Slashdot Mirror
After EFF Effort, Infamous "Podcasting Patent" Invalidated
Ars Technica reports some good news on the YRO front. An excerpt:
A year-and-a-half after the Electronic Frontier Foundation created a crowd-funded challenge to a patent being used to threaten podcasters, the patent has been invalidated.
In late 2013, after small podcasters started getting threat letters from Personal Audio LLC, the EFF filed what's called an "inter partes review," or IPR, which allows anyone to challenge a patent at the US Patent and Trademark Office.
The order issued today by the USPTO lays to rest the idea that Personal Audio or its founder, Jim Logan, are owed any money by podcasters because of US Patent No. 8,112,504, which describes a "system for disseminating media content representing episodes in a serialized sequence."
The article points out, though, that the EFF warns Personal Audio LLC is seeking more patents on podcasting. Mentioned within: Adam Carolla's fight against these patents and our Q&A with Jim Logan.
Yes, it seems to me that instead of paying for hundred of lawsuits on ridiculous patents perhaps somebody should start going after the USPTO instead? No idea if there is any legal way to do it, but since all problems start from the USPTO itself, that's where any effort should be concentrated...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
IME, patents rather hinder than promote innovation, especially on software methods. The way they are used is to protect big players against one another's legal challenges. As a side effect, small players are quite locked out. But then, IANAL; can someone give an example of a software patent that actually promoted innovation?
Yes well, I think we have different experiences. I agree that software patents often seem to serve little purpose apart from building war chests, and I would also be interested in a concrete example of good usage of software patents. There are many other industries, however, where patents are crucial to defend years and millions of dollars invested in R&D against professional copycats, and allow low level players to reap some profit from their innovation.
Error: No error occurred
My brother works for the Australian Patent Office, so I've no idea how much of this translates to the USPTO. I asked him this very question a few years ago.
When a patent application comes in, the initial examiner is the newest, most lowly graded person in the office with a huge caseload. They, to a degree, depend on the submitter to have taken the steps to validate the uniqueness of the patent; however there is research done as well to validate the submission.
Most submissions are done by patent lawyers with as much obfuscation as possible, and if it's outside of the examiner's area is much more likely to get through, as the examiner has to try and decipher what is going on. If the submitter claims no prior art and words the submission carefully enough, it's likely to get through.
With an appear, it goes much higher up the chain and diverts to someone with more specialized knowledge for further assessment. As you can probably guess, it takes longer and costs much more to get this review happening.
So, there are fundamental problems with the process in that it assumes honesty on the part of the submitter. If they set out to deceive, as Personal Audio seems to have done, it's a long and costly process to undo it.
Perhaps better than the IPR mechanism would be an appeals process by which anyone can make an 'obviousness' challenge to any patent approved by the rank and file PTO staff to a higher-level and more technical board that must review the patent before it's actually enforceable. All funded by the USPTO itself, eliminating the high cost of challenging patents. Also greatly reducing the effectiveness of patent enforcement blackmail - and possibly raising the standards for initial approvals by causing the granting of bad patents to actually cost the patent office something - instead of generating revenue.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Honestly, I've waffled on this a while in the past, but I can't honestly think of where real innovation has been spurred on or preserved because of software patents. On the other hand, I can point out hundreds of cases where the patent system has been horribly abused. Sorry, I'm going to disagree with you. No one except the bottom feeders that live off the licensing of patents themselves or giant corporations that hoard them like legal weapons are benefiting from these things.
I work as a programmer on some pretty sophisticated software, some of which was pretty new and novel in my field. The companies I've worked for didn't believe in software patents, and neither do I. Just because I'm the first one to think up some clever algorithm or trick shouldn't give me the right to lock people out of using it for the next seventeen years. It's absurd - that's an eternity in the software development world, and it has no good effect except to stifle competition.
The USPTO has had years to make improvements, and the situation is only getting worse.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Nah, this idea has been invalidated by economists.
The cost to replicate complex inventions is about 65% of the original cost and the overhead of paying the talent to have on staff to do the work (they insist you fund their own research instead of sitting idle) is almost 35%. The Patent argument boils down to dithering about a 5% difference and the consumers prefer to reward the inventors most of the time. Establishing and enforcing the patent monopoly winds up costing society more than that 5%, so the net effect is privatized gains and socialized losses.
Now there are industries that government screws up a priori, like pharmaceuticals, but patching that disaster with patents just adds insult to injury.
Speaking as someone who was just offered a drug for a family member that costs $320,000 per ounce (beyond the budget) I can tell you the current system doesn't help regular people at all. Bristol Meyers execs - they're doing just fine.
The current system *does* work very well - for certain classes of men. And the claims that people will stop inventing without monopoly enforcement ignore all the available data and human nature.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)