Actually, importing a product made outside the U.S. by an infringing process is considered to be an infringing act itself, so MIT would not need foreign cooperation in the first scenario you describe. Also, I would assume that the patent has at least some hardware claims, even if they are recited in "means for" terminology. Does anyone have a number for the patent that's being asserted?
Guess what? Patent laws are revised all the time. Prior to passing the revisions into law, they are submitted for public review and comment, so you have an opportunity to make yourself heard on what gets changed and how.
Lately, the changes have had the effect of harmonizing our laws with those of most of the rest of the world, including 18-month publication of patent applications before they issue, so that people who object to them can put in their $0.02 before they issue (or don't). There are still many rough spots, but overall things are improving. The problem now is getting people to take advantage of opportunities they are given to prevent bad patents, instead of wasting their energy complaining about them only after they've issued.
If the patent is "blatently obvious", M$ doesn't have to lobby Washington. All they have to do is file for a re-examination, using the prior art that they think makes McAfee's claims obvious. If they don't want the publicity, they can have someone else file it for them. It's a simple procedure, really, if you know the prior art. Which you should if the patent is so obvious.
Who are those dolts? Well, start with the patent statute, which was written by Congress. It's implemented by the Patent Office, an administrative agency under the Dept. of Commerce. And the whole mess is interpreted and adjudicated by our Federal court system. So basically, you have lots of high-level people in all three branches of the Federal government working together to annoy you.
In any case, they are not doltish enough to allow the patenting of storylines. It ain't allowed. However, scripts and movies are copyrighted.
Actually, to be completely safe, the law requires that you obtain a competent opinion from a lawyer that continued activity does not infringe, once you are put on notice that there may be a patent conflict. If you don't, you may be found liable for willful infringement from that point on, even if you were considered not be an unknowing infringer up to that point. It puts a great burden on an accused company once it merely gets an accusing letter from a patent holder.
Please don't. Anyway, you were pretty much on the same level as those, but put in less effort. At least tell me you wet your pants when you confirmed that you got it.
If they didn't have trade secrets, then everyone would be walking on water, and feeding their entire extended families on one package of baloney, one loaf of potato bread, and one huge jug of water they turned into wine. As long as they keep their secrets, we'll all continue to think these feats are big deals.
Hey genius, check the facts before spouting off. In 2000, 153,493 U.S. patents were issued and in 1999, 270,187 applications were filed. This is an issuance rate of 56.8%. Patents issued in 2000 weren't necessarily based on applications filed in 1999, but this data is enough to show that examined does not mean granted.
"Correct me if I am wrong, but copyrighting code is legally equivalent to patenting a technique, so what exactly am I missing."
The standard for getting a copyright is originality; you can get a copyright on the expression of an idea (e.g., code) even if it is the same as "prior art", as long as you didn't copy it. Likewise, to show infringement you must prove that the infringer copied your work, and didn't merely independently come up with the same stuff. The basic standard for obtaining a patent is novelty; the invention can't have previously publicly been known at all, whether you actually knew of the prior art or not. It's a tougher standard, but you also get stronger protection; an infringer doesn't have to copy you to infringe.
OK, here's claim 1:
What is claimed is:
1. A method of inducing aerobic exercise in an unrestrained cat comprising the steps of:
(a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat; and
(b) selectively redirecting said beam out of the cat's immediate reach to induce said cat to run and chase said beam and pattern of light around an exercise area.
Yeah, doesn't seem that this would have been too novel in 1993, except that any prior art probably wouldn't have been published and was difficult to prove. Anyway, there's not a chance in hell of enforcing this one. But your point is made.
You're really overstating the situation a bit. First of all, you can't patent "obvious" variants. A patent has to be for something that is novel and non-obvious. And I believe that pre-existing variants would be known as prior art.
The real sorry state of the Patent Office is that they don't have enough qualified people in certain (i.e., software) art groups, and seemingly invalid patents are being issued. These will be invalidated in court if they are found to be obvious or pre-existing variants. On the other hand, the Patent Office is doing just fine in low-tech art areas, such as those that cover chairs. That's why the article is funny.
"Often times, having a patent prevents others from getting one."
This is true, and it is why Cisco bothers patenting its inventions in the first place. Cisco hates patents as much as anyone. But they don't want to get burned by another company that gets a patent on Cisco's invention, and sues Cisco's ass to prevent it from continuing its own work. So they get a patent on their invention, which serves as prior art against another company that would patent it. Now Cisco can go about its business, without asserting the patent against anyone but at the same time not operating in fear of someone locking them out. There are other ways of establishing prior art, but nothing speaks like your own issued patent.
Additionally, he confirmed my suspicion that the USPTO rewards its examiners for approving as many patents as possible -- quantity over quality.
I'm a patent attorney, and I can confirm that this is not the case. Patent examiners are rewarded for moving cases off their desks, but not for allowing them. In an examiner's haste to get a case back to me, he/she's more likely than not going to reject all the claims out of hand, and leave it to me to explain why they should be allowed, usually without trying to understand the invention first and therefore citing mostly irrelevant prior art.
And what if the oversight was unintentional? Shouldn't you have to prove that they knowingly acquired a patent that should have been invalid due to prior art? Actually, this type of evidence is already used to render patents unenforceable, even if the prior art is not strong enough to invalidate the patent. It can also get the attorney who prosecuted the patent while concealing prior art in a lot of trouble. Everyone involved the patent process has a legal duty to disclose known material prior art to the Patent Office during the examination process.
Well, I don't know how old your girlfriend or spouse is, but I believe your mom can counter with her own prior art that pre-dates your 1969
Playboy. And you'd better not tell your girlfriend or spouse that your prior art is better than hers.
Not all US patents are issued to US companies; a large percentage of US patents are issued to foreign companies. Last year, only four of the top ten US patent acquiring companies were from the US. The year before it was three:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/01-0 2.htm
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, importing a product made outside the U.S. by an infringing process is considered to be an infringing act itself, so MIT would not need foreign cooperation in the first scenario you describe. Also, I would assume that the patent has at least some hardware claims, even if they are recited in "means for" terminology. Does anyone have a number for the patent that's being asserted?
It can't be true!
It's going to be a prop in the new hybrid sequel "Last Tango in Jurrasic Park".
You forgot the punchline about the 50 lb. PDA of butter fitting in there. Stay on topic!
You have to ask NIST to get an accurate response to that question.
Guess what? Patent laws are revised all the time. Prior to passing the revisions into law, they are submitted for public review and comment, so you have an opportunity to make yourself heard on what gets changed and how. Lately, the changes have had the effect of harmonizing our laws with those of most of the rest of the world, including 18-month publication of patent applications before they issue, so that people who object to them can put in their $0.02 before they issue (or don't). There are still many rough spots, but overall things are improving. The problem now is getting people to take advantage of opportunities they are given to prevent bad patents, instead of wasting their energy complaining about them only after they've issued.
If the patent is "blatently obvious", M$ doesn't have to lobby Washington. All they have to do is file for a re-examination, using the prior art that they think makes McAfee's claims obvious. If they don't want the publicity, they can have someone else file it for them. It's a simple procedure, really, if you know the prior art. Which you should if the patent is so obvious.
Who are those dolts? Well, start with the patent statute, which was written by Congress. It's implemented by the Patent Office, an administrative agency under the Dept. of Commerce. And the whole mess is interpreted and adjudicated by our Federal court system. So basically, you have lots of high-level people in all three branches of the Federal government working together to annoy you. In any case, they are not doltish enough to allow the patenting of storylines. It ain't allowed. However, scripts and movies are copyrighted.
"There must be some mistake, officer, I was only paying her a royalty."
Actually, to be completely safe, the law requires that you obtain a competent opinion from a lawyer that continued activity does not infringe, once you are put on notice that there may be a patent conflict. If you don't, you may be found liable for willful infringement from that point on, even if you were considered not be an unknowing infringer up to that point. It puts a great burden on an accused company once it merely gets an accusing letter from a patent holder.
Heh. But you forgot bouillabaisse. -1 incomplete
Please don't. Anyway, you were pretty much on the same level as those, but put in less effort. At least tell me you wet your pants when you confirmed that you got it.
No, he's in it for the free roof over his head, paid for by the people putting money on the plate.
If they didn't have trade secrets, then everyone would be walking on water, and feeding their entire extended families on one package of baloney, one loaf of potato bread, and one huge jug of water they turned into wine. As long as they keep their secrets, we'll all continue to think these feats are big deals.
Hey genius, check the facts before spouting off. In 2000, 153,493 U.S. patents were issued and in 1999, 270,187 applications were filed. This is an issuance rate of 56.8%. Patents issued in 2000 weren't necessarily based on applications filed in 1999, but this data is enough to show that examined does not mean granted.
"Correct me if I am wrong, but copyrighting code is legally equivalent to patenting a technique, so what exactly am I missing." The standard for getting a copyright is originality; you can get a copyright on the expression of an idea (e.g., code) even if it is the same as "prior art", as long as you didn't copy it. Likewise, to show infringement you must prove that the infringer copied your work, and didn't merely independently come up with the same stuff. The basic standard for obtaining a patent is novelty; the invention can't have previously publicly been known at all, whether you actually knew of the prior art or not. It's a tougher standard, but you also get stronger protection; an infringer doesn't have to copy you to infringe.
I'm a patent attorney, and I'll volunteer to do the interview, as long as all my answers are not modded down to -1 Overrated.
OK, here's claim 1: What is claimed is: 1. A method of inducing aerobic exercise in an unrestrained cat comprising the steps of: (a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat; and (b) selectively redirecting said beam out of the cat's immediate reach to induce said cat to run and chase said beam and pattern of light around an exercise area. Yeah, doesn't seem that this would have been too novel in 1993, except that any prior art probably wouldn't have been published and was difficult to prove. Anyway, there's not a chance in hell of enforcing this one. But your point is made.
Hey, lasers are pretty high-tech. Besides, I've never actually read the claims for that one. Better check it out...
You're really overstating the situation a bit. First of all, you can't patent "obvious" variants. A patent has to be for something that is novel and non-obvious. And I believe that pre-existing variants would be known as prior art. The real sorry state of the Patent Office is that they don't have enough qualified people in certain (i.e., software) art groups, and seemingly invalid patents are being issued. These will be invalidated in court if they are found to be obvious or pre-existing variants. On the other hand, the Patent Office is doing just fine in low-tech art areas, such as those that cover chairs. That's why the article is funny.
"Often times, having a patent prevents others from getting one." This is true, and it is why Cisco bothers patenting its inventions in the first place. Cisco hates patents as much as anyone. But they don't want to get burned by another company that gets a patent on Cisco's invention, and sues Cisco's ass to prevent it from continuing its own work. So they get a patent on their invention, which serves as prior art against another company that would patent it. Now Cisco can go about its business, without asserting the patent against anyone but at the same time not operating in fear of someone locking them out. There are other ways of establishing prior art, but nothing speaks like your own issued patent.
Additionally, he confirmed my suspicion that the USPTO rewards its examiners for approving as many patents as possible -- quantity over quality. I'm a patent attorney, and I can confirm that this is not the case. Patent examiners are rewarded for moving cases off their desks, but not for allowing them. In an examiner's haste to get a case back to me, he/she's more likely than not going to reject all the claims out of hand, and leave it to me to explain why they should be allowed, usually without trying to understand the invention first and therefore citing mostly irrelevant prior art.
And what if the oversight was unintentional? Shouldn't you have to prove that they knowingly acquired a patent that should have been invalid due to prior art? Actually, this type of evidence is already used to render patents unenforceable, even if the prior art is not strong enough to invalidate the patent. It can also get the attorney who prosecuted the patent while concealing prior art in a lot of trouble. Everyone involved the patent process has a legal duty to disclose known material prior art to the Patent Office during the examination process.
Well, I don't know how old your girlfriend or spouse is, but I believe your mom can counter with her own prior art that pre-dates your 1969 Playboy. And you'd better not tell your girlfriend or spouse that your prior art is better than hers.
Not all US patents are issued to US companies; a large percentage of US patents are issued to foreign companies. Last year, only four of the top ten US patent acquiring companies were from the US. The year before it was three: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/01-0 2.htm