Serious question (it's been many moons since I've coded): what sort of data structure is used to represent these insanely large numbers? And how are they manipulated/utilized so they can be used for computation?
Clearly it's well beyond the traditional long datatype.
What it does is make it harder for the real inventor to revoke a patent once it has been awarded.
Now I think you're just trolling. Section 6 of the AIA actually establishes a process for ANYone to challenge the validity of the patent right immediately after it is awarded and for MORE reasons than currently exist for filing a reexamination.
The purpose of AIA was to lower the amount of court cases contesting patents and free up the USPTO from having to handle "prior art" claims
That was just two sections of the 30+ sections in the bill, many of which have nothing to do with either of these. Please don't pretend like you know what the purpose of the bill is when you don't even know what it contains.
God, your comment is so misinformed I want to explode.
First-to-file actually doesn't go into effect until March 2013 so you are wrong on that front.
This patent was filed in 2008, well before the AIA was signed into law, so even if the first-to-file aspect of AIA had gone into effect on Sept. 16, 2011, it would be irrelevant anyway to this patent
Your comment - I assume - is some form of dig that first-to-file means companies have carte blanche to file patents on obvious ideas just because somebody doesn't already have a patent on it, which seems to be a viral misunderstanding of the law here on slashdot. First-to-file itself has nothing to do with determining patentability. The AIA - if anything - made it harder to get a patent because it increased what things could be considered when determining novelty of a claim, i.e., under the old laws, some invalidating product could be on sale in another country more than a year ago and it wouldn't be considered, whereas now it will be.
FFS, please STFU until you educate yourself on what you are commenting about.
Thank you, Theaetetus. I've enjoyed reading your responses over the last week. Slashdot has beaten me down to point where I don't have the energy to try and correct people, so I appreciate you saying all the things I'm too tired to say myself.
That sounds like a pain in the ass. I agree: Solving that problem 12 years does sound like innovation. Oh, I see. You're the type that thinks innovation has to be lightbulb-level innovation. Well, agree to disagree.
Maybe you should do a little more digging before you grab your pitchfork.
First, even in the excerpt you cited, Jefferson acknowledges that progress can be made towards forming a general set of rules. He's not saying there shouldn't be anything such as IP (which is what you and every other knee jerk engineer seems to quote this for).
Second, he actually requests that the very letter you're excerpting not be used to misrepresent what he's saying:
"I have thus, Sir, at your request, given you the facts and ideas which occur to me on this subject. I have done it without reserve, although I have not the pleasure of knowing you personally. In thus frankly committing myself to you, I trust you will feel it as a point of honor and candor, to make no use of my letter which might bring disquietude on myself."
Long story short, you do much disservice to your point when chastising me for cherry picking points but then rely on them yourself as your sole support for your main argument.
You're supposed to be able to patent the cotton gin, but not "a process for separating cotton from seeds."
Based on what? Processes are absolutely meant to be patentable. 35 USC 101 says:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
It says processes are patentable right there in the statute and has for 50+ years.
By the way, you claim that Edison patented "his lightbulb." You assume he only had an appatatus claim. Just out of curiosity, would you change your opinion if one of the claims of his patent said "a method of producing light..." Choose your answer carefully.
I'm actually not being facetious. So did Edison discover that running a current through a filament when encased in glass makes it glow or did he invent it? Seriously.
I disagree that it's disconnected from reality and common sense. It's the same invention, we're just looking at it from different angles. You claim to want to protect inventions, but are drawing a very narrow definition of what is an invention (apparatus) and what is not (process).
By that argument, anything ever made was "discovered." I discovered that when I ran electricity through a filament, it lights up. And I discovered that I can encase it in glass.
So any new process that is invented - like something equivalent to the invention of the process to make steel - cannot be patented? Yeah, that seems like a great idea.
True patent trolls, entities that solely exist to acquire patent portfolios and weaponize them for profit, do not know anything about the content of the actual patent.
Straight up WRONG. For every non-techie litigator that a patent troll has, there is a technical patent attorney with an engineering degree that is supporting the litigator.
I say this having represented defendants in about a dozen patent troll cases.
Sincerely, A patent attorney with a comp. sci. degree
I guess it's not cynical for me to recognize everyone on slashdot is a torch-and-pitchfork wielding anti-corporation zealot either, huh? I mean, you guys have been proving me right for about a decade now.
An ITC finding of invalidity does not "bust a patent," it merely prevents relief through the ITC. An Article III court, e.g., a federal district court, does not have to give any weight to the ITC's validity finding, meaning the patent is still valid for "normal" law suit purposes.
Showed you THE RESULT, not the method. The patent claims the method. And please give me specific examples of this occurring "digitally" and "online" since the mid-90s, given that the web didn't really take off till 96 or 97.
wtf are you talking about? These are just law firms that apply for patents, you know, maybe for completely legitimate companies. There is nothing in the article or the summary that says these lawyers help patent trolls. You DO realize just because it involves patents doesn't automatically make it about patent trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
Serious question (it's been many moons since I've coded): what sort of data structure is used to represent these insanely large numbers? And how are they manipulated/utilized so they can be used for computation?
Clearly it's well beyond the traditional long datatype.
What it does is make it harder for the real inventor to revoke a patent once it has been awarded.
Now I think you're just trolling. Section 6 of the AIA actually establishes a process for ANYone to challenge the validity of the patent right immediately after it is awarded and for MORE reasons than currently exist for filing a reexamination.
The purpose of AIA was to lower the amount of court cases contesting patents and free up the USPTO from having to handle "prior art" claims
That was just two sections of the 30+ sections in the bill, many of which have nothing to do with either of these. Please don't pretend like you know what the purpose of the bill is when you don't even know what it contains.
God, your comment is so misinformed I want to explode.
FFS, please STFU until you educate yourself on what you are commenting about.
Thank you, Theaetetus. I've enjoyed reading your responses over the last week. Slashdot has beaten me down to point where I don't have the energy to try and correct people, so I appreciate you saying all the things I'm too tired to say myself.
That sounds like a pain in the ass. I agree: Solving that problem 12 years does sound like innovation. Oh, I see. You're the type that thinks innovation has to be lightbulb-level innovation. Well, agree to disagree.
Could you be a little more specific? Is there a place you can buy them and get them for free, but to get them for free you have to watch an ad first?
The patent is directed to a website that sells things.
And the patent goes back to 2000.
No, that is not what the patent is about.
It's about offering the content for sale AND offering it for free, but you only get it for free if you watch an ad first.
Did YOU actually read the letter? The whole letter and not just the excerpt that you linked to? Here's the whole letter.
http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html
Maybe you should do a little more digging before you grab your pitchfork.
First, even in the excerpt you cited, Jefferson acknowledges that progress can be made towards forming a general set of rules. He's not saying there shouldn't be anything such as IP (which is what you and every other knee jerk engineer seems to quote this for).
Second, he actually requests that the very letter you're excerpting not be used to misrepresent what he's saying:
"I have thus, Sir, at your request, given you the facts and ideas which occur to me on this subject. I have done it without reserve, although I have not the pleasure of knowing you personally. In thus frankly committing myself to you, I trust you will feel it as a point of honor and candor, to make no use of my letter which might bring disquietude on myself."
Long story short, you do much disservice to your point when chastising me for cherry picking points but then rely on them yourself as your sole support for your main argument.
And I'M the troll.
And yet Jefferson was the first Commisioner of the Patent Office. Kinda undermines his repeatedly copypasted quotes.
You're supposed to be able to patent the cotton gin, but not "a process for separating cotton from seeds."
Based on what? Processes are absolutely meant to be patentable. 35 USC 101 says:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
It says processes are patentable right there in the statute and has for 50+ years.
By the way, you claim that Edison patented "his lightbulb." You assume he only had an appatatus claim. Just out of curiosity, would you change your opinion if one of the claims of his patent said "a method of producing light..." Choose your answer carefully.
I'm actually not being facetious. So did Edison discover that running a current through a filament when encased in glass makes it glow or did he invent it? Seriously.
I disagree that it's disconnected from reality and common sense. It's the same invention, we're just looking at it from different angles. You claim to want to protect inventions, but are drawing a very narrow definition of what is an invention (apparatus) and what is not (process).
And I'm sorry it's so confusing for you. Legally, there is no difference.
No, same invention, different way of casting it. I've cast it as a method, you've cast it as an apparatus. It's the same invention though.
And "copying" has nothing to do with patent infringement. If someone came up with the light bulb independently, they'd still infringe.
By that argument, anything ever made was "discovered." I discovered that when I ran electricity through a filament, it lights up. And I discovered that I can encase it in glass.
Agree to disagree.
So any new process that is invented - like something equivalent to the invention of the process to make steel - cannot be patented? Yeah, that seems like a great idea.
Thank you, thank you, 1000 times thank you.
Right on all accounts.
IAAL.
True patent trolls, entities that solely exist to acquire patent portfolios and weaponize them for profit, do not know anything about the content of the actual patent.
Straight up WRONG. For every non-techie litigator that a patent troll has, there is a technical patent attorney with an engineering degree that is supporting the litigator.
I say this having represented defendants in about a dozen patent troll cases.
Sincerely,
A patent attorney with a comp. sci. degree
I guess it's not cynical for me to recognize everyone on slashdot is a torch-and-pitchfork wielding anti-corporation zealot either, huh? I mean, you guys have been proving me right for about a decade now.
why do I even bother to come here?
Try being a patent attorney and coming to slashdot every now and then. ;-P
An ITC finding of invalidity does not "bust a patent," it merely prevents relief through the ITC. An Article III court, e.g., a federal district court, does not have to give any weight to the ITC's validity finding, meaning the patent is still valid for "normal" law suit purposes.
Showed you THE RESULT, not the method. The patent claims the method. And please give me specific examples of this occurring "digitally" and "online" since the mid-90s, given that the web didn't really take off till 96 or 97.
wtf are you talking about? These are just law firms that apply for patents, you know, maybe for completely legitimate companies. There is nothing in the article or the summary that says these lawyers help patent trolls. You DO realize just because it involves patents doesn't automatically make it about patent trolls.
FFS man, torch and pitchfork much?
Anyone that wishes physical harm on someone because they dislike their profession is not "right minded."
And lest you think I can't take a joke, I can, it's just not funny.