Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO Demands EFF Censor Its Comments On Patentable Subject Matter

Posted by timothy on from the adversarial-justice-system dept.

An anonymous reader sends this report from TechDirt: As you know, last year the Supreme Court made a very important ruling in the Alice v. CLS Bank case, in which it basically said that merely doing something on a general purpose computer didn't automatically make it patentable. ... However, the USPTO apparently was offended at parts of the EFF's comment submission, claiming that it was an "improper protest." Protest or not, the EFF denies in strong terms that the original comments were improper.

71 comments

  1. hey USPTO.... Here you go by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Funny

    Golly
    Old guys
    Frightning
    Uncle
    Charles
    Kramer
    Yogurt
    Open
    Under
    Rifle
    Sun
    Echo
    Lippy
    Frank

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:hey USPTO.... Here you go by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      whoever modded this off topic, clearly didnt get the joke.... (now to ruin it for those too dumb to figure it out)It was self censorship, try reading the first letter of each line....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:hey USPTO.... Here you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, thats not self censorship, that's just unoriginal, and non-contributory dribble.

    3. Re:hey USPTO.... Here you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use
      Some
      Epic
      Lines
      Yourself
      Editing
      From
      Offhand
      Remarks
      Leaving
      Up
      Better
      Entries

      Hey, this is fun.

    4. Re:hey USPTO.... Here you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lye?

      really?

      that's all you could come up with?

  2. Cue... by YuppieScum · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...Streisand Effect.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Cue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think USPTO is concerned with people hearing what EFF has to say, but rather they feel that their RFC (or whatever) is not the appropriate forum for it. I can't be bothered to determine whether this is simply a less awful form of censorship, or not even censorship at all, but it will be fun to read the other equally uninformed and 10 times as rabid comments to follow.

    2. Re:Cue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dunno, it seems to me that an RFC is rather the best place to comment on a subject.

      You could say they even requested it.

    3. Re:Cue... by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more along the lines that the USPTO made up it's mind and then asked for comments because they had to. Then yelling SHUT UP! should anyone offer an opinion they don't share.

    4. Re:Cue... by monkeyzoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Everyone really should click through and read page 5 of the original document: https://www.eff.org/files/2015...

      The EFF redacted this entire page in response the USPTO request. Why did the USPTO not like it?... Because they got their ass summarily handed to them. The redaction compares two claims (one approved, one invalidated) that differ by LITERALLY ONLY A FEW WORDS. The USPTO is right to be embarrassed!

    5. Re:Cue... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      In fairness, with one exception, those different words have completely different meanings, resulting in a substantially different patent claim.

      In fact, having read it now, I'm even more confused. Why did the EFF bring it up ("Hey look, these patents have that a large amount of text in common but ultimately patent different things were treated differently!"), and why does the USPTO think it's a protest? Neither makes any sense.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re: Cue... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it highlights that the USPTO is doing a sloppy job and don't review patents at all, just check the formalia and let courts decide if they are valid or not.

      Probably because the patent engineers don't know squat about the stuff they get to review.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re:Cue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This depends.

      Knowing what the USPTO does...(hint: Saying something like using brass screws was anticipated by an utterly irrelevant patent, and thereby your patent application was rejected, isn't what you claim is going on or them doing their damn jobs...my application suffered that bullshit. We ran out of funds before we could properly mount the challenge on it.) I call bullshit on this; not to mention that it really isn't the case with the example. They really did have functionally identical natures. QUIT defending them. They're not needing defending and they're desperately needing an overhaul- they operate more like they flip a coin and call it in the air. Get the flip, they all but rubber-stamp the damn application. Miss it, and they do their damnedest to invalidate- to the point of pulling some of the most insane, ludicrous crap out of their collective ass to do it with.

    8. Re: Cue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of them do. Most of them don't. The problem with letting the Courts decide is as bad- the Judges mostly (and I do mean that...+99% mostly) don't understand ANY of it in the first place. They know LAW. That's the extent of things. As such, it's a disaster in the making- and what we're mostly doing right now with the bogus patents that got through the whole process in the first place.

    9. Re:Cue... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      ...which sounds a lot like the process by which OOXML was adopted as a standard by the EU. Not sure offhand who's palms were greased in the Microsoft 'standards' approval case (though many were), but the fact that USPTO's revenue stream counts on the processing of patent applications guarantees that an efficient and fair patent system is not their highest priority.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    10. Re:Cue... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      How different? Yes, the original rejected version was overly broad. But the final, accepted version was essentially the same thing - and amounts to 'apply software authentication in a standard, already well established way to the carrying out a specific banking transaction'. If that's patentable, we're all doomed...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    11. Re:Cue... by monkeyzoo · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I don't find "restriction on the use of a [financial] account" completely different than "restriction regarding a banking transaction".

  3. I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That if (redacted) (redacted) then (redacted) because (redacted) (redacted) (redacted). Really.

    1. Re:I think by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Playing madlibs with redacted documents is fun.
      "I think that if 'SEAN CONNERY' 'HIT A HOME RUN' then 'ASTRONOMY' because.'RAISIN' 'DANCE' 'FEVER'. Really.

      Someone should make an app that turns redacted documents into adlib games. It would get the cellphone generation reading national security documents. Maybe even retain some info.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    2. Re:I think by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Playing madlibs with redacted documents is fun.
      "I think that if 'SEAN CONNERY' 'HIT A HOME RUN' then 'ASTRONOMY' because.'RAISIN' 'DANCE' 'FEVER'. Really.

      Someone should make an app that turns redacted documents into adlib games. It would get the cellphone generation reading national security documents

      Only if it's tweeted...with an Instagram pic.

    3. Re:I think by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Automatic selfie on completion.
      "OMG! jst fin sen frn relat rept on mddl east! #selfie #nerd #politician #1dirunite"

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    4. Re:I think by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That is a brilliant idea. I love it.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:I think by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      But then someone has to patent it...

  4. Look at the table in the PDF by Cassini2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the PDF, there is a table in the PDF of the EFF's response where it compares the issued patent against the rejected patent at the Supreme Court. The wording is amazingly similar.

    The significant change between the two is patents swapping the words "banking transaction" for the use of "a credit or charge account", and then updating the rest of the text appropriately. If you do not understand what the EFF's point is, then take a look at the table. It does not take much imagination to see that the patent at stake in the Supreme Court case, and the newly issued patent, are almost identical.

    1. Re:Look at the table in the PDF by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would have been a lot more clear to say "the redacted bits are from patents approved by the USPTO." I hate having to go on easter egg hunts to confirm if this is something I should care about.

      And for Cassini2 specifically, it's not an issued patent vs. rejected patent. Both were issued, the point being that the new one was issued after the first was invalidated by a district court. And about 5 months after Alice. And the second was a continuation of the first, not a new patent. That's why they are so similar, and probably why they didn't halt the process and re-evaluate it.

      USPTO wanted comments on the guidance, not pointing out where they are failing to meet the guidance. This is where the EFF probably overstepped.

      I have a problem with this part. The Alice decision was basically "adding a computer doesn't automatically make it novel" - the court did not agree that "adding a computer automatically doesn't make it novel" - those are two distinct ideas. And what the EFF pointed out in the chart was that two allowed patents were basically the same, which is what a continuation patent implies, and has nothing to do with Alice.

      It's one thing to have a point, but the EFF was protesting the similarity of two patents, not illustrating how the second fell short of the Alice test, and it really had nothing to do with comments on the guidance itself, which is what the USPTO was asking for. Including protests in consideration of feedback on guidance is not how things work. I won't go into that, but there's a place for such things and this isn't it.

      And I agree, EFF has a legitimate point. But this was not the way to point it out.

      Legally, this is what I read:

      Q: "How can we do our jobs better?"
      A: "You aren't even doing your jobs, idiots."

    2. Re:Look at the table in the PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having read the EFF's comments, I have no idea what the USPTO means by "improper" or why anything should be redacted from the comments.

      The whole episode underscores how broken the patent and IP system is.

      Corrupt parasites trying to monopolize free speech and innovation. The whole idea of intellectual property is fundamentally flawed and an Achilles' heel of the US constitution.

    3. Re:Look at the table in the PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My recollection was the EFF pointed out the original patent was rejected under Alice by a Court. Thus, the PTO should have likewise rejected the "continuation" patent because it had similar language.

    4. Re:Look at the table in the PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is...it's a valid criticism. If you're not doing your job in the first place, the implied, DO YOUR DAMN JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE, is very much legitimate feedback on how to do better.

      They *AREN'T* doing their damn jobs. They're approving stuff that flatly should be rejected outright and then in other hand, they're rejecting pretty much valid stuff with reasons made out of the whole cloth, pulled out of their asses. I know, I fit in the latter category, with me only running out of funds to mount the defense of the bullshit rejection (The good analogy for what happened is that the invention I applied for patent on uses brass screws. Because brass screws were used by this irrelevant patent over there as part of IT's make up, the applied for patent was "anticipated" by the other invention's patent...even though there's no connection or similarity there. It was the brass screws, you see...)

      In the end, I just want them to do their damn jobs or do away with the whole travesty in toto. Do it right or don't friggin' do it at all.

    5. Re:Look at the table in the PDF by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      And for Cassini2 specifically, it's not an issued patent vs. rejected patent. Both were issued, the point being that the new one was issued after the first was invalidated by a district court...

      USPTO wanted comments on the guidance, not pointing out where they are failing to meet the guidance. This is where the EFF probably overstepped.

      Actually, it's issued patent vs. pending application. And where the EFF overstepped was in violating 35 USC 122(c):

      (c) Protest and Pre-Issuance Opposition.— The Director shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure that no protest or other form of pre-issuance opposition to the grant of a patent on an application may be initiated after publication of the application without the express written consent of the applicant.

      Had the application been issued, that wouldn't be an issue (pun aside), but as the EFF admits in their comments:

      For example, on Nov. 12, 2014, U.S. Pat. App. No. 11/091,200 received a notice of allowance.5

      5 The applicant has since filed a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), the 12th RCE filed since the application was first filed in 2005.

      So, yeah, it's a pre-issuance protest to the grant of an application, without express written consent of the applicant.

    6. Re: Look at the table in the PDF by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      In software, there is no way to do it "right". The only right way to do it is not do it at all. There are too many isomorphisms in software patents because they oftrn represent abstract mathematical concepts. It isn't reasonable to expect people to avoid infringing something which is a core truth of the universe.

  5. USPTO IS a branch of government by bferrell · · Score: 2

    I think they need to have a look at the 1st amendment to the constitution.

    They ARE, in fact, bound by that

    1. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by mellon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not a big fan of the USPTO, but I'm not convinced that they are out of line here. The EFF comment makes mention of a specific patent applicant who is known to be highly litigious, and specifically argues that the USPTO should be particularly skeptical of applications from that entity because of the enormous cost to others of patents being inappropriately granted to that specific entity.

      This is an entirely reasonable thing to say, but the PTO's point is that it's not an appropriate thing to say in the context of a request for comments on something else. The request for comments was on a new set of guidelines the PTO had issued, not on a patent application from the entity to which the EFF referred.

    2. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think they need to have a look at the 1st amendment to the constitution.

      They ARE, in fact, bound by that

      So are you saying that whatever law put 35 U.S. Code section 122(c):

      (c) Protest and Pre-Issuance Opposition.— The Director shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure that no protest or other form of pre-issuance opposition to the grant of a patent on an application may be initiated after publication of the application without the express written consent of the applicant.

      into the U.S. Code constitutes a "law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."?

      You can still "petition the Government for a redress of grievances", just not in the form of a "protest or other form of pre-issuance opposition to the grant of a patent"; if it is, the protest will probably be carefully filed away in the roughly-cylindrical filing cabinet on the side of the desk of the person at the Patent Office receiving it. It's not as if you're going to be taken out and shot if, for example, you write a letter to the President complaining about the patent being applied for, or publish an editorial opposing the patent, or....

      Protests against patents are discussed in more detail by 37 U.S. Code section 1.291.

    3. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At the same time, it perfectly illustrates that the new guidelines are inadequate since they approved a patent that is almost identical to one the courts specifically ruled invalid.

    4. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      Actually, this would be an interesting case to bring. The only reason I can think of not to is concern about a defamation lawsuit from the patent troll.

    5. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares about your piece of paper constitution nerd. Seriously. Nobody fucking cares. Even the lawyers who pretend to worship it really don't care. Ask them about underage cartoon drawings, or if you really want to test them, copyright law.

      The USPTO does not care. The camp commanders and Guantanamo do not care. The NSA does not care. And by and large the general public does not care. They don't care because they see that no-one is in charge anymore, and the people running the show do not care.

      Stop caring. There's no-one left to change things. You don't want to end up like Schwartz, or Snowden, and you saw what happened to the gamers. Let go.

    6. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by mellon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think what the EFF wants to say is something that needs to be said, and personally I don't care how they say it, but the PTO is part of the government, and they have processes that they follow. I'm not saying they are morally right, just that they are technically right.

    7. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by sjames · · Score: 1

      I contend that it is not at all off-topic. It is exactly the topic of the RFC. In one shot they demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the new guidelines and the high potential for harm.

    8. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is, USPTO on the provisional guidance, supplied examples of the case law that where applied to certain patents and litigation related with them.

      EFF just used the same strategy by using some patents to point out the problems of the guidance and its shortcomings.

      The rest is just puffed up egos that should not have a place in government.

      Besides, USPTO is not a human being, has no emotions, so how come it can be offended?

    9. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      constitutes a "law ... abridging the freedom of speech

      Well, it only abridges if there is a punishment or consequence for doing so. The headline says "demands". Demands usually contain threats, otherwise they're request. If there is a threat, then of course it's an abridgement.

      if it is, the protest will probably be carefully filed away in the roughly-cylindrical filing cabinet on the side of the desk of the person at the Patent Office receiving it.

      Which is a completely legitimate response to an illegitimate filing.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      constitutes a "law ... abridging the freedom of speech

      Well, it only abridges if there is a punishment or consequence for doing so. The headline says "demands". Demands usually contain threats, otherwise they're request. If there is a threat, then of course it's an abridgement.

      But that doesn't mean that the USPTO has threatened to break the kneecaps of the EFF's lawyers, for example. They might just be threatening to toss the EFF's document into the circular file, i.e. demanding that they change the document if it's not to be ignored.

      I.e., it would have to be a "threat" in the sense of the the OED's definition of "threat", where there's some form of harm worse than "being ignored" to be an abridgement.

      if it is, the protest will probably be carefully filed away in the roughly-cylindrical filing cabinet on the side of the desk of the person at the Patent Office receiving it.

      Which is a completely legitimate response to an illegitimate filing.

      I.e., a threat to toss the document into the circular file is a legitimate response.

    11. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The EFF comment makes mention of a specific patent applicant who is known to be highly litigious, and specifically argues that the USPTO should be particularly skeptical of applications from that entity because of the enormous cost to others of patents being inappropriately granted to that specific entity.

      So, is this actually in the USPTO's swim lane? Are they allowed to take into consideration an entities history with respect to how they've acted on prior patents? I may be off base, but I think the courts might have a problem with that.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    12. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Blah, Blah, Blah....Blah

      You don't care, and because of that, you ASSume incorrectly that others don't.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    13. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      it only abridges if there is a punishment or consequence for doing so

      Are you intentionally muddying the waters here? The direct and quantifiable consequences include the restrictions and limits imposed on all other citizens as the result of issuing overly broad or non-eligible patents.

      It's not as if you're going to be taken out and shot

      Between you and Guy Harris I just read a complete crock of what simply has to be self serving bullshit. You must have a dollar to make in this field of discussion.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    14. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I do care, faggot. I think that it should be important, but I don't cling to the illusion that anyone in any position of authority in this country feels the same way. They don't.

      Because they don't care, the constitution really is a piece of paper. Kidnappings become extraordinary renditions. Mass stazi programs become vital anti-terrorism operations. Edward Snowden lives in exile despite probably 95% of the population either being sympathetic or not giving a fuck.

      So go ahead. Whine about the constitution. It will change nothing, because it means nothing. What you could argue on would be the morals, character and integrity of those making these decision, but that'll be pretty hard to pull off for someone with a folder full of magical land, fut tentacle rape porn. And yes faggot, the NSA already knows about that, because knowing who's a faggot is part of their fucking jobs now.

    15. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      The success of context claims effectively blocks comments on larger scale problems. We must never allow ourselves to become a part of answering the wrong question without having a hand in formation of the issues. In other words, a precise answer to the wrong question is NOT better than seeking the right question. We must not only remain dedicated to earnest appraisal, but reject what appears to be obvious manipulation of the course of inquiry.

    16. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by mellon · · Score: 1

      What's off-topic is that they advised the PTO to take specific action with respect to a specific applicant.

    17. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by sjames · · Score: 1

      As an example of where the new guidelines fail in general.

    18. Re:USPTO IS a branch of government by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment gives the EFF the right to say or publish what they please. It doesn't mean anybody has to listen. It doesn't mean a government agency can't put conditions on what it's willing to listen to for a particular purpose. The EFF is a peaceable assembly and has the right to petition for redress of grievances, but nothing in the Constitution says the government has to answer any particular petition. The EFF has the right to a religious opinion, but the USPTO really doesn't care about that.

      Is there another clause in the First Amendment I'm missing?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Typo? by ankhank · · Score: 2

    EFF wrote:

    "The Supreme Court has made it clear that merely adding a processor to an otherwise ineligible claim does not render it ineligible."

    Double negative?

  7. Patents SHOULD get harder to make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As tech moves along eventually we do find nearly everything. Novel things should become more and more rare. But at the filing rate, they are seeing the opposite. This group is basically trying to undo what the supreme court said so they can make sure they file more things with slight changes in the wording. It is simple job protectionism.

    1. Re:Patents SHOULD get harder to make by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      They do ... It is like bitcoins. The first few are big fat juicy coins, then later ones come along. They are tiny fragments of the original, but the old and the new are all worth more because of the total amount of digging for coins.

      All the new patents are for insignificant mods to already trivial inventions. However, they are worth huge amounts of money because [lawyers]. Or the books are cooked by accountants.

      Or I have drunk too much brandy. Not sure which, but I will know in the morning.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  8. How it works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do a shitty job, then cover it up. If someone complains, shut them up. It's kind of like when my dog takes a runny crap and tries to cover it with dirt. It's still there, it still stinks, but at least you can't see it with dirt on top.

  9. eff missed an opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On their web site, the document could have had the redacted text highlighted.

  10. Reasonable Explaination by Belisarivs · · Score: 1
    An AC in the comments section at Techdirt made this point:

    They don't want people arguing against specific patents in public comment submissions. They think if they permit that it will lead to a flood of patent protests which would suck up the resources intended for evaluating the actual comments. So they erred on the side of being too restrictive, it really isn't anything more than that.

    1. Re:Reasonable Explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is precisely the correct answer. The EFF was not using the correct channel to protest the granted patent.

    2. Re:Reasonable Explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EFF wasn't really protesting the granted patent, they were using it as an example that the USPTO guidelines aren't worth the paper they are written on, since they aren't following them anyway.

  11. The issue is not 'gofuckyourself' ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but it goes much deeper

    Nowadays in America 'censorship' has become the IN thing for many government agency

    Almost everyone is following the lead of NSA

    And the American public? What kind of reaction from the so-called "Freedom Loving Americans"?

    ... que cricket sounds ...

    1. Re:The issue is not 'gofuckyourself' ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if this represents "censorship" we need to redefine the term. Or maybe they just did a bad job censoring the information because all the details about this matter are certainly out in the open and a matter of public record.

    2. Re:The issue is not 'gofuckyourself' ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      ... que cricket sounds ...

      I never new Manuel from Fawlty Towers posted here.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:The issue is not 'gofuckyourself' ... by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      New? Or knew? Just sayin'...

    4. Re:The issue is not 'gofuckyourself' ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cue you dumbass

  12. You can get anything you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At the Patent Office Restaurant

    Except for Alice...

  13. It was Improper for reasons not stated by OP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The redaction is very likely because the EFF was improperly using the commentary to attack a specific patent rather than using the review process offered by the USPTO. In that respect, the EFF is attempting an end-run around the proper channel for appealing the grant of that patent (the IPR process).

    Anyone who works in the patent space will see that the EFF filing is dirty. They were right to remove it, not because they don't have a point, but that they should have filed an inter-partes review of the granted patent that they want to see invalidated. The USPTO can't do anything to a granted patent until somebody starts the review process. Then they are able to review it. So in a way, the USPTO is helping the EFF here - "file the papers and we'll consider it."

    The other crazy theories on here are really off base as to what is going on.

  14. New task for the EFF by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    They should use this as the basis for compiling a list of things which offend the USPTO, which we then can all use to troll the shit out of them until they cry uncle and stop issuing shitty, inane patents.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  15. Just imagine the opposite reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the EFF had not presented the information in question:

    "How dare you make such terrible allegations without a shred of evidence to back it up"

  16. But is it true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And I agree, EFF has a legitimate point. But this was not the way to point it out
    "Q: "How can we do our jobs better?"
    "A: "You aren't even doing your jobs, idiots."

    But sometimes a Linus approach is necessary, sometimes the person or entity is WILLFULLY not doing their job, sometimes you need to go in kick ass and make it absolutely clear that they need to get their act together.

    It's not aimed at them, they are willfully trying to expand patent law and issue patents outside their remit etc.
    It's aimed at third party viewers, to make it clear once and for all this agency needs a major reform here or it will undermine US innovators again by handing the fruits of their inventions to patent trolls.

  17. Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think EFF feedback is propriate. it clearly highlights how USPTO guidelines fail to work. Witch in itself is comment on guidelines, or their lack of... And if you are going to argue that system docent work then you need to provide examples of it.. Hence patents mentioned...

  18. PDF title looks a a bit funny given the publisher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean one can only wonder what Redmond thinks of EFF’s GNU Emacs masquerading as Microsoft Word.

  19. NOT CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, kiddies, it's only censorship if the government does it. In this case they're only _asking_ the EFF _politely_ to censor _themselves_. Completely a different thing, apparently.

    But what's a little Censorship With Friends? You'd help out a friend, right?