See, this is what is frustrating about slashdot. Do you really - I mean really - think that a patent examiner is sitting there refusing to allow a patent until someone adds "on a mobile device" to the claims. Really?
As for the fraud, as I said above, it renders your patent unenforceable, i.e., dead. It will come out in litigation, trust me.
Please try to be a little more open-minded. It's kinda the whole point of a "discussion board."
Maybe. But maybe their above someone having ordinary skill in the art. I'm not disagreeing with you - it's a common theory.
What is "obvious" is a very muddy lake. I mean, you have to compare the claims to this nebulous test of what a hypothetical person having "ordinary" skill in the art would know.
Eh, my job is my job. It's actually much more difficult to get a patent than most think, at least it has been in the last 3-4 years due to KSR and Bilski, and I don't lament that. I want high quality patents too since a lot of my work is also defending companies against patent tolls. And that work is dreary, pissing match work.
I know there are a ton of bad patents out there from the mid nineties to the mid 2000s, but what can you do but try to write good patents yourself and set client expectations as to what they can reasonably expect to get a patent on. *shrug*
We shifted to first to file to get rid of "interferences" which, contrary to the hype, were really not much of an issue. The rest of the world is first to file, so it made sense for us to shift too. Here's what it means:
Under the old system, say I invented X on January 1st and you invented X (exact same thing) on March 1st and neither of us know about the other person's inventing X. If you immediately file a patent application on April 1st, and I continue tinkering and perfecting, and finally file a patent application on September 1st, I win because I was the first to invent (assuming I can prove it by documentation and I was in fact diligent).
Under the new system, you win because although we both invented the same thing, you filed your patent application first. That is all first to file means.
Now, if I publish about my invention on March 15th, after you invented but before you filed your patent application, my publication is prior art and kills your patent application. DEAD. This is why prior art is not gone under first to file. It used to be that my publication would not autokill your application and you could "swear behind" my publication, showing you invented it before I published.
Now, same set of facts, but say you didn't really invent anything and instead knew about my work, when you file your application on April 1st, you still need to submit an Oath that you believe you are the first to invent X. If you sign that oath and you in fact didn't invent X - you just copied my work - you have committed fraud on the Patent Office and your patent is unenforceable. DEAD. This is true under the old system and the new system. This has nothing to do with the change to first to file and this is why first to file does not allow you to just copy someone's idea and get a patent on it even though there isn't one.
The last scenario is a bit of a prickly pear, but it's not because of first to file - it's the same under the old system. If I invent X and sit on it, using it in secret for years and years and then you independently invent X and file a patent application on it, and your patent is granted, you can then sue me for something I have been doing for years. Remember, if I had published, your patent application would have been DOA, so it is designed to encourage people to publish early.
If this patent gets granted, it has nothing to do with whether the system is first to file (new) or first to invent (old). I'm just saying "rail against the patent office all you want, but at least understand why you're doing it."
First, let me say thanks for trying to have a reasonable and non-torch and pitchfork carrying conversation on the subject. Now then...
From what I understand, prior art has increased in scope. Where before the only prior art that counted was other patens or scientific publications.
Not exactly, though it has been broadened somewhat.
Now any kind of publishing is prior art, if anything was published before the patent application in first to file, the patent is dead.
This is actually how it has been. Anything that was "generally accessible to the public" in the US counted as prior art, e.g., public use or sales, publications, etc. It used to be that public use outside the didn't count as prior art, although publications and papers outside the US did. Now public use anywhere counts.
Sitting on the idea wouldn't really work against standards organizations though because they typically published their standards, which would then be irrefutable prior art one year after they were published. Most submarine patents died in 1995 when the law shifted to the patent term being 20 years from earliest claimed priority date.
No offense taken. I've been around slashdot a long long time (see userid).
I am usually hesitant to say I am a patent attorney. And once upon I time I tried to educate the slashdot crowd and help them navigate the nuances of patent law. But it's gotten so bad over the last four or so years I don't even bother unless I something egregiously wrong. This first-to-file-means-I-can-steal-your-invention or prior-art-no-longer-exists keeps getting posted and I just had to say something.
You have no idea what you are talking about. First to file did not change anything prior art-wise. It did not get rid of prior art. I cannot see you doing something and then file a patent application on it myself. Please, for the love of god, stop spreading this bullshit FUD around. You and everyone like you that keeps saying this is making the slashdot community dumber with your posts.
Prior invention in the sense of I saw somebody else do it, but I'm filing a patent on it?! It absolutely must be disclosed. In fact, it's inequitable conduct to file a patent on something you didn't come up with.
Text of 102(a) now:
`(a) Novelty; Prior Art- A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
`(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
If someone else publicly used it. YOU CAN'T GET A PATENT ON IT.
+ like 1,000,000 Internets for you, whoever57. Whoever started this meme that first to file means prior art no longer counts or that now people can just copy ideas and file an application if no one else has needs to be beaten. Severely. I have seen it spread all over slashdot and it's just plain WRONG.
It makes me want to claw my eyes out so I can't read the stupidity.
It's a giant mess and the consumer definitely isn't winning. The consumer was in an awesome position back when we were still using vhs and cassette tapes. You could take that stupid tape and a gazillion different devices played it from that giant boom box, to the school's cheezy tape player, do your car radio. Same with vhs. These days? Fuck you.
Not true. You couldn't take your VHS tape and put it in a betamax player. And putting a metal cassette tape in a recorder that didn't detect it as metal caused distortion. It's always been like this. Maybe not the patent wars, but every manufacturer wants to lock you in. How many Gillette razor blades will work on a Schick handle and vice versa?
Your comment is what is complete crap. Before and after the bill, a patent troll COULD NOT file a patent based on your work. As part of a patent application, the inventors have to file a declaration stating they believe they invented the invention. What you are suggesting would render the entire patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
You don't know what you are talking about, yet your comment was modded up. Disgusting.
No it does not! Stop spreading this bullshit FUD that somehow prior art trumping a patent magically disappears when first-to-file hits. That's not the way it works at all.
First to file just gets rids of the ability to swear behind someone else's application if they filed up to a year before you filed yours. Under FtF, if there is prior art out there that is dead on before your application is filed, even a day before, your application is DOA. There is no more one year grace period.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about and you are the second person on here that I have seen spouting off that somehow prior art is no longer prior art. This place USED to be where intelligent people had intelligent debates. Now it's FOX News of the tech world.
For better or worse, patents don't have to be functional to work.
You may not have to show a working model, but it still has to have a utility.
35 USC 101: 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.
Thanks for sharing. As a patent attorney that is dreading the first-to-file aspect of the bill, this sums up nicely the reasons why. I dread whipping out a patent application every time a client invents something. The current one year grace period is extremely helpful because it gives them time to crystalize a worthwhile invention and pursue only quality applications.
This bill actually allows the patent office to keep the fees it collects and NOT have congress shunt them off into some random sub-committee. This is HUGE. Now the patent office can put more money into hiring more, and more-qualified, examiners.
There are almost no requirements for a provisional other than listing who the inventors are, so you can file powerpoints, a thesis, hell probably a scan of a napkin.
People say the bar is low to receive a patent. Bullshit. I spend all day, every day trying to get my clients patents and it is not easy. The PTO is not some bigger rubber stamp machine despite what people here think. Yes, some bad apples get through. But truckloads of bushels do not.
Looking at this, it appears that the magnet just holds it and the stubby tongs are what electricity is sent through. But I'll be the first to admit I'm not sure how that works.
Here is what apple can prevent other people from making, i.e., not the entire concept of magnetic connectors:
1. An apparatus for electrically connecting an electronic device to an electrical relation, comprising:
a first connector having a first magnetic element and having at least one first contact electrically connected to the electronic device;
[ok, the fryer connector could have this - this could be the plate on the fryer (the device) and let's say magnetic element is the metal plate (let's say it is magnetized for argument's sake) and contact is stub right]
and a second connector positionable adjacent the first connector, the second connector having a second magnetic element and having at least one second contact electrically connected to the electrical relation,
[the fryer may not have this - this is the wall chord (the relation) - the connector can be adjacent, the thin strips can be magnets, and the second contact can be the right hole]
wherein the at least one first contact comprises a metallic contact extending from a first face of the first connector and biased relative to the first face,
[this is backward from our example: instead of a plate, the metal strips would ned to be here]
wherein magnetic attraction between the first and second magnetic elements substantially maintains the first and second contacts in an electrically conductive relationship,
[the fryer has this]
wherein the first and second connectors each comprise two axes of symmetry such that the first and second connectors couple together in only two orientations relative to one another, and
[the fryer may have this - it seems that connector can be flipped around 180 - I may be misreading this]
wherein the at least one first and second contacts of the first and second connectors each comprise a pair of first path contacts on the connector for establishing a first path of electrical communication between the device and the relation,
[the fryer doesn't have this - the plug/hole does not comprise a "pair" of first path contacts]
wherein the pairs of first path contacts form an electrically conductive relationship with one another regardless of which of the two orientations the connectors are magnetically coupled.
[the fryer doesn't have this - because there is no pair that can conduct electricity regardless of orientation.]
I didn't see anywhere where they were forced to cancel claim 1. They amended it some, and it looks like what was added that got them over the prior art is the two axes of symmetry limitation, but they didn't cancel it (admittedly I just skimmed through the OAs and the Responses).
People can disagree on if apple should or should not have gotten a patent on this - I see it as both sufficiently different and narrow. Some people think you should only get patents on major breakthroughs. That's all subjective though.
Long story short, the OP was making sweeping generalizations about what Apple got a patent on (again, I am not surprised - weeping and gnashing of teeth is the norm here now).
That very few patents are for actual inventions to the original inventors.
Cite please? Most inventions are made due to the funding of someone's employers, so.... not sure the point you're making here.
Which is patently obvious, and has even been shown to be comically obvious when people successfully patent the wheel.
Cite please.
Tell me, if they received a 20 year patent for something they didn't invent instead of 21, does that fix it? Or is it insignificant detail that does not affect the main point.
His main "point" was wrong in seven different ways. I've now outlined them in a reply. Feel free to check it out.
Tell me, does the 1995 subrule make it different? Or is it insignificant detail intended to portray you as an expert whose opinion should be deferred to without challenge?
Actually, yes, the 1995 subrule makes a huge difference because patents filed before then get the longer of 20 years from the earliest claimed priority date or 17 years from issuance. If it was filed in 1991 but issued in 1999, it would still have years of life left versus already being expired.
And on the contrary, I would just about KILL for someone to challenge me with ACTUAL FACTS, not just the weeping and gnashing of teeth that goes on. Slashdot USED to be a place where smart people discussed smart things (check my user # - yeah, I played that card). Now it's a Tea Party rally.
Patents need to be fixed, it's beyond comedy now.
I won't disagree with that. But little is ever solved with pitchforks and torches.
The earliest claimed priority date may be the filing date, but if it claims priority to an earlier application, e.g., it being a continuation or a divisional, then no, it's not this patent application's filing date.
And while you currently have a year to file a patent application (in the US) you have no monopoly during that year or until the day before your patent issues. Anyone is free to copy your idea and do whatever they want until you have a patent. Without an issued patent, you have no enforceable rights and thus no monopoly.
I do this for a living. Clearly you don't.
As to your previous diatribe: *sigh* fine.
Very few patents are for actual original innovations that warrant a 21 year monopoly. Let me give you an example.. the concept of a magnetic breakaway safety mechanism for power cords was invented in the 1990's for deep fryers (though it may actually have a longer history than that). In the early 2000s, Apple got a patent for the same concept when applied to electronic devices. Now surely does Apple deserve a 21 year monopoly for copying an idea that someone else came up with.. just because they added the word "electronics devices" ?
OK, I need to see the claims (since that's what actually are what is determined to be patentable) and the prior art. You have glossed over both and it's entirely possible that what Apple has a patent on is significantly narrower and inventive over the broad concept of a magnetic breakaway. As of right now you are just waving your hands and spreading FUD.
OK, now there's that.. now here is something scarier.. the America Invents Act.. which is very shortly due to become law (its in the reconciliation process). The new law redefines what an inventor is (in order to get around the US Constitution which says only inventors can have patents)
1) The metes and bounds who can have a patent are not laid out in the Constitution, the Constitution merely allows Congress to grant an exclusive right to inventors and authors; 2) it's actually being done to bring the US into alignment with the rest of the world, not for some nefarious purpose.
I can still get the patent for your idea.. as long as I 1) File for the and pay the patent fee first and 2) state that I came up with the idea independently (though after you).
Not what it says at all and what you just said is actually NO different than the current system. Your patent application is STILL subject to what is out there as far as prior art. And if you know about someone else doing it, you have to tell the patent office AND you can't sign that declaration stating you came up with it. Falsely doing so makes your patent unenforceable.
but nobody got the patent on [bubble sort].. I can file for a patent on "using the bubble sort patent in a mobile phone app".. similarly I can go through all the computer science books and start patenting all the various algorithms by appending "on a mobile device" to it.
No, in fact, you can't because as part of that you have to disclose every book you referenced and "on a mobile device" alone is not going to give your claim patentable weight. Furthermore, it's not patentable since it'd be obvious under Section 103 to combine the two well known technologies/ideas.
Of course, I sound ridiculous right ? How could they really be making such a dumb law? And why (it's to take away the burden from the patent office for having to google for prior art because a lot of patents were being overturned in lawsuits when it turned out that a simple google search would have brought up prior art.. thus humiliating the patent office).
This is just pure conjecture and FUD.
You were wrong on just about every point you made. I didn't respond to your rant because, as stated in Bill
It's determined by how long the patent application took to get through the patent office, minus any delay caused by the applicant. That is a very short answer, there's actually a whole equation for it.
Typically it's not that long though. Most I see are on the order of a hundred days or so. For EE stuff it doesn't really matter, but for pharma patents, each days of exclusivity is millions of dollars in revenue.
Very few patents are for actual original innovations that warrant a 21 year monopoly.
Wow, wrong fact right in the first sentence. All credibility: gone.
You don't get a 21 year monopoly, or even a "20 year monopoly" which is what you were probably thinking of. You get a monopoly that lasts between patent issuance and the end of a 20 year period starting from the earliest claimed priority date, plus any patent term adjustment (assuming the patent was filed after 1995; pre-1995 is a little different).
So you're wrong right out of the gate, then, yup, a bunch of anti-patent blathering. And modded up as informative. Good to see/. never changes.
Hey, idiot. The US's current patent system is the ONLY first-to-invent system in the world. Changing our system to first-to-file IS changing it to match the world.
Not that I would expect anyone on slashdot to know the first thing about patents.
Slashdot Mirror
See, this is what is frustrating about slashdot. Do you really - I mean really - think that a patent examiner is sitting there refusing to allow a patent until someone adds "on a mobile device" to the claims. Really?
As for the fraud, as I said above, it renders your patent unenforceable, i.e., dead. It will come out in litigation, trust me.
Please try to be a little more open-minded. It's kinda the whole point of a "discussion board."
Maybe. But maybe their above someone having ordinary skill in the art. I'm not disagreeing with you - it's a common theory.
What is "obvious" is a very muddy lake. I mean, you have to compare the claims to this nebulous test of what a hypothetical person having "ordinary" skill in the art would know.
But I hear ya.
Eh, my job is my job. It's actually much more difficult to get a patent than most think, at least it has been in the last 3-4 years due to KSR and Bilski, and I don't lament that. I want high quality patents too since a lot of my work is also defending companies against patent tolls. And that work is dreary, pissing match work.
I know there are a ton of bad patents out there from the mid nineties to the mid 2000s, but what can you do but try to write good patents yourself and set client expectations as to what they can reasonably expect to get a patent on. *shrug*
We shifted to first to file to get rid of "interferences" which, contrary to the hype, were really not much of an issue. The rest of the world is first to file, so it made sense for us to shift too. Here's what it means:
Under the old system, say I invented X on January 1st and you invented X (exact same thing) on March 1st and neither of us know about the other person's inventing X. If you immediately file a patent application on April 1st, and I continue tinkering and perfecting, and finally file a patent application on September 1st, I win because I was the first to invent (assuming I can prove it by documentation and I was in fact diligent).
Under the new system, you win because although we both invented the same thing, you filed your patent application first. That is all first to file means.
Now, if I publish about my invention on March 15th, after you invented but before you filed your patent application, my publication is prior art and kills your patent application. DEAD. This is why prior art is not gone under first to file. It used to be that my publication would not autokill your application and you could "swear behind" my publication, showing you invented it before I published.
Now, same set of facts, but say you didn't really invent anything and instead knew about my work, when you file your application on April 1st, you still need to submit an Oath that you believe you are the first to invent X. If you sign that oath and you in fact didn't invent X - you just copied my work - you have committed fraud on the Patent Office and your patent is unenforceable. DEAD. This is true under the old system and the new system. This has nothing to do with the change to first to file and this is why first to file does not allow you to just copy someone's idea and get a patent on it even though there isn't one.
The last scenario is a bit of a prickly pear, but it's not because of first to file - it's the same under the old system. If I invent X and sit on it, using it in secret for years and years and then you independently invent X and file a patent application on it, and your patent is granted, you can then sue me for something I have been doing for years. Remember, if I had published, your patent application would have been DOA, so it is designed to encourage people to publish early.
Hope this helps.
If this patent gets granted, it has nothing to do with whether the system is first to file (new) or first to invent (old). I'm just saying "rail against the patent office all you want, but at least understand why you're doing it."
First, let me say thanks for trying to have a reasonable and non-torch and pitchfork carrying conversation on the subject. Now then...
From what I understand, prior art has increased in scope. Where before the only prior art that counted was other patens or scientific publications.
Not exactly, though it has been broadened somewhat.
Now any kind of publishing is prior art, if anything was published before the patent application in first to file, the patent is dead.
This is actually how it has been. Anything that was "generally accessible to the public" in the US counted as prior art, e.g., public use or sales, publications, etc. It used to be that public use outside the didn't count as prior art, although publications and papers outside the US did. Now public use anywhere counts.
Sitting on the idea wouldn't really work against standards organizations though because they typically published their standards, which would then be irrefutable prior art one year after they were published. Most submarine patents died in 1995 when the law shifted to the patent term being 20 years from earliest claimed priority date.
No offense taken. I've been around slashdot a long long time (see userid).
I am usually hesitant to say I am a patent attorney. And once upon I time I tried to educate the slashdot crowd and help them navigate the nuances of patent law. But it's gotten so bad over the last four or so years I don't even bother unless I something egregiously wrong. This first-to-file-means-I-can-steal-your-invention or prior-art-no-longer-exists keeps getting posted and I just had to say something.
I am a patent attorney. You are clearly not.
You have no idea what you are talking about. First to file did not change anything prior art-wise. It did not get rid of prior art. I cannot see you doing something and then file a patent application on it myself. Please, for the love of god, stop spreading this bullshit FUD around. You and everyone like you that keeps saying this is making the slashdot community dumber with your posts.
Prior invention in the sense of I saw somebody else do it, but I'm filing a patent on it?! It absolutely must be disclosed. In fact, it's inequitable conduct to file a patent on something you didn't come up with.
Text of 102(a) now:
`(a) Novelty; Prior Art- A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
`(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
If someone else publicly used it. YOU CAN'T GET A PATENT ON IT.
+ like 1,000,000 Internets for you, whoever57. Whoever started this meme that first to file means prior art no longer counts or that now people can just copy ideas and file an application if no one else has needs to be beaten. Severely. I have seen it spread all over slashdot and it's just plain WRONG.
It makes me want to claw my eyes out so I can't read the stupidity.
It's a giant mess and the consumer definitely isn't winning. The consumer was in an awesome position back when we were still using vhs and cassette tapes. You could take that stupid tape and a gazillion different devices played it from that giant boom box, to the school's cheezy tape player, do your car radio. Same with vhs. These days? Fuck you.
Not true. You couldn't take your VHS tape and put it in a betamax player. And putting a metal cassette tape in a recorder that didn't detect it as metal caused distortion. It's always been like this. Maybe not the patent wars, but every manufacturer wants to lock you in. How many Gillette razor blades will work on a Schick handle and vice versa?
Complete crap
Your comment is what is complete crap. Before and after the bill, a patent troll COULD NOT file a patent based on your work. As part of a patent application, the inventors have to file a declaration stating they believe they invented the invention. What you are suggesting would render the entire patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
You don't know what you are talking about, yet your comment was modded up. Disgusting.
No it does not! Stop spreading this bullshit FUD that somehow prior art trumping a patent magically disappears when first-to-file hits. That's not the way it works at all.
First to file just gets rids of the ability to swear behind someone else's application if they filed up to a year before you filed yours. Under FtF, if there is prior art out there that is dead on before your application is filed, even a day before, your application is DOA. There is no more one year grace period.
Go read this if you don't believe me.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/09/the-effects-of-the-america-invents-act-on-technological-disclosure.html
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about and you are the second person on here that I have seen spouting off that somehow prior art is no longer prior art. This place USED to be where intelligent people had intelligent debates. Now it's FOX News of the tech world.
For better or worse, patents don't have to be functional to work.
You may not have to show a working model, but it still has to have a utility.
35 USC 101: 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.
I'll let wikipedia explain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_(patent)
Thanks for sharing. As a patent attorney that is dreading the first-to-file aspect of the bill, this sums up nicely the reasons why. I dread whipping out a patent application every time a client invents something. The current one year grace period is extremely helpful because it gives them time to crystalize a worthwhile invention and pursue only quality applications.
This bill actually allows the patent office to keep the fees it collects and NOT have congress shunt them off into some random sub-committee. This is HUGE. Now the patent office can put more money into hiring more, and more-qualified, examiners.
A provisional costs $110 if you are a small entity (e.g., a lone inventor).
Go here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm
Search for "Provisional application filing fee"
There are almost no requirements for a provisional other than listing who the inventors are, so you can file powerpoints, a thesis, hell probably a scan of a napkin.
People say the bar is low to receive a patent. Bullshit. I spend all day, every day trying to get my clients patents and it is not easy. The PTO is not some bigger rubber stamp machine despite what people here think. Yes, some bad apples get through. But truckloads of bushels do not.
Thank you for looking at the file history. Before I get to that, some details. This is an image of I could fine of a fryer system. There may be others: http://www.shunertrade.com/UploadImage/2011530175270.jpg
Looking at this, it appears that the magnet just holds it and the stubby tongs are what electricity is sent through. But I'll be the first to admit I'm not sure how that works.
Here is what apple can prevent other people from making, i.e., not the entire concept of magnetic connectors:
1. An apparatus for electrically connecting an electronic device to an electrical relation, comprising:
a first connector having a first magnetic element and having at least one first contact electrically connected to the electronic device;
[ok, the fryer connector could have this - this could be the plate on the fryer (the device) and let's say magnetic element is the metal plate (let's say it is magnetized for argument's sake) and contact is stub right]
and a second connector positionable adjacent the first connector, the second connector having a second magnetic element and having at least one second contact electrically connected to the electrical relation,
[the fryer may not have this - this is the wall chord (the relation) - the connector can be adjacent, the thin strips can be magnets, and the second contact can be the right hole]
wherein the at least one first contact comprises a metallic contact extending from a first face of the first connector and biased relative to the first face,
[this is backward from our example: instead of a plate, the metal strips would ned to be here]
wherein magnetic attraction between the first and second magnetic elements substantially maintains the first and second contacts in an electrically conductive relationship,
[the fryer has this]
wherein the first and second connectors each comprise two axes of symmetry such that the first and second connectors couple together in only two orientations relative to one another, and
[the fryer may have this - it seems that connector can be flipped around 180 - I may be misreading this]
wherein the at least one first and second contacts of the first and second connectors each comprise a pair of first path contacts on the connector for establishing a first path of electrical communication between the device and the relation,
[the fryer doesn't have this - the plug/hole does not comprise a "pair" of first path contacts]
wherein the pairs of first path contacts form an electrically conductive relationship with one another regardless of which of the two orientations the connectors are magnetically coupled.
[the fryer doesn't have this - because there is no pair that can conduct electricity regardless of orientation.]
I didn't see anywhere where they were forced to cancel claim 1. They amended it some, and it looks like what was added that got them over the prior art is the two axes of symmetry limitation, but they didn't cancel it (admittedly I just skimmed through the OAs and the Responses).
People can disagree on if apple should or should not have gotten a patent on this - I see it as both sufficiently different and narrow. Some people think you should only get patents on major breakthroughs. That's all subjective though.
Long story short, the OP was making sweeping generalizations about what Apple got a patent on (again, I am not surprised - weeping and gnashing of teeth is the norm here now).
Why bother when so many other places - if people actually looked - have done it for me.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/03/america-invents-act-first-to-invent-and-a-filing-date-focus.html
Here's your rod. Put some bait on line. Throw the line in the water. There, I just taught you to fish.
That very few patents are for actual inventions to the original inventors.
Cite please? Most inventions are made due to the funding of someone's employers, so.... not sure the point you're making here.
Which is patently obvious, and has even been shown to be comically obvious when people successfully patent the wheel.
Cite please.
Tell me, if they received a 20 year patent for something they didn't invent instead of 21, does that fix it? Or is it insignificant detail that does not affect the main point.
His main "point" was wrong in seven different ways. I've now outlined them in a reply. Feel free to check it out.
Tell me, does the 1995 subrule make it different? Or is it insignificant detail intended to portray you as an expert whose opinion should be deferred to without challenge?
Actually, yes, the 1995 subrule makes a huge difference because patents filed before then get the longer of 20 years from the earliest claimed priority date or 17 years from issuance. If it was filed in 1991 but issued in 1999, it would still have years of life left versus already being expired.
And on the contrary, I would just about KILL for someone to challenge me with ACTUAL FACTS, not just the weeping and gnashing of teeth that goes on. Slashdot USED to be a place where smart people discussed smart things (check my user # - yeah, I played that card). Now it's a Tea Party rally.
Patents need to be fixed, it's beyond comedy now.
I won't disagree with that. But little is ever solved with pitchforks and torches.
See above. Nothing he posted was correct or accurate. Hope my long-winded explanation helps.
The earliest claimed priority date may be the filing date, but if it claims priority to an earlier application, e.g., it being a continuation or a divisional, then no, it's not this patent application's filing date.
And while you currently have a year to file a patent application (in the US) you have no monopoly during that year or until the day before your patent issues. Anyone is free to copy your idea and do whatever they want until you have a patent. Without an issued patent, you have no enforceable rights and thus no monopoly.
I do this for a living. Clearly you don't.
As to your previous diatribe: *sigh* fine.
Very few patents are for actual original innovations that warrant a 21 year monopoly. Let me give you an example .. the concept of a magnetic breakaway safety mechanism for power cords was invented in the 1990's for deep fryers (though it may actually have a longer history than that). In the early 2000s, Apple got a patent for the same concept when applied to electronic devices. Now surely does Apple deserve a 21 year monopoly for copying an idea that someone else came up with .. just because they added the word "electronics devices" ?
OK, I need to see the claims (since that's what actually are what is determined to be patentable) and the prior art. You have glossed over both and it's entirely possible that what Apple has a patent on is significantly narrower and inventive over the broad concept of a magnetic breakaway. As of right now you are just waving your hands and spreading FUD.
OK, now there's that .. now here is something scarier .. the America Invents Act .. which is very shortly due to become law (its in the reconciliation process). The new law redefines what an inventor is (in order to get around the US Constitution which says only inventors can have patents)
1) The metes and bounds who can have a patent are not laid out in the Constitution, the Constitution merely allows Congress to grant an exclusive right to inventors and authors; 2) it's actually being done to bring the US into alignment with the rest of the world, not for some nefarious purpose.
I can still get the patent for your idea .. as long as I 1) File for the and pay the patent fee first and 2) state that I came up with the idea independently (though after you).
Not what it says at all and what you just said is actually NO different than the current system. Your patent application is STILL subject to what is out there as far as prior art. And if you know about someone else doing it, you have to tell the patent office AND you can't sign that declaration stating you came up with it. Falsely doing so makes your patent unenforceable.
but nobody got the patent on [bubble sort].. I can file for a patent on "using the bubble sort patent in a mobile phone app" .. similarly I can go through all the computer science books and start patenting all the various algorithms by appending "on a mobile device" to it.
No, in fact, you can't because as part of that you have to disclose every book you referenced and "on a mobile device" alone is not going to give your claim patentable weight. Furthermore, it's not patentable since it'd be obvious under Section 103 to combine the two well known technologies/ideas.
Of course, I sound ridiculous right ? How could they really be making such a dumb law? And why (it's to take away the burden from the patent office for having to google for prior art because a lot of patents were being overturned in lawsuits when it turned out that a simple google search would have brought up prior art .. thus humiliating the patent office).
This is just pure conjecture and FUD.
You were wrong on just about every point you made. I didn't respond to your rant because, as stated in Bill
It's determined by how long the patent application took to get through the patent office, minus any delay caused by the applicant. That is a very short answer, there's actually a whole equation for it.
Typically it's not that long though. Most I see are on the order of a hundred days or so. For EE stuff it doesn't really matter, but for pharma patents, each days of exclusivity is millions of dollars in revenue.
Very few patents are for actual original innovations that warrant a 21 year monopoly.
Wow, wrong fact right in the first sentence. All credibility: gone.
You don't get a 21 year monopoly, or even a "20 year monopoly" which is what you were probably thinking of. You get a monopoly that lasts between patent issuance and the end of a 20 year period starting from the earliest claimed priority date, plus any patent term adjustment (assuming the patent was filed after 1995; pre-1995 is a little different).
So you're wrong right out of the gate, then, yup, a bunch of anti-patent blathering. And modded up as informative. Good to see /. never changes.
Hey, idiot. The US's current patent system is the ONLY first-to-invent system in the world. Changing our system to first-to-file IS changing it to match the world.
Not that I would expect anyone on slashdot to know the first thing about patents.