According to the FY2004 USPTO Fee Schedule it would cost $385 to file and then $665 at issuance assuming the patent issues. The filing and arguments could all be done pro se (i.e. without a lawyer) and the patent could be abandoned at the due date of the first issue fee. Grand total: $1050 per patent.
Defending against a lawsuit initiated by someone else would cost money no matter what, even if the OSS files for patents, but if they did it would give them more leverage. Defending your own patents is entirely optional.
Fancy talk for creating web pages and submitting them to web sites. Spammers have done this for as long as the WWW existed. How can you patent something like that?
Increasing one's rank in a search engine is nothing new either. Also Spammers have used these techquies since search engines existed. Again nothing new.
That is all well and good for a web page search engine, but this is a p2p network. Why would I bother submitting a file to a website in the context of a p2p network? And for that matter, why would I bother trying to increase my rank in a p2p network?
What you are trying to cite is called non-analogous art, and it has been repeatedly thrown out in countless numbers of court cases and patent appeal board decisions. Unless you can provide valid motivation directly from the prior art with proof to back it up, then you have no reason to combine these two practices. You can not invent your own reasons or cite reasons which are solely supported by the patent application, doing so is called hindsight. The reasons must be supported by the prior art.
Also you are doing piecemeal analysis of the claims which generally doesn't get you very far either. Just because individual parts exist in the prior art does not mean there is reason to combine them into a single system.
However, considering your complete lack of knowledge in patent law, you have done a better job than most people here on slashdot and for that I congratulate you. However, you still need to do a good bit of reading before you even understand the problems with your reasoning in citing prior art rejections such as this.
evaluating the effectiveness of said shared decoy media file in inhibiting the identification and retrieval of proprietary media via said automated search engines; and
interactively modifying process configuration parameters to influence the effectiveness of inhibiting said identification and retrieval of proprietary media via said automated search engines.
I still see no step of identifying the efectiveness of the fake file and modifying the process configuration parameters to influence the effectiveness. Perhaps you could point out the exact lines in that article that has them? The problem with your and every other analyisis of prior art that I have seen on slashdot is that it does not adress the claim language, only the basic idea of the patent. The problem with this is that the basic idea of the patent and the claim language are often two very different things, but since you never bother to read the claims you never notice this.
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States
This basically means that the application filed must conform the to rules of 35 USC 112 first paragarph. Let's see what 112 first says:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Basically this means that a patent application can not claim anything that the specification does not give a clear description of. So far so good, but theres still nothing stopping them from adding new stuff later. Thats where 35 USC 132 comes in. 35 USC 132 states:
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Since they can't amend the specification to include new matter, and they can't claim and invention which they didn't describe in the specification they really can't add new inventions down the road and get the advantage of the earlier priority date. More information about new matter and how examiners handle in can be found in the MPEPSection 2163_06.
Would that make your application take precedence to any other one since the original filing date is earlier?
Yes, the applications with the earlier effective filing (i.e. the filing dates taking into account any priority applications) are given precedence over any other applications.
It is an attack that can be applied not only by the copyright holder
The key word here is can. Just because something can be used against all copyrighted and noncopyrighted files does not mean that it has to be used against both kinds of files.
a P2P network without files is nothing
I was unaware the definition of a network required the presence of files. Besides, the creators of the P2P software are in no way providing garunteed access to content of any kind, they are simply providing the network and client systems in which any content can be transmitted. Why should the burden of verifying the content fall on them? If anything they should develop counter-measures for traditional DDOS and other TCP/IP type networking attacks to secure the network and leave the content up to the users.
You're lying and making someone spend money ( bandwidth=money)
How exactly are you making someone spend money? There is absolutely nothing about this that forces the users to download the files that you post. All they are doing is posting a file, if you download it and don't like it that's your own damn problem. Since they never implied any value to their "service", made any type of garuntees and never accepted any money from you for accessing their file, on what basis do you possibly think you have to cry fowl?
How does this ruin the P2P network? It has absolutely no effect on the network and the underlying applications at all. It just ruins the copyrighted content on the network without doing anything to the network at all.
That is absolutely incorrect. The original application (07/088,622) may have been abandoned, but they filed a new application (07/681,435) prior to the abandonment date (i.e. "This is a continuation of copending application Ser. No. 07/088,622"), which means that the new application gets an effective filing date of the previous application's filing date. This is allowed under 35 U.S.C. 120.
evaluating the effectiveness of said shared decoy media file in inhibiting the identification and retrieval of proprietary media via said automated search engines; and
interactively modifying process configuration parameters to influence the effectiveness of inhibiting said identification and retrieval of proprietary media via said automated search engines.
How does your Cuckoo Egg do either of these steps?
The average cost of a granted European Patent (valid in 8 countries) is EUR 30 000 (yes, 30 000, not 3000).
Let's look at those costs and see how many of them are actually required and how many could be done by the applicants/OSS community:
EPO Fees: 4300 - Required by the EPO Professional Representation: 5500 - Optional, the cases could be filed pro se for free Translation: 11500 - Optional, could easily be done by bilungual volunteers National Renewel Fees: 8500 - Required by the EPO
So, in the end with a little work the cost of a patent for a 10 year term becomes EUR 12800 or EUR 1600 per country. I really don't think this is excessively high for anyone serious about OSS projects, epecially since it could be raised by funding drives.
What's so great about a system that requires people to invest money with as sole purpose to protect themselves from that system? Especially if it's extremely hard to find any macro-economical advantages (and many hints at disadvantages) of this system (cf. FTC study).
Since you didn't bother to link to whatever FTC study it is you are talking about, I can't really respond to it. Although just on the basis of what you said I'd question if they were studying the national effects of patents on the economy or the individual effects on a company/inventor.
Patents are intended to award the inventor for his/her work, the side effect of full disclosure of the invention is just a perk. Granted its not a perfect system, and if we would all work together towards a single goal I'm sure it would be beneficial to the society as a whole, but guess what, humans aren't that good hearted by nature. There are lots of ideals that work in theory but fall on their face when put into practice.
When was the tie function created? According to Perl history Perl wasn't released until December 18, 1987. These applications have priority to August 21, 1987, so Perl itself might not even qualify as prior art given the first public release date. It is also possible that the tie function wasn't even released with the first release of Perl.
Are you sure that is all this patent is about? If so, why not try looking at the claims and see what LISP covers.
Here's a little exercize for you: Try comparing LISP with the independent claims word for word and see if they match. Also, don't assume anything about LISP that you can't prove. Go back and find some old user manuals from before August 21, 1987 and see if LISP actually meets all the limitations of the claim. I'm interested to know what you come up with.
The title is only there to help people who are looking through a number of patents get a vague idea of what the patent talks about. For example, the first patent listed in the story is entitled: "Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types" which one tell someone that the patent has something to do with data objects and object managers. If there were looking for something along those lines, they could then read more into it to see what the patent is specifically doing with those data objects and object managers. However, if they were looking for the proverbial better mouse trap, then they would obviously move along to the next patent.
Titles are just vague descriptions, nothing more. The problem most people on slashdot have is that they read the title and think: "Damn, there's tons of prior art for that" without actually reading to find out what the patent is actually doing.
If you did file an application for a computer chip with that title the examiner would probably just change it for you, or else make you change it to something which better describes the claimed invention.
Under the pre-1995 patents were granted terms of 17 years from the issue date (i.e. the 1993 and 1995) dates. After 1995 it was changed to 20 years from the filing date. So, these patents would be in effect until at least 2010.
See here for more information on determining the expiration dates of patents.
To bad the 1993 and 1995 dates are meaningless as far as prior art is concerned. The important dates are the filing dates and priotity dates, the issue date does not matter. All three patents have priority to United States patent application Ser. No. 07/088,622 entitled Data Integration by Object Management by Dana Khoyi et al., filed Aug. 21, 1987.
So, for an item to qualify as prior art, it must be data prior to August 21, 1987 which by the dates you have given, Oak does not meet.
Did you read the claims or only the title? Please try to remember that the title is only there to give a quick idea what the patent is about, the summary is there only to give a slightly more detailed idea, the specification is there to tell the reader how the patent may be put into use and the claims are there to define what the patent covers. If you only read the title you have no idea what the patent actually covers or how it is implemented, so you basically have no idea what the patent is actually about.
It is also important to note that Kodak is not suing SUN using the title of their patents, only the claims which are the only part of the patent which provide any protection at all.
Ah yes, the old "patents are too expensive to file" argument, complete hogwash. According to the FY 2004 fee schedule it would cost a small entity (which a non-profit agency would most likely be) exactly $385.00, so I'm curious where you pulled $5000 per patent from. As far as lawyers are concerned there is no reason why you need a lawyer to file a patent. I'm sure there would be someone in the open source community smart enough to write the patent and respond to the actions sent out by the examiners, and who would be willing to do a little volunteer work, so lawyer fees wouldn't be an issue. I'm pretty sure the FSF or someone along those lines can come up with $385.00.
As far as enforcement, they wouldn't have to actively enforce their patents, they could use them strictly as defensive patents.
So I ask again, what is stopping the OSS community from filing patents based on their work?
I've asked this numerous times and usually don't get a good answer, but why not setup a foundation for patenting things invented during the course of development in open source software? There is nothing saying that only Microsoft can patent things, so why not beat them at their own game if you think Microsoft will try to follow such a road to put an end to Linux?
Why doesn't some OSS foundation start patenting some of the things that are created during the writing of it's software then? Then they would be able to more easily defend themselves if anyone ever tried something fishy.
I was unaware that Apple even patented any of the stuff that was stolen from them. I'd like to see these patents if you wouldn't mind providing the numbers. Thanks in advance.
Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to use it in the future.
For some reason I still occasionally try to set the masses straight, but it is becoming more and more tiresome with each patent story posted. I think I'll eventually end up following the same course as you in time. Or, at the very least uncheck patent stories so they don't appear on the front page.
The Director shall charge the following fees:
On filing each application for an original patent, except in design or plant cases, $ 690.
35 USC 41 section (h)(1) reads:
Fees charged under subsection (a) or (b) shall be reduced by 50 percent with respect to their application to any small business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act, and to any independent inventor or nonprofit organization as defined in regulations issued by the Director.
So, the application filing fee for a small entity comes out to a grand total of $345, hardly "prohibitively expensive for any small player". If you want a lawyer it will cost you extra, but there is no reason why you can't file pro se.
This patent only covers a specific type of apple, not apples in general. Plus, I think plant patents opperate a little differently the utility patents, although I really don't know that much about plant patents.
Plant patent information can be found here for anyone that is really interested in the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the FY2004 USPTO Fee Schedule it would cost $385 to file and then $665 at issuance assuming the patent issues. The filing and arguments could all be done pro se (i.e. without a lawyer) and the patent could be abandoned at the due date of the first issue fee. Grand total: $1050 per patent.
Defending against a lawsuit initiated by someone else would cost money no matter what, even if the OSS files for patents, but if they did it would give them more leverage. Defending your own patents is entirely optional.
What you are trying to cite is called non-analogous art, and it has been repeatedly thrown out in countless numbers of court cases and patent appeal board decisions. Unless you can provide valid motivation directly from the prior art with proof to back it up, then you have no reason to combine these two practices. You can not invent your own reasons or cite reasons which are solely supported by the patent application, doing so is called hindsight. The reasons must be supported by the prior art.
Also you are doing piecemeal analysis of the claims which generally doesn't get you very far either. Just because individual parts exist in the prior art does not mean there is reason to combine them into a single system.
However, considering your complete lack of knowledge in patent law, you have done a better job than most people here on slashdot and for that I congratulate you. However, you still need to do a good bit of reading before you even understand the problems with your reasoning in citing prior art rejections such as this.
And this exists in the prior art where exactly? You can't just make things up and call them prior art, you need proof. So where is it?
How does this ruin the P2P network? It has absolutely no effect on the network and the underlying applications at all. It just ruins the copyrighted content on the network without doing anything to the network at all.
That is absolutely incorrect. The original application (07/088,622) may have been abandoned, but they filed a new application (07/681,435) prior to the abandonment date (i.e. "This is a continuation of copending application Ser. No. 07/088,622"), which means that the new application gets an effective filing date of the previous application's filing date. This is allowed under 35 U.S.C. 120.
EPO Fees: 4300 - Required by the EPO
Professional Representation: 5500 - Optional, the cases could be filed pro se for free
Translation: 11500 - Optional, could easily be done by bilungual volunteers
National Renewel Fees: 8500 - Required by the EPO
So, in the end with a little work the cost of a patent for a 10 year term becomes EUR 12800 or EUR 1600 per country. I really don't think this is excessively high for anyone serious about OSS projects, epecially since it could be raised by funding drives.
Since you didn't bother to link to whatever FTC study it is you are talking about, I can't really respond to it. Although just on the basis of what you said I'd question if they were studying the national effects of patents on the economy or the individual effects on a company/inventor.
Patents are intended to award the inventor for his/her work, the side effect of full disclosure of the invention is just a perk. Granted its not a perfect system, and if we would all work together towards a single goal I'm sure it would be beneficial to the society as a whole, but guess what, humans aren't that good hearted by nature. There are lots of ideals that work in theory but fall on their face when put into practice.
When was the tie function created? According to Perl history Perl wasn't released until December 18, 1987. These applications have priority to August 21, 1987, so Perl itself might not even qualify as prior art given the first public release date. It is also possible that the tie function wasn't even released with the first release of Perl.
Are you sure that is all this patent is about? If so, why not try looking at the claims and see what LISP covers.
Here's a little exercize for you: Try comparing LISP with the independent claims word for word and see if they match. Also, don't assume anything about LISP that you can't prove. Go back and find some old user manuals from before August 21, 1987 and see if LISP actually meets all the limitations of the claim. I'm interested to know what you come up with.
The title is only there to help people who are looking through a number of patents get a vague idea of what the patent talks about. For example, the first patent listed in the story is entitled: "Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types" which one tell someone that the patent has something to do with data objects and object managers. If there were looking for something along those lines, they could then read more into it to see what the patent is specifically doing with those data objects and object managers. However, if they were looking for the proverbial better mouse trap, then they would obviously move along to the next patent.
Titles are just vague descriptions, nothing more. The problem most people on slashdot have is that they read the title and think: "Damn, there's tons of prior art for that" without actually reading to find out what the patent is actually doing.
If you did file an application for a computer chip with that title the examiner would probably just change it for you, or else make you change it to something which better describes the claimed invention.
Under the pre-1995 patents were granted terms of 17 years from the issue date (i.e. the 1993 and 1995) dates. After 1995 it was changed to 20 years from the filing date. So, these patents would be in effect until at least 2010.
See here for more information on determining the expiration dates of patents.
To bad the 1993 and 1995 dates are meaningless as far as prior art is concerned. The important dates are the filing dates and priotity dates, the issue date does not matter. All three patents have priority to United States patent application Ser. No. 07/088,622 entitled Data Integration by Object Management by Dana Khoyi et al., filed Aug. 21, 1987.
So, for an item to qualify as prior art, it must be data prior to August 21, 1987 which by the dates you have given, Oak does not meet.
Did you read the claims or only the title? Please try to remember that the title is only there to give a quick idea what the patent is about, the summary is there only to give a slightly more detailed idea, the specification is there to tell the reader how the patent may be put into use and the claims are there to define what the patent covers. If you only read the title you have no idea what the patent actually covers or how it is implemented, so you basically have no idea what the patent is actually about.
It is also important to note that Kodak is not suing SUN using the title of their patents, only the claims which are the only part of the patent which provide any protection at all.
Ah yes, the old "patents are too expensive to file" argument, complete hogwash. According to the FY 2004 fee schedule it would cost a small entity (which a non-profit agency would most likely be) exactly $385.00, so I'm curious where you pulled $5000 per patent from. As far as lawyers are concerned there is no reason why you need a lawyer to file a patent. I'm sure there would be someone in the open source community smart enough to write the patent and respond to the actions sent out by the examiners, and who would be willing to do a little volunteer work, so lawyer fees wouldn't be an issue. I'm pretty sure the FSF or someone along those lines can come up with $385.00.
As far as enforcement, they wouldn't have to actively enforce their patents, they could use them strictly as defensive patents.
So I ask again, what is stopping the OSS community from filing patents based on their work?
I've asked this numerous times and usually don't get a good answer, but why not setup a foundation for patenting things invented during the course of development in open source software? There is nothing saying that only Microsoft can patent things, so why not beat them at their own game if you think Microsoft will try to follow such a road to put an end to Linux?
Why doesn't some OSS foundation start patenting some of the things that are created during the writing of it's software then? Then they would be able to more easily defend themselves if anyone ever tried something fishy.
I was unaware that Apple even patented any of the stuff that was stolen from them. I'd like to see these patents if you wouldn't mind providing the numbers. Thanks in advance.
Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to use it in the future.
For some reason I still occasionally try to set the masses straight, but it is becoming more and more tiresome with each patent story posted. I think I'll eventually end up following the same course as you in time. Or, at the very least uncheck patent stories so they don't appear on the front page.
This patent only covers a specific type of apple, not apples in general. Plus, I think plant patents opperate a little differently the utility patents, although I really don't know that much about plant patents.
Plant patent information can be found here for anyone that is really interested in the subject.
Why do you assume that they have to? What makes you think that the original applicant can't also file a certificate of correction?