True-dat. I tried to edit all the past tense references away but failed. Not is the "acorn risc machine" still kicking (and actually doing well), but MIPS got spun back out of SGI.
Perhaps the news is that enough time has passed since RISC that the notion is new again. Except with one sad and sorry exception. The RISC guys are way better engineers because they calculate various effects of their instruction sets and other optimizations BEFORE committing to silicon. The guys in TFA are relative chimps because they're just pruning, testing, and bandaging something they don't seem to fully understand.
An analogy comes to mind: some kids buy a car and pull off pieces until it doesn't work right. Once it breaks, they add duct tape until the car runs again. The stripped down car gets better mileage and can go faster. Somewhere along the way, some journalist looks at the thing and gets excited by the brand new car the kids built. The journalist trumpets to the sky about the wonderful new car and automotive geniuses he's discovered. The kids start a car company, dumb people invest. Meanwhile, automotive engineers furrow their brows, shake their heads, and go back to work.
If you don't want it to be patentable, then publish it promptly. Also, your protocol is covered by copyright. Go to copyright.gov and spend the $35 to register it. You can always whip out that copyright registration to support an argument that someone else wasn't the first inventor.
As for defensive patents... Patenting the protocol itself is pretty weak unless the specification clearly states what each message is supposed to do. In fact, it is the effects on the server farm and client machines that is patentable (if anything is).
Besides, I think what you are after is a patent application that the various examiners will find when they do searches. It need not lead to a patent. That costs $500 per application. Both of your protocols can be submitted in the same document. You only need one claim and it can be narrow as hell so that no one can infringe it. You could also do an early publication request. Once the UPSTO publishes your protocol documents, that about does it. They are published and the examiners are more likely to find them. Of yeah, just as web sites can be optimized for search engines, so can patent apps be optimized for patent searches. Include the buzz words/phrases you expect other people to so that the app pops up in the search.
Did they ever own the cotton? Does the act of picking transfer ownership? If so, then picking something off of a store shelf and walking away is not theft.
That's exactly it. Even those of us that know about flushing the cache will eventually make a mistake. I dismount the drive at least 15 times a week. Repeat for years and eventually you mind fart and screw something up. Across that amount of time it isn't rare to get a windows freeze up requiring a hard reboot or power cycle.
I don't trust NTFS journaling yet. It wasn't all that when they slapped it into NTFS v3.0. Perhaps they don't (didn't) journal the master file table? That's where my drive got corrupted. Decent journaling would have dealt with that. It has been many years since I lost that NTFS partition and my FAT32 formated flash drives have been robust. I haven't experimented with NTFS formatting since the mishap.
Over all, I'm a little embarrassed to be talking about which is better: NTFS or FAT32. ext3 is better than either. I haven't played with reiserFS since I met hans and I worried it might be an extension of his personality.
I wish there were tests covering "typical user mishaps". Things like inopportune powerdowns and flash drive yanking. My anecdotal evidence is that I've never had issues with FAT32 but have had entire NTFS partitions become unreadable. It's just anecdote though. Now throw a truecrypt file into the mix...
In more detail, if you search and find applicable prior art, then you have a duty to disclose it to the USPTO. Failure to do so is considered perpetrating a fraud on the USPTO. If anyone proves that you did not disclose, then your patent is invalidated because of the fraud.
So, what's applicable prior art? Anything an attorney can convince a judge/jury is. The only real defense is to ignore the literature and pursue a Kazinski-esque existence. On the other hand, finding evidence of the fraud can be tough. Many people regularly purge their browser cache and search history. Also, it takes someone who understands a bit about evidence and a bit about technology to spelunk for the evidence. Those folks tend to be expensive and rare.
If you want to know what is being patented, read the claims first. The claims tell you exactly what is patented. Pick apart the abstract or detailed description is mere wankery without first dissecting the claims. For example:
Claim 1: A computer-implementable method for determining the behavior of an executable comprising:
selecting evaluation calls made by the executable to the interface of an operating system; loading stubs into a virtual address space, the stubs: mirroring the calls made to the interface of an operating system wherein mirroring the calls made to the interface of the operating system includes mirroring a set of full implemented DLLs; and
determining a behavior signature for the selected calls;
wherein the calls are included in dynamic link libraries (DLLs) and wherein loading stubs include loading stub DLLs into said virtual address space;
executing the selected calls inside of a virtual operating environment using the loaded stubs dynamically linked libraries; and
determining the behavior signatures resulting from said execution of the selected calls inside of a virtual operating environment.
So, this is basically running some code inside a stubby VM. That is the prior art to look for. All the stuff about looking for code similar to already known malware is BS. It doesn't matter how long that has been done - it isn't prior art with regard to the claims.
So I can make hydrogen while driving. At an efficiency of perhaps 96%. So, 100 units of energy in resulting in 96 units of energy in the form of hydrogen. Those 96 units then pwoer the car.
Why wouldn't I cut the middle step out and simply use 100% of the energy to make the wheels go round and round?
and looked at the re-exam history, and looked to see if there is any obvious payola going into the good senator's pockets, I have to support the earlier conclusion.
That is just fucking retarded.
Seriously retarded. A billion taxpayer dollars on the line after the banks have spent, by my estimate, around 30k. I guess it's cheaper to send a teenage male hooker to the senate chambers than to fight this thing. More seriously, there are good reasons to fight this thing in court. Write your senator. Here's a few points:
KSR v. Teleflex modified the definition of obvious. Making the banks fight will pull in that case law.
eBay v. MercExchange will make it harder for the patent holder to enjoin the banks from scanning and transmitting check data. so, there's no real danger of banking being shut down as the case is tried.
It's doubtful that this technology saves the banks a billion dollars. They can always turn to low tech fax machines if they don't want to ship pallets of checks. You can fax an awful lot of checks for a billion dollars.
If the senate wants to pass a law, pass one that legalizes something else that the banks can do without infringement.
The banks can easily afford a billion dollars. Bankers award themselves more than that each year as annual bonuses. Furthermore, it gives the banks a legitimate excuse (for a change) to raise fees. The reason will only last a year or two and after that they can use the money to fund reelection campaigns.
How many programmers want to (or should) spend their time looking for prior art
Decent programmers won't spend much time looking because they already know what is out there. If they don't know what is out there, then they're just hacks who also think they are the one who figured out the world is round.
submitting their complaints to the patent office, hiring lawyers to argue for them
Why do that? Wait for the nasty gram or to be served. Regarding the one click patent - go read the claims and look at the filing date. There's a lot more to it than clicking once. Even better, go read the patent. Then "innovate" around it. You might even use what Bezos disclosed as your alpha design. Why reinvent when you're on a 2 week deadline and you know about a published solution.
You are expecting my program to be useful for one innovative feature. But whether or not a program is considered innovative, it has to incorporate dozens of once-innovative features to be useful...
No, I expect it to novel for one innovative feature. Yes, a useful program has to include all sorts of once innovative features in order to be useful. Interesting that you then list a bunch of features that existed back in the 60's. Except for right click menues. Those might might be 80s, unless parc or one of the others did it. All it takes is one innovative thing all by itself.
By the way, obvious for lack of novelty can be found for something containing a combination of known parts selected from a finite set and that in combination produce no unexpected functionality. That means that stringing together a bunch of published modules is probably not going to be novel. Not even if it is a brand new combination.
Ah yes - the shitty patent category. Using XOR as a pixel mask - shitty patent. Adding "further comprising a computer network" to a bunch of old stuff (this was popular in the late 90's) - shitty patents. The mpeg codec (based on broadly published discreet cosine transform algorithms and applications) - shitty patents.
Elliptic curve cryptography - now that is a work of art that no one else saw coming. Hand that guy cash with no strings attached and see what comes next. Oh, that no strings cash can be called a MacArthur award, a patent royalty, whatever.
Not legal advice, but if a shitty patent really is keeping you from innovating - then gather sufficient prior art to kill the patent. Any decent innovator would know why such a patent should be revoked because otherwise it is likely NIH syndrome (not invented here) instead of innovation. Then just do what you were going to do. If the patent holder threatens, then send 'em your evidence. If you're not willing to gather the prior art, then your innovation ain't all that anyway.
Warning - your prior art search just might find that your innovation is already old. Is stifled innovation worse than proof of not being innovative?
Make legal arguments patentable? Been done. Well, legal practice business method patents have been. They have brutal obviousness barriers to overcome. The core of almost all arguments/techniques are ancient. The specifics are usually public domain (laws). Also, legal precedent (prior art) has been copiously tracked for centuries. Check out Westlaw sometime. Scary. If there were similar indexes of software development - wow.
What you probably mean is copyrighted. Also been done. Cease and desist letters have been held up in court as copyrighted.
Well, OK if it works for you. I became a lawyer because I was tired of making other people rich. They got a new lexus/house. I got a new project w/ artificial deadline and a new t-shirt.
I guess that many programmers will be anti patent for a number of reasons: 1) No residual income (like what hollywood writers get)
2) Poor patent quality - some really shitty patents get approved.
3) perceived poor patent quality - not knowing how to read a patent yet forming a strong opinion
4) arrogance - belief that the community can't commoditize your latest brainstorm within a week or two.
5) a genuine belief that there will always be enough well paying work in a purely software as service paradigm.
I gotta confess that I'm more a believer in reasons 1 and 5, which are kinda enshrined in some open source license. Namely, if you sell it, share the wealth. If you use it or supply services with it, then good luck and please submit your fixes.
Why wouldn't the lawyers fight hard on both sides of the case? That's what they are paid to do. Court cases that shift around the boundaries of patent law do not hurt or help "the lawyers". It just changes where the fighting is but there will still be fighting.
For example, the recent KSR v. Teleflex case changed the rules on obviousness. That created lots of work. Suddenly there were new arguments to make in seeking new patents. There were also new arguments to make in invalidating old patents. Lots and lots of work.
The only way us patent lawyers would actually loose is if patents were outlawed.
According to wikipedia, the game was invented in 1938 and has been marketed since at least the 1940s. That is a little longer than the one year to file (under 37 CFR 102) currently allowed. Even if it had been patented back when it could be, that patent would be long expired.
On the other hand, a new patent with a new name might slip past the examiner. Some of them seem pretty young and might actually not know that scrabble ever existed.
The trademark can be used to label versions approved by the trademark holder. That's about all there is. Can you protect against forks? Not with the GPL or many of the other open source licenses. That's a good thing. Someone forks the code, adds in the stuff that scratches their particular itch, and throws their own trademark on it. That's what open source is all about. If you want to control your code, then don't open source it.
I've been involved in more than one project where the original code was orphaned, held by a control freak, or through lack of control had turned into bug ridden spaghetti. The solution was always to grab it, fork it, and then (if possible) merge back into the original code base.
The funny thing is that this is exactly what trademarks are intended to do. They differentiate similar goods and services. If you really think your fork is the best one, protect that trademark and watch the other forks for stuff you can merge.
novelty (102) - a single piece of prior art has all the elements of the claimed invention
obvious (103) - a combination of prior art has all the elements of the claimed invention. Additionally, the typical knowledge of one practiced in the art of can be used as prior art.
The USPTO doesn't continue evaluating a patent after it is granted. Someone has to file for a re examination AND that person has submit prior art that wasn't considered earlier AND that person has to pay a fee. The other option is to litigate the patent away.
In other words, it is up to us to both discover and instigate.
On the bright side, they are testing out a pre-grant peer review process so that the public can submit prior art before any claims are allowed. Still, it requires affirmative action on the publics part.
When a previous patent is used for a 102 (novelty) rejection it does not mean that the invention was already patented, only that it was disclosed. It is patented only if it is claimed by the prior patent. Usually, the rejection is based on the prior patent's specification but not it's claims. Sorry, haven't researched deeply enough to see what was claimed in the prior art for one-click.
Also, "copyright attaches when pen goes to paper". What you meant was that a good way to keep the obvious from being patented is is to have an expression of the idea published published first. The prior art has to be published and available. It also helps if the published work is a printed one. I'm currently trying to get some videos admitted as prior art, but am not sure how it will go.
I'm not too excited by this non-final rejection. A quick edit will revive claims 1 and 11. After that, every claim that depends on claims 1 and 11 will also be allowable. It'll only take a few hours of attorney time to make most of the claims allowable. I'm sure that they'll battle over the claims that remain rejectable though.
What was interesting, to me, is that there were so many 102 (novelty) rejections. In patents, novelty rejections mean "super obvious". Oh well, claim 1 got rejected on a 102 and will be put in allowable form easily enough.
I really liked that a Bezos patent was used for some of the obviousness rejections. That was cute.
Putting a patent away until widely infringed is not a submarine patent. A submarine patent is produced via continuation practice. Continuations, divisions, and continuations in part are available while an application is being processed. Processing ends with issuance, abandonment,... Under the old rules, a new app could be filed with an extremely old priority date. It's a bit harder now.
Slashdot Mirror
True-dat. I tried to edit all the past tense references away but failed. Not is the "acorn risc machine" still kicking (and actually doing well), but MIPS got spun back out of SGI.
Perhaps the news is that enough time has passed since RISC that the notion is new again. Except with one sad and sorry exception. The RISC guys are way better engineers because they calculate various effects of their instruction sets and other optimizations BEFORE committing to silicon. The guys in TFA are relative chimps because they're just pruning, testing, and bandaging something they don't seem to fully understand.
An analogy comes to mind: some kids buy a car and pull off pieces until it doesn't work right. Once it breaks, they add duct tape until the car runs again. The stripped down car gets better mileage and can go faster. Somewhere along the way, some journalist looks at the thing and gets excited by the brand new car the kids built. The journalist trumpets to the sky about the wonderful new car and automotive geniuses he's discovered. The kids start a car company, dumb people invest. Meanwhile, automotive engineers furrow their brows, shake their heads, and go back to work.
If you don't want it to be patentable, then publish it promptly. Also, your protocol is covered by copyright. Go to copyright.gov and spend the $35 to register it. You can always whip out that copyright registration to support an argument that someone else wasn't the first inventor.
... Patenting the protocol itself is pretty weak unless the specification clearly states what each message is supposed to do. In fact, it is the effects on the server farm and client machines that is patentable (if anything is).
As for defensive patents
Besides, I think what you are after is a patent application that the various examiners will find when they do searches. It need not lead to a patent. That costs $500 per application. Both of your protocols can be submitted in the same document. You only need one claim and it can be narrow as hell so that no one can infringe it. You could also do an early publication request. Once the UPSTO publishes your protocol documents, that about does it. They are published and the examiners are more likely to find them. Of yeah, just as web sites can be optimized for search engines, so can patent apps be optimized for patent searches. Include the buzz words/phrases you expect other people to so that the app pops up in the search.
Did they ever own the cotton? Does the act of picking transfer ownership? If so, then picking something off of a store shelf and walking away is not theft.
That's like asking how do I know that that midget will punch me in the sack again if I haven't patted him on the head in years.
That's exactly it. Even those of us that know about flushing the cache will eventually make a mistake. I dismount the drive at least 15 times a week. Repeat for years and eventually you mind fart and screw something up. Across that amount of time it isn't rare to get a windows freeze up requiring a hard reboot or power cycle.
I don't trust NTFS journaling yet. It wasn't all that when they slapped it into NTFS v3.0. Perhaps they don't (didn't) journal the master file table? That's where my drive got corrupted. Decent journaling would have dealt with that. It has been many years since I lost that NTFS partition and my FAT32 formated flash drives have been robust. I haven't experimented with NTFS formatting since the mishap.
Over all, I'm a little embarrassed to be talking about which is better: NTFS or FAT32. ext3 is better than either. I haven't played with reiserFS since I met hans and I worried it might be an extension of his personality.
I wish there were tests covering "typical user mishaps". Things like inopportune powerdowns and flash drive yanking. My anecdotal evidence is that I've never had issues with FAT32 but have had entire NTFS partitions become unreadable. It's just anecdote though. Now throw a truecrypt file into the mix ...
I bought a dehumidifier last week for $135. It didn't have the UV light though. I guess that explains the $1065 price difference.
In more detail, if you search and find applicable prior art, then you have a duty to disclose it to the USPTO. Failure to do so is considered perpetrating a fraud on the USPTO. If anyone proves that you did not disclose, then your patent is invalidated because of the fraud.
So, what's applicable prior art? Anything an attorney can convince a judge/jury is. The only real defense is to ignore the literature and pursue a Kazinski-esque existence. On the other hand, finding evidence of the fraud can be tough. Many people regularly purge their browser cache and search history. Also, it takes someone who understands a bit about evidence and a bit about technology to spelunk for the evidence. Those folks tend to be expensive and rare.
If you want to know what is being patented, read the claims first. The claims tell you exactly what is patented. Pick apart the abstract or detailed description is mere wankery without first dissecting the claims. For example: Claim 1: A computer-implementable method for determining the behavior of an executable comprising: selecting evaluation calls made by the executable to the interface of an operating system; loading stubs into a virtual address space, the stubs: mirroring the calls made to the interface of an operating system wherein mirroring the calls made to the interface of the operating system includes mirroring a set of full implemented DLLs; and determining a behavior signature for the selected calls; wherein the calls are included in dynamic link libraries (DLLs) and wherein loading stubs include loading stub DLLs into said virtual address space; executing the selected calls inside of a virtual operating environment using the loaded stubs dynamically linked libraries; and determining the behavior signatures resulting from said execution of the selected calls inside of a virtual operating environment. So, this is basically running some code inside a stubby VM. That is the prior art to look for. All the stuff about looking for code similar to already known malware is BS. It doesn't matter how long that has been done - it isn't prior art with regard to the claims.
So I can make hydrogen while driving. At an efficiency of perhaps 96%. So, 100 units of energy in resulting in 96 units of energy in the form of hydrogen. Those 96 units then pwoer the car.
Why wouldn't I cut the middle step out and simply use 100% of the energy to make the wheels go round and round?
and looked at the re-exam history, and looked to see if there is any obvious payola going into the good senator's pockets, I have to support the earlier conclusion.
That is just fucking retarded.
Seriously retarded. A billion taxpayer dollars on the line after the banks have spent, by my estimate, around 30k. I guess it's cheaper to send a teenage male hooker to the senate chambers than to fight this thing. More seriously, there are good reasons to fight this thing in court. Write your senator. Here's a few points:
KSR v. Teleflex modified the definition of obvious. Making the banks fight will pull in that case law.
eBay v. MercExchange will make it harder for the patent holder to enjoin the banks from scanning and transmitting check data. so, there's no real danger of banking being shut down as the case is tried.
It's doubtful that this technology saves the banks a billion dollars. They can always turn to low tech fax machines if they don't want to ship pallets of checks. You can fax an awful lot of checks for a billion dollars.
If the senate wants to pass a law, pass one that legalizes something else that the banks can do without infringement.
The banks can easily afford a billion dollars. Bankers award themselves more than that each year as annual bonuses. Furthermore, it gives the banks a legitimate excuse (for a change) to raise fees. The reason will only last a year or two and after that they can use the money to fund reelection campaigns.
How many programmers want to (or should) spend their time looking for prior art
Decent programmers won't spend much time looking because they already know what is out there. If they don't know what is out there, then they're just hacks who also think they are the one who figured out the world is round.
submitting their complaints to the patent office, hiring lawyers to argue for them
Why do that? Wait for the nasty gram or to be served. Regarding the one click patent - go read the claims and look at the filing date. There's a lot more to it than clicking once. Even better, go read the patent. Then "innovate" around it. You might even use what Bezos disclosed as your alpha design. Why reinvent when you're on a 2 week deadline and you know about a published solution.
You are expecting my program to be useful for one innovative feature. But whether or not a program is considered innovative, it has to incorporate dozens of once-innovative features to be useful... No, I expect it to novel for one innovative feature. Yes, a useful program has to include all sorts of once innovative features in order to be useful. Interesting that you then list a bunch of features that existed back in the 60's. Except for right click menues. Those might might be 80s, unless parc or one of the others did it. All it takes is one innovative thing all by itself.
By the way, obvious for lack of novelty can be found for something containing a combination of known parts selected from a finite set and that in combination produce no unexpected functionality. That means that stringing together a bunch of published modules is probably not going to be novel. Not even if it is a brand new combination.
Ah yes - the shitty patent category. Using XOR as a pixel mask - shitty patent. Adding "further comprising a computer network" to a bunch of old stuff (this was popular in the late 90's) - shitty patents. The mpeg codec (based on broadly published discreet cosine transform algorithms and applications) - shitty patents.
Elliptic curve cryptography - now that is a work of art that no one else saw coming. Hand that guy cash with no strings attached and see what comes next. Oh, that no strings cash can be called a MacArthur award, a patent royalty, whatever.
Not legal advice, but if a shitty patent really is keeping you from innovating - then gather sufficient prior art to kill the patent. Any decent innovator would know why such a patent should be revoked because otherwise it is likely NIH syndrome (not invented here) instead of innovation. Then just do what you were going to do. If the patent holder threatens, then send 'em your evidence. If you're not willing to gather the prior art, then your innovation ain't all that anyway.
Warning - your prior art search just might find that your innovation is already old. Is stifled innovation worse than proof of not being innovative?
Make legal arguments patentable? Been done. Well, legal practice business method patents have been. They have brutal obviousness barriers to overcome. The core of almost all arguments/techniques are ancient. The specifics are usually public domain (laws). Also, legal precedent (prior art) has been copiously tracked for centuries. Check out Westlaw sometime. Scary. If there were similar indexes of software development - wow.
What you probably mean is copyrighted. Also been done. Cease and desist letters have been held up in court as copyrighted.
Well, OK if it works for you. I became a lawyer because I was tired of making other people rich. They got a new lexus/house. I got a new project w/ artificial deadline and a new t-shirt.
I guess that many programmers will be anti patent for a number of reasons:
1) No residual income (like what hollywood writers get)
2) Poor patent quality - some really shitty patents get approved.
3) perceived poor patent quality - not knowing how to read a patent yet forming a strong opinion
4) arrogance - belief that the community can't commoditize your latest brainstorm within a week or two.
5) a genuine belief that there will always be enough well paying work in a purely software as service paradigm.
I gotta confess that I'm more a believer in reasons 1 and 5, which are kinda enshrined in some open source license. Namely, if you sell it, share the wealth. If you use it or supply services with it, then good luck and please submit your fixes.
Why wouldn't the lawyers fight hard on both sides of the case? That's what they are paid to do. Court cases that shift around the boundaries of patent law do not hurt or help "the lawyers". It just changes where the fighting is but there will still be fighting.
For example, the recent KSR v. Teleflex case changed the rules on obviousness. That created lots of work. Suddenly there were new arguments to make in seeking new patents. There were also new arguments to make in invalidating old patents. Lots and lots of work.
The only way us patent lawyers would actually loose is if patents were outlawed.
According to wikipedia, the game was invented in 1938 and has been marketed since at least the 1940s. That is a little longer than the one year to file (under 37 CFR 102) currently allowed. Even if it had been patented back when it could be, that patent would be long expired. On the other hand, a new patent with a new name might slip past the examiner. Some of them seem pretty young and might actually not know that scrabble ever existed.
The trademark can be used to label versions approved by the trademark holder. That's about all there is. Can you protect against forks? Not with the GPL or many of the other open source licenses. That's a good thing. Someone forks the code, adds in the stuff that scratches their particular itch, and throws their own trademark on it. That's what open source is all about. If you want to control your code, then don't open source it.
I've been involved in more than one project where the original code was orphaned, held by a control freak, or through lack of control had turned into bug ridden spaghetti. The solution was always to grab it, fork it, and then (if possible) merge back into the original code base.
The funny thing is that this is exactly what trademarks are intended to do. They differentiate similar goods and services. If you really think your fork is the best one, protect that trademark and watch the other forks for stuff you can merge.
novelty (102) - a single piece of prior art has all the elements of the claimed invention
obvious (103) - a combination of prior art has all the elements of the claimed invention. Additionally, the typical knowledge of one practiced in the art of can be used as prior art.
The USPTO doesn't continue evaluating a patent after it is granted. Someone has to file for a re examination AND that person has submit prior art that wasn't considered earlier AND that person has to pay a fee. The other option is to litigate the patent away.
In other words, it is up to us to both discover and instigate.
On the bright side, they are testing out a pre-grant peer review process so that the public can submit prior art before any claims are allowed. Still, it requires affirmative action on the publics part.
When a previous patent is used for a 102 (novelty) rejection it does not mean that the invention was already patented, only that it was disclosed. It is patented only if it is claimed by the prior patent. Usually, the rejection is based on the prior patent's specification but not it's claims. Sorry, haven't researched deeply enough to see what was claimed in the prior art for one-click.
Also, "copyright attaches when pen goes to paper". What you meant was that a good way to keep the obvious from being patented is is to have an expression of the idea published published first. The prior art has to be published and available. It also helps if the published work is a printed one. I'm currently trying to get some videos admitted as prior art, but am not sure how it will go.
I'm not too excited by this non-final rejection. A quick edit will revive claims 1 and 11. After that, every claim that depends on claims 1 and 11 will also be allowable. It'll only take a few hours of attorney time to make most of the claims allowable. I'm sure that they'll battle over the claims that remain rejectable though.
What was interesting, to me, is that there were so many 102 (novelty) rejections. In patents, novelty rejections mean "super obvious". Oh well, claim 1 got rejected on a 102 and will be put in allowable form easily enough.
I really liked that a Bezos patent was used for some of the obviousness rejections. That was cute.
Putting a patent away until widely infringed is not a submarine patent. A submarine patent is produced via continuation practice. Continuations, divisions, and continuations in part are available while an application is being processed. Processing ends with issuance, abandonment, ... Under the old rules, a new app could be filed with an extremely old priority date. It's a bit harder now.