This is yet another sad failure of the Patent Office in the area of software. The Patent Office fails becuase they do not understand software, how software gets developed and the software community.
I know of a product developed initially at UBS that is an IM product and included BOT capability. Bots were developed for this 5-6 years ago. While this is now a commercail product from a company called divine, the Patent Office would be hard pressed to discover that this prior art existed. UBS didn't publicize this product or its capabilities and uses. They have developed something like 500+ BOTS for the product, but it was all for internal use and hence, no reason to publicize. So, if they don't publicize the technology, how does one do a prior art search?
UBS isn't alone. A lot of tools and technology are built for internal use at some organization and the organization has no need to publicize the technology or all of its capabilities. Since there is no easy way to find out abut the existence of what may even be multiple prior instances of creation of a technology, the submitter may make an application, in good faith, and be granted a Patent that should never have been granted.
Given the above, the Patent Office will continue to grant patents that should never have been issued and has no way of knowing better. What the Patent Office needs to do to address this problem is simple: For a period of 2 years after the grant of a Patent, the Patent Office should allow members of the public to submit examples of prior art. If the Patent Office finds that the prior art is credible, the Patent should be revoked, after giving the company holding the patent a chance to appeal.
Currently, once granted, you can't do much ntil you are sued. Then, you've got to spend lots of $$ to fight. Since it costs lots of moeny to fight in Court, deep pockets comapnies can win suits even on basically bad patents. The problem is that the only real appeal is in Court. Fix that and we'll improve the system, make it fairer and still protect the rights of patent holders.
Also a Jedit user. If you are doing Web development the XInsert and autocomplete features are great and this app and the plugins just keep getting better.
I am a user of the Javascript Bible. I found that it has some of the best examples, and does a particularly good job with NS4 strangeness. How does this book compare
People need to understand that this proposal would grant private parties powers and immunity that we wouldn't grant law enforcement. No demonstration of harm or probable cause to a Court, and a $50 fine amounts to a license to shoot fist and ask questions later.
Does anyone have a list of Committee members? I think that these folks need to each receive letters from the public on what an outrage this proposal. Yesterday, when word of this first appeared, I sent letters to my Congressman and Senators. I also sent one to the newspaper. I would write a letter to the Editor of the local newspaper in each of the Districts that these folks represent. Let the voters know just what the members of this committee are trying to do.
Slashdot Mirror
This is yet another sad failure of the Patent Office in the area of software. The Patent Office fails becuase they do not understand software, how software gets developed and the software community.
I know of a product developed initially at UBS that is an IM product and included BOT capability. Bots were developed for this 5-6 years ago. While this is now a commercail product from a company called divine, the Patent Office would be hard pressed to discover that this prior art existed. UBS didn't publicize this product or its capabilities and uses. They have developed something like 500+ BOTS for the product, but it was all for internal use and hence, no reason to publicize. So, if they don't publicize the technology, how does one do a prior art search?
UBS isn't alone. A lot of tools and technology are built for internal use at some organization and the organization has no need to publicize the technology or all of its capabilities. Since there is no easy way to find out abut the existence of what may even be multiple prior instances of creation of a technology, the submitter may make an application, in good faith, and be granted a Patent that should never have been granted.
Given the above, the Patent Office will continue to grant patents that should never have been issued and has no way of knowing better. What the Patent Office needs to do to address this problem is simple: For a period of 2 years after the grant of a Patent, the Patent Office should allow members of the public to submit examples of prior art. If the Patent Office finds that the prior art is credible, the Patent should be revoked, after giving the company holding the patent a chance to appeal.
Currently, once granted, you can't do much ntil you are sued. Then, you've got to spend lots of $$ to fight. Since it costs lots of moeny to fight in Court, deep pockets comapnies can win suits even on basically bad patents. The problem is that the only real appeal is in Court. Fix that and we'll improve the system, make it fairer and still protect the rights of patent holders.
Also a Jedit user. If you are doing Web development the XInsert and autocomplete features are great and this app and the plugins just keep getting better.
I am a user of the Javascript Bible. I found that it has some of the best examples, and does a particularly good job with NS4 strangeness. How does this book compare
People need to understand that this proposal would grant private parties powers and immunity that we wouldn't grant law enforcement. No demonstration of harm or probable cause to a Court, and a $50 fine amounts to a license to shoot fist and ask questions later.
Does anyone have a list of Committee members? I think that these folks need to each receive letters from the public on what an outrage this proposal. Yesterday, when word of this first appeared, I sent letters to my Congressman and Senators. I also sent one to the newspaper. I would write a letter to the Editor of the local newspaper in each of the Districts that these folks represent. Let the voters know just what the members of this committee are trying to do.