

--
The Farewell Tour II
Re:Proof of obviousness by anegg · 2014-03-03 03:57 · Score: 1

If an award of some value is to be made to those who substantially advance the start of the art, we need some way to separate those advances which were immediately "inevitable" based on the state of the art as known to practioners, and those in which the state of the art was advanced more than merely incrementally whether through concentrated hard work or through inspired genius.
Part of the challenge of determining which advances were leaps forward and which were merely steps is the "obviousness" problem that makes it so difficult to judge "after the fact." I suspect that once more than a few years have passed, it becomes more and more difficult to determine whether an idea was novel enough for a patent. Perhaps the law needs to be adjusted so that if too much time passes before a patent is granted, the patent can't be granted.
Re:Proof of obviousness by Khashishi · 2014-03-03 04:42 · Score: 2

What's the difference between an invention and a discovery? Is the distinction precise enough for practical cases?
Re:Proof of obviousness by Wootery · 2014-03-03 05:50 · Score: 2

Are you trolling, or have you somehow missed the point entirely?
The Newton/Leibniz example shows that independent invention does not necessarily imply obviousness. That calculus has never been patented is entirely irrelevant.
Starting to get it at last?
Re:Proof of obviousness by icebike · 2014-03-03 06:44 · Score: 1

What's the difference between an invention and a discovery? Is the distinction precise enough for practical cases?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Not much, it would seem.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

An average engineer can be innovative by sjbe · 2014-03-03 01:03 · Score: 1

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.

You are basically implying that an engineer of average skill is unable to develop anything innovative. I fundamentally disagree with your premise. Length of time it takes to solve a problem has little to do with the level of innovation involved. Some problems take longer to solve than others but it does not automatically follow that those are more difficult problems. Many extremely valuable insights do not require years of effort to develop into something useful. Conversely, many insights that do require years of effort ultimately aren't all that valuable. Time is a poor proxy for difficulty.

Re:An average engineer can be innovative by david672orford · 2014-03-03 03:50 · Score: 1

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.
You are basically implying that an engineer of average skill is unable to develop anything innovative. I fundamentally disagree with your premise. Length of time it takes to solve a problem has little to do with the level of innovation involved. Some problems take longer to solve than others but it does not automatically follow that those are more difficult problems. Many extremely valuable insights do not require years of effort to develop into something useful. Conversely, many insights that do require years of effort ultimately aren't all that valuable. Time is a poor proxy for difficulty.
Some inventions come about because the inventor had an insight which his contemporaries did not. Others come about because someone financed a long course of trial and error. But you shouldn't be able to get a patent just because you paid an engineer to implement an idea which half of his peers could have described to you during a preliminary consultation.
Re:An average engineer can be innovative by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-03 04:00 · Score: 1

You are basically implying that an engineer of average skill is unable to develop anything innovative.
The ordinary undertaking of ordinary engineers do not need external incentives. They would make those innovations without the patent incentive.

Length of time it takes to solve a problem has little to do with the level of innovation involved
While the actual level of time spent is not indicative of the level of obviousness, the expected time for completion is. If any engineer in the fields could come up with the same solution in 6 hours, then it's obvious.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

The purpose of patents by sjbe · 2014-03-03 01:22 · Score: 1

Patents are intended to promote the disclosure of ideas. All well and good, but maybe an automatic monopoly isn't necesarily the best way to accomplish either of those things.

The primary purpose of patents is to combat the free rider problem. Disclosure of the ideas is arguably a second order effect here. It's valuable in the long run to let people build off the work of others and to do this you need to disclose how things work and prevent people from reinventing the wheel so to speak. We give a temporary monopoly in exchange for them disclosing the idea but that is the mechanics of the solution, not the problem they are actually trying to solve. I don't have a problem with your argument that disclosure/monopoly is the best way to solve the problem. It might not be the best way, but on the other hand I haven't heard any alternatives that are better aside from some badly needed refinements to the current system.

Keep in mind that the ones who add to our knowledge of the world are called scientists, not inventors.

Scientists figure out the laws by which the world operates but they do not figure out how to actually apply that knowledge to real world problems. Understanding F=MA is useless by itself. Engineers unquestionably add to our knowledge of the world. Science and engineering are linked at the hip and you cannot have one without the other. Scientists are NOT the only ones who add to our knowledge of the world.

Re:Dick? Maybe, but not your classical patent trol by rmdingler · 2014-03-03 01:41 · Score: 1

Indeed.

Perhaps there's a barrister out there who's bored at work?

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Free rider problem by sjbe · 2014-03-03 01:45 · Score: 1

OK. So let's say a chef starts his or her own restaurant. MegaCorp sees the menu, likes it, and uses its massive financial and market power to create their own version which is better, faster and tastier. MegaCorp gets a 3% rise in stock prices, the chef gets nothing. Explain the difference to me?

What you are describing is a trade secret which is protected to a degree but if the secret is discovered then it is free for anyone to use. That is a tactical choice by the chef. If it was truly innovative in some way then the chef could seek a patent and there would be nothing wrong with that. There are patents on food products out there. If the chef did not elect to do that or if his innovation was something like "add more salt" then perhaps it wasn't really so innovative after all. The purpose of patents is not to prohibit competition. The purpose of patents is to combat the free rider problem.

Explain why inventors get monopoly protections from competition and other entrepreneurs and workers don't?

The free rider problem demonstrably does not prohibit people from starting businesses or continuing ones that already exist. My company makes wire harnesses and there are plenty of companies out there that do that too. If we invent some clever machine that gives us an advantage, then we might consider applying for a patent. The free rider problem demonstrably damages the ability and incentive to create new and innovative ideas when they can be freely copied by others who did not have to pay for their development.

I would liken this to a cook at home with a secret recipe which they don't even serve to guests. The resulting "suffering" of society does not bother me.

It should bother you. Neither science nor engineering can work effectively without disclosure and sharing of ideas. But economics plays an important role and there are lots of important things that would never be developed if there was nothing in place to combat the free rider problem. The patent system is imperfect and needs reform badly but fundamentally the idea of it is sound and it combats a serious barrier to human development in spite of its flaws.

Re:Free rider problem by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-03 02:20 · Score: 1

The free rider problem demonstrably does not prohibit people from starting businesses or continuing ones that already exist.
Actually, it can. Say I open up a pizzeria in a country where pizza is not popular. I spend a lot of time and money advertising and selling pizza to these people and start to build a successful business. Once it becomes popular there, Pizza Hut builds several franchises there.to capitalize on the newfound market. That's the free rider problem, and it applies to a business absent technological innovation.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:He's waited 43 years by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-03-03 01:48 · Score: 1

The languages are almost all identical as block-structured languages. The nerd in me cannot grant rhetorical license on that one.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re: Companies by Dishevel · 2014-03-03 03:09 · Score: 1

No the biggest requirement is "I don't like them so Blahhhhhhhh!".

In the ACs defense many people will look at his argument and agree with it. People are, as a group and for the most part, Stupid.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?

Re:Hedy Lamarr's pattent was back during WW2 by rco3 · 2014-03-03 03:53 · Score: 1

That's Hedley.

--

Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!

All inventions are discoveries. Not vice-versa. by sjbe · 2014-03-03 04:15 · Score: 1

Calculus isn't an invention, it's a discovery.

Every invention is a discovery. However not every discovery is an invention. If you invent something you are discovering a configuration of the world around us. You are rearranging atoms into some useful form but the possibility for that form existed before you invented it. An invention is merely a pragmatically useful subset of discovery. Invention has as much to do with economics as it does physics.

Calling them the "finest minds" seems a bit of hyperbole, they made great discoveries, but you don't need the finest minds to do what they did

And yet no one else did do what they did before them. Why is that? Why did no one figure out relativity before Einstein? Just because you understand it now does not mean that it is obvious then. You're looking at things retrospectively. Sure, it is reasonable to suppose that sooner or later someone else would have come up with the same theories but the fact remains that Newton and Leibniz did it first. You and I didn't come up with it independently despite knowledge of calculus now being commonplace. We had to be taught calculus by someone else who had already been taught calculus. Looking at things retrospectively makes them seem more obvious than they really are.

Oh, and if you think Newton wasn't one of the smartest men in history, you really need to look more closely at what he did. It's no exaggeration to say he greatly advanced human knowledge and laid key parts of the foundation upon which all modern science and engineering rests. The fact that he pursued some dead ends doesn't devalue the things he was right about. If you can find me anyone who wasn't wrong about some things I'll go dive headfirst into the nearest snowbank.

Restrospective viewpoints by sjbe · 2014-03-03 04:33 · Score: 1

The ordinary undertaking of ordinary engineers do not need external incentives. They would make those innovations without the patent incentive.

Baloney. You've fallen into the fallacy (common here on slashdot) that engineers would do their work without any external incentives which is demonstrably nonsense in most cases. They need salaries at a minimum which obviously is an external incentive. Certainly there would be some level of advancement but it would be slower because of the economic problems. Engineering is inseparable from economics and if you believe otherwise you are deluded. You also have danced around the question of how you would solve the free rider problem which is very real and there is a huge body of research regarding its effects on economies. If you have an idea that is better than patents (and copyright for written works) to solve this problem then I'm all ears but any claim that we would be in the same place without some tool to combat the free rider problem is absurd.

If any engineer in the fields could come up with the same solution in 6 hours, then it's obvious.

That is nonsense because you are applying a retrospective view of the problem. If it was so easy to accomplish and so obvious then why wasn't it done previously? The value of an insight has NOTHING to do with how long it takes to complete. The value of an insight has to do with the socio-economic value that can be gained from the invention. In fact many of the greatest insights are the ones where we immediately think "of course it works like that" even though no one did previously.

Re:Restrospective viewpoints by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-03 05:00 · Score: 1

By external incentive, I meant one outside of the free market system. Their salary is their incentive for doing their job, and if they never innovated, they would not be employed.

Giles Sutherland Rich, the judge responsible for a lot of the patent mess we had now, a man who practically saw patent worthy subject matter in his breakfast cereal, acknowledged that the expected ordinary progress of workers without incentives should never be patented. You acknowledge that the progress would happen, you just won't admit that the progress that happens without patents is so substantial. The reality is that most innovations are not patented because they are incremental changes that aren't worth filling out the paperwork for, let alone the various fees.

Regarding the free rider problem, I would recommend Mark Lemly's paper on the matter, where he points out that patents act very differently from physical property, where the free rider problem has been widely studied.

That is nonsense because you are applying a retrospective view of the problem. If it was so easy to accomplish and so obvious then why wasn't it done previously?
There are several possible reasons. The problem or the solution may not have been available before or may have been impractical. For example, the Raspberry Pi has enabled people do a lot of really cool things. The Raspberry Pi doesn't have superior functionality to computers that previously existed, but it is a lot cheaper. Someone could use a general purpose computer for practically every application it is seeing now, but a lot of them would be ridiculous since you are dropping hundreds of dollars.

Remember, even with something obvious, somebody is going to be the first to do so.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Restrospective viewpoints by queazocotal · 2014-03-03 05:03 · Score: 1

"That is nonsense because you are applying a retrospective view of the problem. If it was so easy to accomplish and so obvious then why wasn't it done previously? "
This is often for a very simple reason.
You were the first one to come across the problem, and choose to patent the solution.
If I invent (for example) a form of paint that changes colour when electricity is applied to it, then yes, this may be novel.
However, subsequent patents 'using colour changing paint on a mobile phone' 'using colour changing paint on a car' ... are not.
They are obvious results of seeing something on the market, or being developed - and using it in obvious ways.
The lego example was in many ways unfortunately pretty much what many patents are.
They start out with a problem, and work towards a solution by plugging together bits in obvious ways, without any real novel insight. Then check to see if it's already patented - if not - patent.
If there are new bits available - especially if those bits have not been published - then yes - you can come up easily with patentable ideas.
This does not mean those ideas would not have been completely obvious to a skilled engineer with knowledge of what the new bits were.

He doesn't deserve slack by geekoid · 2014-03-03 04:34 · Score: 1

Look closer.

Microprocessor? that was in 1989. It was thrown out and he kept taking them to court, meanwhile he claims 'patent pending' and extorted royalties out of companies. Which he keeps even after the courts agreed with the patent office.

I mean, a patent for the microprocessor in 1989? come on.

He also patent the 'Kernel' ... in 1996

And he owes the taxes, and it's still in court, and he will probably loose.

This guy uses courts like a club.

He tries to patent things that are just ideas, and then sues everyone when denied.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

New products versus new markets by sjbe · 2014-03-03 05:05 · Score: 1

Say I open up a pizzeria in a country where pizza is not popular. I spend a lot of time and money advertising and selling pizza to these people and start to build a successful business. Once it becomes popular there, Pizza Hut builds several franchises there.to capitalize on the newfound market. That's the free rider problem, and it applies to a business absent technological innovation.

You are correct that that is a version of the free rider problem but you are ignoring the key difference. Extending a market for a product that already exists is not the same thing as inventing a completely new product. The mere fact that a second business comes along to capitalize on the market extending actions of the first does not damage the economy as a whole. Some new people get to enjoy pizza but pizza already existed prior to them enjoying the product. If the new pizza company could not protect their new market then it probably wasn't a good idea to develop the market but society isn't worse off.

Here is a better example. Developing a new drug to combat a disease costs many millions of dollars. At the end of the day you have a chemical formula. If you develop that drug your costs are Cost of Development + Cost of Manufacturing + Cost of Distribution. Anyone who copies that drug only has the Cost of Manufacturing + Cost of Distribution. The copier has an immediate and unbeatable cost advantage. That being the case, why would you ever invest the money to develop the drug, knowing that you will get economically crushed in the market place by others undercutting your price? In this case the world never gets the benefit of that new drug because it would be unlikely to be developed. Furthermore because the drug doesn't get developed then no one else can build off of their work to make even better drugs. Substitute drugs for any other innovative and new product that requires a substantial investment to bring to market and the argument is the same. Batteries, semiconductors, driveshafts, automobiles, etc.

I know someone will bring up open source software so let me nip that here. Software is a unique case because it is an intangible product with close to zero marginal cost of manufacturing and, with the internet, distribution as well. Furthermore, its possible to build economically viable businesses without selling the software because software is merely instructions for a machine and it is covered by copyright. Important to be sure but you can build software with the intent to bring in revenue elsewhere. That's not generally possible with tangible products like cars or semiconductors - the sort that you generally get a patent for. With tangible products you need to recover the revenue more or less directly and the cost of manufacturing and distribution are far more substantial in those cases. We really should not be allowing patents for software because it really screws the system up. You don't need patents to combat the free rider problem with software. Copyright serves this purpose well enough.

Re:New products versus new markets by king+neckbeard · 2014-03-03 05:19 · Score: 1

You are correct that that is a version of the free rider problem but you are ignoring the key difference. Extending a market for a product that already exists is not the same thing as inventing a completely new product.
I know they aren't the same, but both have the free rider problem, and interfering in this case would be ridiculous. It's ridiculous in the case of inventions as well, but we've been told medieval fairy tales about patents so we don't question it because it's 'common sense.'

Here is a better example. Developing a new drug to combat a disease costs many millions of dollars.
That's not an example of how we deal with the free rider problem outside of patents because it isn't outside of patents. You were asked to explain why 'inventors' are special snowflakes that deserve legal monopolies when everyone else has to deal with the free market.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Won't be worth it anyways by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 05:23 · Score: 1

Considering a patent only lasts 20 years from your filing date, it's already expired the second its approved.

Re:Won't be worth it anyways by craighansen · 2014-03-04 07:49 · Score: 1

That's not true of patents filed prior to mid-1995. They get a seventeen-year term from issue no matter how long it takes to be granted.

Why not? by Chirs · 2014-03-03 07:10 · Score: 1

The stated goal of the patent system was to improve technology by making stuff public in return for a limited monopoly. (The alternative was having everyone keep their stuff as trade secrets, which could get lost if the right people died at the wrong time.)

If you have two people independently invent the same thing then that seems to indicate that it wasn't in danger of being lost and so therefore shouldn't be eligible for protection.

In the real world once a patented idea has been made public it becomes very difficult to prove independent invention, so the window for this sort of thing to happen would be very small--basically from the time someone starts working on something until the time that someone files for a patent on it.

Re:Companies by gx5000 · 2014-03-03 07:23 · Score: 1

Because they still use the technology that the patent(s) refer to.....

--
End of Line.

Re:All inventions are discoveries. Not vice-versa. by gnupun · 2014-03-03 08:11 · Score: 1

If you invent something you are discovering a configuration of the world around us. You are rearranging atoms into some useful form ...

Umm, if you do the rearranging, it's creation (or invention if you were the first to do the rearranging), not discovery. Invention is man-made, artificial, and not found in nature. Discovery is finding something that already exists in this world, you did not create it or shape it. For eg, "you found (discovered) a bird with eight wings in your backyard." You didn't create the bird yourself, God did that. You just found it.

Do we need by Skal+Tura · 2014-03-03 20:08 · Score: 1

Do we need more proof that the patent system is detrimental?

Let's assume the inventor won't release his invention until patent is approved - therefore we loose the advancement. It might be tiny advancement or it could be huge.

There's also examples when inventors, developers, startups don't pursue their goals because of a patent.

--
Pulsed Media Seedboxes

Re:Companies by hazydave · 2014-03-05 15:17 · Score: 1

It absolutely can be retroactive.

Th I s patent was filed under the old system. That was first-to-invent, patent is dated from the submission, but it's good for 17 years from the date of grant, and applications are held confidential. Contrast that with the new system, which is first-to-file, expires 20 years from the submission date, regardless of when it was granted. And applications are published.

The new system was designed to prevent working the system to get a legal "submarine" patent. Long ago, some patent holders would hold back on enforcing their patent, wait until it was in common use, then surface it and go after violators. This was eventually made to be grounds for losing the patent. You have to enforce it or lose it.

So clever legal minds started working the system. One could file a known to be faulty patent, and have it kicked back multiple times for clarification, improvement, removal of overly broad claims, etc. You technically can't add new features that way, but you can clarify things. And, of course, stretch out the review process for years. So it's not really a patent year in its submarine years. The new system was designed to prevent this. Work fast, and you get bonus years on the patent, drag, and you lose them.

This guy, Gilbert, was already famous for a fundamental submarine microprocessor patent that wasn't granted until 1990. Some of it was later tossed out, but he's made many millions on that one. Kinda odd that this thing keeps happening to the same guy. Impossible to believe it's happening to him without at least some foot dragging on his part. Though he's claiming it's the PTO out to get him. There's no indication of just why this has taken so long. Was he rejected many times? Is it a final rejection being appealed? Or did the PTO really just disappear the application?

--
-Dave Haynie

Re:Companies by craigminah · 2014-03-06 17:07 · Score: 1

But if the patent wasn't approved why would it carry any weight? In other words, why would anyone have to comply with a patent that essentially is a draft and unofficial state?

Slashdot Mirror

Inventor Has Waited 43 Years For Patent Approval

199 of 258 comments (clear)