Slashdot Mirror
HP Patents 'Reminder Messages' (eff.org)
Daniel Nazer reports via the Electronic Frontier Foundation: On July 25, 2017, the Patent Office issued a patent to HP on reminder messages. Someone needs to remind the Patent Office to look at the real world before issuing patents. United States Patent No. 9,715,680 (the '680 patent) is titled "Reminder messages." While the patent application does suggest some minor tweaks to standard automated reminders, none of these supposed additions deserve patent protection. Although this claim uses some obscure language (like "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" and "article data"), it describes a quite mundane process. The "article data" is simply additional information associated with an event. For example, "buy a cake" might be included with a birthday reminder. The patent also requires that this extra information be input via a "scanning operation" (e.g. scanning a QR code). The '680 patent comes from an application filed in July 2012. It is supposed to represent a non-obvious advance on technology that existed before that date. Of course, reminder messages were standard many years before the application was filed. And just a few minutes of research reveals that QR codes were already used to encode information for reminder messages. The Patent Office reviewed HP's application for years without ever considering any real-world products. Indeed, the examiner considered only patents and patent applications.
I was afraid of this kind of nonsense when the America Invents Act switched the US from "First to Invent" to "First to File" on March 16, 2013.
I guess if no one filed for a patent, *some* USPTO officers are interpreting applications preemptively as "the First to File". I'm hoping it's just a snafu, perhaps caused by the application bridging the transition between FtI to FtF.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
One of the problems in this story is that the patent offices are not responsible for the patents. If they grant a patent, they cash a yearly fee. If a patent is overthrown in justice, they keep the fees. They have no incentive to screen the applications properly.
One of the first measures to fix the issues would be to make them responsible: if a parent they granted gets overthrown in justice, they should refund all the fees, plus the cost of the prior art research that was obviously botched. That would give them the incentive to do their work.
Avoid HP products.
Ah, but USPTO switched over from first-to-invent to first-to-file, so now prior art is completely moot and anything, no matter how obvious, can be patented.
Well then, file a patent on filing patents then sue the patent office into oblivion.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
How do you find such people? And how do you keep them neutral and unbiased, given that you've created their own little fiefdom and almost certainly have conflicts of interest?
Responding to the Slashdot summary:
"non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" is a standard phrase used in patents to avoid a sec. 101 rejection on the basis that a software invention is transitory (thank you very much, Supreme Court".) It's used a lot.
This is more than a reminder message system. It's a system that associates that "article" with a message and delivers it at the same time. It doesn't strike me as much of an improvement over the prior art, but we are talking about something with a priority date of five years ago.
"And just a few minutes of research reveals that QR codes were already used to encode information for reminder messages." Do share with us that research, and perhaps we can agree...
"The Patent Office reviewed HP's application for years without ever considering any real-world products. Indeed, the examiner considered only patents and patent applications." Again, that's standard. They don't have a pile of application software they can run through to identify prior art. They do a search in documentation in databases convenient to the examiner.
If HP ever tries to enforce this thing, the respondent will no doubt find invalidating prior art. HP will probably choose not to enforce it, and merely use it to inflate their reports to stock holders.
That is 100% false. The law changing the system was the America Invents Act. The Wikipedia page on this says:
The law also expanded the definition of prior art used in determining patentability. Actions and prior art that bar patentability under the Act include public use, sales, publications, and other disclosures available to the public anywhere in the world as of the filing date, other than publications by the inventor within one year of filing (inventor's "publication-conditioned grace period"), whether or not a third party also files a patent application.
Prior art has NOT been eliminated.
The problem lies with a understaffed patent office and a badly designed patent law. An application is received, the examiner chooses a few key words, and does a patent search. He finds a few references, usually irrelevant and denies the patent. You explain why the references are irrelevant and the patent is either allowed or more objections are raised. The law requires the filer to disclose the prior art, but they often do not. The problem is that, while the examiners have a technical background, it is often not in the same field. The examiner for this patent could have been a chemical engineer. They are also rated on the volume of their work, not the quality, which does not help. The solution, other than an adequate patent office, is to allow third parties to file objections to published patent applications. While this is subject to abuse, it would allow the raising of undisclosed prior art. Under the current law, the only option is to infringe and wait to be sued. Since the courts are even less technically sound, this is a risky thing to do. Hence the existence of patent trolls.
There is a better reason that "its all been done"
Patents are there to discourage trade secrets. Features of your public product cannot be a trade secret by definition.
It all went to hell when design patents were thought up. Prior to that, patents were only on manufacturing techniques.
"His name was James Damore."
In addition to failing to consider real products, the Patent Office gives little weight to common sense and takes an extremely rigid approach to evaluating whether or not a patent application is obvious.
Yes, because of the constitutional requirement of due process: the Patent Office can't simply use gut feelings and hindsight, but have to support their conclusion that an invention is not new or is obvious with evidence in the form of prior art. You could just as validly complain that courts give little weight to common sense when judging someone to be guilty or not guilty, instead taking an extremely rigid approach that requires consideration of evidence, rather than whether the defendant "looks bad".
It's very easy to say, after the fact, that something is obvious. Most engineering students could diagram a simple internal combustion engine on a napkin. The question for the patent office is whether they can prove something to be obvious without relying on gut feelings and hindsight using information only found in the patent application. Sure, the "common sense" approach would be a lot faster, but so would finding defendants guilty because they aren't the "right" color.