Inventor Has Waited 43 Years For Patent Approval

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

Comments

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

[Taco Cowboy]

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

electronic signal to control machinery

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

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

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

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

[eclectro]

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.

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

[icebike]

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

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

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

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

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

[Blue Stone]

>Nothing written here about patents is believable.

From broad patents to sweeping statements. /. has it all.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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 !

[Baloroth]

"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.

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

[JWSmythe]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[delt0r]

I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.

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

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

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

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

[Chrisq]

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 !

[geekoid]

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.

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

[geekoid]

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...

Seriously

[tarogue]

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

Re:Seriously

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Seriously

[AK Marc]

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

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

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

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

He patented the microprocessor, too

[don.g]

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?

Parasitic Rentiers

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

Re:How could it be valid?

[ThatAblaze]

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

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

Re:How could it be valid?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:How could it be valid?

[Arker]

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.

Alternative title: "Submarine patent issued"

[arglebargle_xiv]

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:How could it be valid?

[Raenex]

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?

[litehacksaur111]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Oddly no application number is cited

[Patent Lover]

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

[craighansen]

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:How could it be valid?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[queazocotal]

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

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

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

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

Re:How could it be valid?

[meustrus]

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.

Re:How could it be valid?

[geekoid]

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.,