Slashdot Mirror
New USPTO Site for Independent Inventors
sv0o sent in a link to a new, amazingly attractive US Patent and Trademark Office Web site called Independent Inventor Resources. It could easily be subtitled "Everything you ever wanted to know about U.S. patents and trademarks but didn't know who to ask." Now, when you have a question about patent or trademark law, you have an authoritative place you can go for answers instead of guessing - or relying on opinions from people who don't necessarily know what they're talking about.
This is a good thing... so many people (including myslef) are often confused by what can be copyrighted/trademarked/etc. I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
Well, obviously someone at the PTO knows what a computer is. Why aren't they handling (ie. rejecting) bogus technology patents?
My Freakin Blog
I found the section of "What Cannot be Patented" where it mentions perpetual motion machines. I once heard that the USPTO got a lot of those in all shapes and forms. It must be an image of status for the fringe to have the title "inventor" and attempt to claim rights on a intriguing device that seems to make energy from nothing.
I saw a thing on TV (if I remember right it was 20/20) where they were checking out these inventor kit/marketing scams where they submitted a little patent application of their own: a car cruise control fashioned of a brick to be placed on the accelerator pedal. The $700 "application fee" was accepted. Seems like the area of patents and IP are prime grounds for scam artists.
There isn't much to do when applying for a patent search, just pick a good library. I used Linda Hall Library in Kansas City (a large technical library) to help with a patent search. It was quick and the patent was approved with a few details corrected after the first submission.
Patents may be easy and may benefit you, but will they benefit the "inventor" who has a novel idea, or will the cost of entry be too high? Will the person be discouraged, tricked out of vital information by other interested parties and not be first, or get bought out or offered a throwaway employment position at a company right after the guy (or gal) signs all those rights away?
That while the USPTO is still functioning as per usual, they have lowered the bar on patents that are approved, and let the courts sort out any patent disputes (This is not just in the computer field, but all over.) I think that the USPTO should be told to spend more time researching patent applications beyond the normal stupidity checks such that less of the courts time is spent in patent disputes.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Well, he's right about it being amazingly attractive. I wouldn't mind having an E theme of the site. Any volunteers?
/.?
--
j-emmons@sjca.edu
PS is anyone else having trouble logging in to
'nuff said.
There's a great book called Patent it yourself by David Pressman that takes you step by step through the Patent process. It's probably still a good idea to get professional help when filing a patent, but in any case, you'll be much better informed after reading this.
For people interested in Software patents, I've come across "Software Patents" by Gregory A. Stobbs and "Software and Intellectual Property" by Bernard A. Galler. These are academic books, not HOWTO books, and may be difficult to find, but contain nice discussions on the issue of Software Patents.
You see that image in the middle there.... "Scroll down for more" ?
Seriously --- how many people don't know how to use a web-browser (or any application with a scrollable area, like a word-processor) and can't use a scrollbar? And should those people be inventing anything in the first place?
*sigh*
Now, when you have a question about patent or trademark law, you have an authoritative place you can go
I have a question that wasn't on the site..
"If only nonobvious ideas can be patentable, why the hell do you award patents to such OBVIOUS crap like XOR and Backing-store?"
or..
"Since computer programs are similar to Literary and Musical works, why do you allow patents at all on software algorithms?"
"If only nonobvious ideas can be patentable, why the hell do you award patents to such OBVIOUS crap like XOR and Backing-store?"
Probably because it wasn't obvious to them. How many people working at the patent office do you really think are highly trained in any high-tech field? Hell how many people do you really think are working on processing patents at the patent office? And of those, how many do you think really have more than just a cursory knowledge of computers?
If you really want to do something about it, you're energy would be much better spent working there trying to prevent bogus patent applications than bitching here about what gets patented.
They put things like that on the website to give people like you off-topic tangents to travel off onto. It's kind of an intellectual fire chute for you to swoop down onto and off the site, because the site's focus seems to confuse you and you need an escape route.
There's so much presumption loaded into the front before you ask your actual question that it's obvious you're making a political statement, not asking for clarification.
Actually, the USPTO is no more authoritative on matters of patent and trademark law than Joe Random Usenet Poster. If you want authoritative, you're going to need someone in a black robe. At best, what you get from the USPTO are the policies of the Board of Patent Examiners -- which can easily be overruled by the courts.
Probably because it wasn't obvious to them... how many do you think really have more than just a cursory knowledge of computers?
This was exactly my point; if they know nothing about the topic in question, why are they approving such patents?
As far as working there, I'm SURE that I would get to see every software patent application submitted, right? Or would it be more like the old army joke about the civilian chef that was drafted, and put in the motor pool, while the mechanic was put in charge of the mess hall.
And there is so much pomposity loaded into your answer, that it's clear that you're making an ass of yourself instead of seeing the sarcasm that was intended. But on the other hand, thank you for complementing my writing ability; I wasn't aware that I could "load so much presumption" with only a single line.
Inventions which are:
Who says perpetual motion machines wouldn't be useful? I think they meant "inventions which violate thermodynamic laws."
Also, I'm not sure about their standards of what's offensive. Most /. readers might consider many software patents (such as the infamous XOR patent) to be offensive. In Alabama, they might consider this audio dildo to be more offensive... combine that with a perpetual motion machine and you've got something really unpatentable!
JMC
The simple answer why patents on things that seem obvious are granted is that the Patent Office bases a rejection on "prior art" which requires a prior publication or patent. This means that software that was never documented, and rarely patented or otherwise formally published, never makes it into the "prior art" pool. There are actually a number of organizations attempting to solve this problem right now, by providing a better software prior art database to the patent office.
As to your second question, how software is different from a literary work, the answer is that software enbodies a useful function. The only thing protectable by a copyright (which is how literary works are protected) is the actual expression used. But the underlying functionality, the point of the software, can not be protected. There is no such underlying functionality in literary or musical works. That's why software is patentable, and music isn't. The other reason is that if you do not permit software to be patented, you will just force applicants to couch their software patents in hardware terms (e.g. the memory stores data, and then the processor calculates something). This is silly. Software has been patented since the mid-70s.
I would encourage anyone with an extra $400
bucks to apply for their own patent on whatever
internet/software/computer/etc. process or algorithym you can imagine, speculate on, or
read from a text book.
What we need to do to get this system changed is demonstrate how silly it is. Besides, you can also threaten companies with your bogus patents for fun and profit.
Remember they only have so many examiners and the examiners obviously don't check much, so have at it!
You just wish your ID was as low as mine! I used to be proud to have such a low id, but not so much now. Slashdot most