AFAIK, just one posting can. Gather enough prior art and ask for re-examination. Read this carefully. I cannot provide proper advise, since I am not that familiar with US law.
Unfortunately, you cannot participate in the proceedings, but I have cought rumours that the USPTO will change re-examination procedures to inter partes proceedings, bringing it more in line with the opposition procedures of the European and Japanese Patent Offices (both built on the unequalled German patent system (BTW, I am not a German))
using registered trademarks or copyrighted material for parody or criticism purposes is PERFECTLY LEGAL without permission.
Well, to a certain extend. IMO, parody is fine, as long as it is rather clear for an 'average' person to see that it is parody indeed. It does not have to appear unabiguously (that would be no fun anymore), but it would have to appear.
However, this was not the case in this case, from what I have heard. When really imitating CNN, you're going the same way as selling fake Rolexes (statement without any prejudice, BTW). And I can imagine that CNN will sue you in that case for tort and trademark infringement.
Tort, since people will take CNN stories (probably unconsiously) less serious, meaning damage for CNN
trademark infringement, well, that's obvious.
As a intellectual property advisor in education, I would advise my client (when CNN) anyway to do so.
Then again, if I were to defend Spo0fed, I would make up a different story:-), but the above is my personal neutral opinion.
Ok, this is a nice case for practising what I have learned so far. When you want to read along, open this link in a new window for the patent as granted.
The claim categories are aimed at a browser and a method of browsing.
Museumtours does not provide a browser, nor performs a method of browsing.
When you look e.g. at claim 20, one of the steps is 'viewing parts of the document'. This goes for independent claim 24 as well. Well, I do not expect museumtours to watch every time their page is accessed (will be quite a few times after all these articles at/.). As a European patent attorney trainee, I would have written the claims differently, claiming only steps a computer would perform, under control of the browser programme.
So, in my opinion, it would not be possible to defend that museumtour infringes independent claims 20 and 24, let alone claims dependent on those two.
Claim 1 is aimed at a browser. When reading the text + examining the drawings, Netscape is actually prior art in my opinion. AFAIK, frames were already there in 1996 (filing date of the document), yielding claim 1 invalid.
Besides that, the browser does not comprise input devices in the scope of the application; in claim 3 e.g. they are specified as a keyboard.
Well, I do not have the time right now to continue for all claims, but with a proper knowledgable attorney, Museumtours should manage.
EMP weapons have, in general, been under discussion and research for a very long time.
And have been used in former Yugoslavia by the US as well. Rather small payloads have been used to 'destroy' power plants. Very successfully. Powerful EMP blast can probably take out all microcircuits in your environment. Bye bye computer.
I do not see your arguments as a reason for this. We have to go way back to the end of the 19th century (or even earlier) when patent and copyright law came to life.
The idea of copyright is that a poor writer/painter does something very avantgarde and is misunderstood by his generation. Long extension of copyright provides his kin with a nice sum of money, nontheless.
Patents are granted for practial, ready to implement ideas (well, most of the time and within about 5 years at least).
Very crudely stated, that's (one of many) the actual reason.
By the way, just read that Lawrence Lessig proposes here (registration required) to provide a system like the patent system for copyright as well.
A good idea, but in my opinion, duration should be limited.
Unfortunately, the Berne convention would have to be modified; it says that there should be no formal requirements to get copyright. Modification will be pretty tough, a lot of countries are involved.
The original posting is correct, indeed. What needs to be added is that for patents issued after June (?) 1995, but filed prior to that, you may choose between 20 years after filing or 17 years from grant.
User -kyz is confused by the patent law everywhere else in the world, where a patent lasts up to 20 years from filing.
With the change of patent law in 1995 by the US, they finally decided to harmonise patent terms with the rest of the world.
A small step for a human, but a giant leap for such a conservative country.
114 years from now, if my great-great grandchild wanted to write The Lion King in space, Disney would NEVER give them the right to make it, and would sue the pants off them if they tried.
Wow, you expect another extension of 25 years? You, my friend, are a true optimist.
I sincerely doubt what the EU would do in such a case. Unfortunately, EU has more or less followed the DMCA as well in the directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (provided here). I do hope this will not be a precedent but a mere momentary lapse of reason (C).
What I learn from this is that the US is in the opinion that they can sue anyone anywhere in the world, but that US citizens cannot be sued outside US, especially when they have committed crimes against the human race.
I have read in Machiavelli that hypocrisy is a true virtue of a talented 'Principe'. I wonder whether Bush (or Ashcroft) have read this book as well.
> > Consider simply registering your method with a
> > notary or similar. Then when you get
> > challenged for patent infringement you can
> > use your notarized testimony as prior art.
> That would be completely useless. We are
> discussing patents, not copyrights. Prior art >must be public.
You are not fully correct. It would be wise to have a notary certify the date of publication.
The court of appeal in Amsterdam has ruled that Kazaa is legal since it has a legal function as well.
However, Kazaa sold all to Sharman Networks before the ruling was made (first instance court had ruled that Kazaa was illegal).
Conclusion: Kazaa can always go back to the Netherlands
Second point: when Kazaa gets a summons for court in the US. They don't show up, since they are no company in the US and do not have any subsidiaries. What do you think will happen with Kazaa? Right, nothing.
Or the US army has to drop by in Vanuatu on their way back from Iraq.
Well, I know quite soem about a patent system, but that's not the US patent system.
What I do know is that when USPTO does not find a written piece of prior art, they cannot refuse a patent. Period. And have you ever seen a written piece of paper telling you you can swing sideways on a swing? Bingo.
And for any techy trying to learn about patent stuff, surf to the site of a colleague of mine at iusmentis. Most info is in dutch, some in English.
Furthermore, I agree that lot op people just want to spew off their opinions. Lot of people are just blindly following the 'no patents on software' religion blindly. Well, go ahead, lemmings, but you won't win (oops, there goes my karma).
Better write everything down and deposit it at your local library and/ or send a copy to the USPTO to prevent it from being patented.
Uhm... Pretty obvious statement. I even wonder whether is novel. This is actually what I'm trying to do as a patent attorney trainee lurking in this subject group...
But no questions, no answers.
A professor at law told me during a lecture that techies are either very good or very bad at law. Law is quite like like physics/science. Only difference is that you need know how that laws made by the parliament can be bend, whereas laws of nature cannot. For the other part working as a legal professional is just acquiring knowledge, reasoning and hard labour, like with a tech job (I've done both for two years each now).
Both parties - data provider and subscriber - should agree on law (of which country) and jurisdiction (which court).
AFAIK, we agree on that point.
So when you read Wired.com, you agree with the terms of use. Or don't you? Well, you accessed the site, saw something libellous about me on the top line, you have already seen it, before you stumbled upon the link at the bottom of the page to the terms of use.
According to the law in my country, Netherlands, you are (most probably) not bound by those terms of use since you did not know them at the moment you accessed the website.
This issue can be solved by letting readers subscribe to a news service, letting them agree with terms of use and only after that, letting them read the news. An example for this is the New York Times on line.
And even then, only my neighbour probably agrees only to litigate in the US and abide with US law. But nevertheless, a tort is committed to me (libel) and I can sue the New York times for libel, in any court, with any law. Only question is wether the court declares itself competent.
This is because I did not agree with the terms of use!
In my opinion, it is no use to set up a disclaimer for this kind of stuff, since both parties have to agree and the party to which a tort has been committed will never agree with those terms.
So there is a bond between the publisher and the 'victim' of the tort, but no agreement.
I had some legal education, but this is of course no legal advise.
Fine, Kazaa may get convicted of contributory copyright infringement. And what next? Send out a US army raid to Vanuatu to enforce the verdict?
Kazaa moved to the island state to circumvent a verdict of the first instance judge of the Netherlands. Unnecessary, since the Dutch court of appeal in Amsterdam said that Kazaa is legal. Too bad, but at least we know Kazaa is legal in the Netherlands.
In summary, this kind of lawsuits are are useless exercise just as long as there's no global law enforcement system.
There is a European (civil) law enforcement system and the US (and some Asian countries) would love to join, but AFAIK this is still quite far away.
And even then, there's still the question whether Vanuatu will join the treaty.
There's also TRIPS, which requires minimal intellectual property protection in law. But I don't think Vanuatu is a member of that, either.
I searched for the applicant/assignee. It might be just as well that employees of both companies filed applications on their own name.
For more information, I'd have to do a search on each of the inventors to check whether they have more patents on their name.
Nevertheless, I still have a gut feeling that we have two boys here who want to mess with then men. But it's merely a gut feeling, no legal advise.
Here is the only granted (US) patent of Epicentric I was able to find. Perhaps someone who's familiar with SOAP can look into this (I'm an electronics & patent guy, not a software engineer).
EpiCentric also has a patent application running.
webMethods only has one application running. No patent, no royalties (yet).
Why didn't the press bother to find this out?
Anyway, I suspect both companies are not too sure about the position of their IP. I wonder whether they consulted their patent attorney before they contacted the W3C.
Unfortunately, there's no search report for the applications, yet.
Silly? Not exactly, IMHO. They still can make money out of the patents; why spend money and effort on manufacturing while you can earn enough on patent licensing while leaning back?
One pitfall, however: In some countries, you have to issue a mandatory license when you do not use the patented technology yourself for a reasonable amount of time (several years).
And the judges will not have any trouble finding a reasonable fee for that license.
hmmm... Well, you all in the US are lucky your legislators adopted the European policy: patent lasts until 20 years after grant. For all applied after mid 1995.
Good luck with the mess your old system left behind.
This is what's basically being called a sub-marine patent. You apply for a patent, stall the grant as long as possible, add all kind of stuff to the protection and get your grant when the subject matter is commercial hot stuff. The only relevant prior art are publications before the date your filed your first application, which may be in some cases even twenty years.
When you want to look for prior art, you have to get back as early as 1993 and for some stuff even to 1984 (Lynx era? it's been a long time I used that programme).
The big king of submarine patents is Lemelson. This article in Forbes describes it somewhat. Searching for Lemelson and submarine patent will help your further.
This trick, however, is - or better, was - only possible in the US. You used to get protection for 20 years after filing or 17 years after grant, whichever is longest. Furthermore, the patent application was not published, so you don't know it exists. This means, that you cannot work on a workaround.
Currently, all US applications that will also be filed abroad will be published a year and a half after the first filing. This goes for US applications as well, unless the applicant requests it to be hidden until grant, provided that he does not file abroad.
AFAIK, this goes for all applications since mid 1995. But apparently, we still have a heritage of applications prior to that date.
Fortunately, European applications are always published a year and a half after the first filing (priority date).
It's about time that those of us in the industry lobby congress to establish that only copyright, not patents, should be the protection which software enjoys.
I tend to disagree with this.
The basic idea of patent law is providing protection in exchange for publication of an invention, when this invention is novel and comprises an inventive step (or is non-obvious in US).
Later, the patent system is viewed as a 'reward' for the R&D investments.
Do not forget that large companies, but also smaller ones, put large amounts of money in R&D. In the electronics world, the result would be a circuit with resistors, transistors, capacitors, etc. According to your statement, this should still be patentable.
Currently, this kind of inventions is implemented in software in an OTP or EEPROM memory on a PCB. It does the same as the other (patentable) invention, the only difference is the implementation.
Can you please explain me why the second implementation would not be patentable?
Still vast amounts of money are put in R&D. Without patenting, companies would not be able to get back this money. This would mean they have no money for future research. End of progress (ok, I'm making a statement now).
The problem in this specific case is that we are faced with a patent application (it's still no patent yet) for an invention that's probably obvious over prior art. But in what way can be proved that it's really obvious?
This also gets to the point what all the fuzz is about on software patents: prior art is not well described and therefore not searchable by patent authorities.
Add this to the incompetenty of the USPTO (according to a US patent attorney colleague of mine) and you have a lot of patents not worth anything.
IMHO, this is the real problem with software patents, especially in the US.
Darn, this kind of advise is gonna cost me my clients... However, it's a good advise.
Take some patents that relate to your invention as an example on how to describe/claim your invention.
But when you think you're gonna make major bucks on your invention, I advise to go have a chit-chat with a patent attorney (or patent agent, probably cheaper in the US and good enough for filing and prosecution of your application) over your self-written patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, you cannot participate in the proceedings, but I have cought rumours that the USPTO will change re-examination procedures to inter partes proceedings, bringing it more in line with the opposition procedures of the European and Japanese Patent Offices (both built on the unequalled German patent system (BTW, I am not a German))
Well, to a certain extend. IMO, parody is fine, as long as it is rather clear for an 'average' person to see that it is parody indeed. It does not have to appear unabiguously (that would be no fun anymore), but it would have to appear.
However, this was not the case in this case, from what I have heard. When really imitating CNN, you're going the same way as selling fake Rolexes (statement without any prejudice, BTW). And I can imagine that CNN will sue you in that case for tort and trademark infringement.
As a intellectual property advisor in education, I would advise my client (when CNN) anyway to do so.
Then again, if I were to defend Spo0fed, I would make up a different story :-), but the above is my personal neutral opinion.
Of course, this is no legal advise, IANAL yet.
The claim categories are aimed at a browser and a method of browsing.
Museumtours does not provide a browser, nor performs a method of browsing.
When you look e.g. at claim 20, one of the steps is 'viewing parts of the document'. This goes for independent claim 24 as well. Well, I do not expect museumtours to watch every time their page is accessed (will be quite a few times after all these articles at /.). As a European patent attorney trainee, I would have written the claims differently, claiming only steps a computer would perform, under control of the browser programme.
So, in my opinion, it would not be possible to defend that museumtour infringes independent claims 20 and 24, let alone claims dependent on those two.
Claim 1 is aimed at a browser. When reading the text + examining the drawings, Netscape is actually prior art in my opinion. AFAIK, frames were already there in 1996 (filing date of the document), yielding claim 1 invalid.
Besides that, the browser does not comprise input devices in the scope of the application; in claim 3 e.g. they are specified as a keyboard.
Well, I do not have the time right now to continue for all claims, but with a proper knowledgable attorney, Museumtours should manage.
BTW: I am not a US patent attorney!
Kazaa down, who's next?
That is, if they ever catch Kazaa (or Kazaa goes to a pay service)
And have been used in former Yugoslavia by the US as well. Rather small payloads have been used to 'destroy' power plants. Very successfully. Powerful EMP blast can probably take out all microcircuits in your environment. Bye bye computer.
Read it here! This is Funny...
The idea of copyright is that a poor writer/painter does something very avantgarde and is misunderstood by his generation. Long extension of copyright provides his kin with a nice sum of money, nontheless.
Patents are granted for practial, ready to implement ideas (well, most of the time and within about 5 years at least).
Very crudely stated, that's (one of many) the actual reason.
By the way, just read that Lawrence Lessig proposes here (registration required) to provide a system like the patent system for copyright as well.
A good idea, but in my opinion, duration should be limited.
Unfortunately, the Berne convention would have to be modified; it says that there should be no formal requirements to get copyright. Modification will be pretty tough, a lot of countries are involved.
User -kyz is confused by the patent law everywhere else in the world, where a patent lasts up to 20 years from filing.
With the change of patent law in 1995 by the US, they finally decided to harmonise patent terms with the rest of the world.
A small step for a human, but a giant leap for such a conservative country.
Clones of Tarzan, the Lion King selling in shops never persisted, though.
Wow, you expect another extension of 25 years? You, my friend, are a true optimist.
I sincerely doubt what the EU would do in such a case. Unfortunately, EU has more or less followed the DMCA as well in the directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (provided here). I do hope this will not be a precedent but a mere momentary lapse of reason (C).
I have read in Machiavelli that hypocrisy is a true virtue of a talented 'Principe'. I wonder whether Bush (or Ashcroft) have read this book as well.
> > notary or similar. Then when you get
> > challenged for patent infringement you can
> > use your notarized testimony as prior art.
> That would be completely useless. We are
> discussing patents, not copyrights. Prior art
>must be public.
You are not fully correct. It would be wise to have a notary certify the date of publication.
However, Kazaa sold all to Sharman Networks before the ruling was made (first instance court had ruled that Kazaa was illegal).
Conclusion: Kazaa can always go back to the Netherlands
Second point: when Kazaa gets a summons for court in the US. They don't show up, since they are no company in the US and do not have any subsidiaries. What do you think will happen with Kazaa? Right, nothing.
Or the US army has to drop by in Vanuatu on their way back from Iraq.
What I do know is that when USPTO does not find a written piece of prior art, they cannot refuse a patent. Period. And have you ever seen a written piece of paper telling you you can swing sideways on a swing? Bingo.
And for any techy trying to learn about patent stuff, surf to the site of a colleague of mine at iusmentis. Most info is in dutch, some in English.
Furthermore, I agree that lot op people just want to spew off their opinions. Lot of people are just blindly following the 'no patents on software' religion blindly. Well, go ahead, lemmings, but you won't win (oops, there goes my karma).
Better write everything down and deposit it at your local library and/ or send a copy to the USPTO to prevent it from being patented.
This is actually what I'm trying to do as a patent attorney trainee lurking in this subject group...
But no questions, no answers.
A professor at law told me during a lecture that techies are either very good or very bad at law. Law is quite like like physics/science. Only difference is that you need know how that laws made by the parliament can be bend, whereas laws of nature cannot.
For the other part working as a legal professional is just acquiring knowledge, reasoning and hard labour, like with a tech job (I've done both for two years each now).
AFAIK, we agree on that point.
So when you read Wired.com, you agree with the terms of use. Or don't you? Well, you accessed the site, saw something libellous about me on the top line, you have already seen it, before you stumbled upon the link at the bottom of the page to the terms of use.
According to the law in my country, Netherlands, you are (most probably) not bound by those terms of use since you did not know them at the moment you accessed the website.
This issue can be solved by letting readers subscribe to a news service, letting them agree with terms of use and only after that, letting them read the news. An example for this is the New York Times on line.
And even then, only my neighbour probably agrees only to litigate in the US and abide with US law. But nevertheless, a tort is committed to me (libel) and I can sue the New York times for libel, in any court, with any law. Only question is wether the court declares itself competent.
This is because I did not agree with the terms of use!
In my opinion, it is no use to set up a disclaimer for this kind of stuff, since both parties have to agree and the party to which a tort has been committed will never agree with those terms.
So there is a bond between the publisher and the 'victim' of the tort, but no agreement.
I had some legal education, but this is of course no legal advise.
Kazaa moved to the island state to circumvent a verdict of the first instance judge of the Netherlands. Unnecessary, since the Dutch court of appeal in Amsterdam said that Kazaa is legal. Too bad, but at least we know Kazaa is legal in the Netherlands.
In summary, this kind of lawsuits are are useless exercise just as long as there's no global law enforcement system.
There is a European (civil) law enforcement system and the US (and some Asian countries) would love to join, but AFAIK this is still quite far away.
And even then, there's still the question whether Vanuatu will join the treaty.
There's also TRIPS, which requires minimal intellectual property protection in law. But I don't think Vanuatu is a member of that, either.
I searched for the applicant/assignee. It might be just as well that employees of both companies filed applications on their own name.
For more information, I'd have to do a search on each of the inventors to check whether they have more patents on their name.
Nevertheless, I still have a gut feeling that we have two boys here who want to mess with then men. But it's merely a gut feeling, no legal advise.
EpiCentric also has a patent application running.
webMethods only has one application running. No patent, no royalties (yet).
Why didn't the press bother to find this out?
Anyway, I suspect both companies are not too sure about the position of their IP. I wonder whether they consulted their patent attorney before they contacted the W3C.
Unfortunately, there's no search report for the applications, yet.
One pitfall, however: In some countries, you have to issue a mandatory license when you do not use the patented technology yourself for a reasonable amount of time (several years).
And the judges will not have any trouble finding a reasonable fee for that license.
Good luck with the mess your old system left behind.
When you want to look for prior art, you have to get back as early as 1993 and for some stuff even to 1984 (Lynx era? it's been a long time I used that programme).
The big king of submarine patents is Lemelson. This article in Forbes describes it somewhat. Searching for Lemelson and submarine patent will help your further.
This trick, however, is - or better, was - only possible in the US. You used to get protection for 20 years after filing or 17 years after grant, whichever is longest. Furthermore, the patent application was not published, so you don't know it exists. This means, that you cannot work on a workaround.
Currently, all US applications that will also be filed abroad will be published a year and a half after the first filing. This goes for US applications as well, unless the applicant requests it to be hidden until grant, provided that he does not file abroad.
AFAIK, this goes for all applications since mid 1995. But apparently, we still have a heritage of applications prior to that date.
Fortunately, European applications are always published a year and a half after the first filing (priority date).
Good luck, Mr. Lessig.
I tend to disagree with this.
The basic idea of patent law is providing protection in exchange for publication of an invention, when this invention is novel and comprises an inventive step (or is non-obvious in US).
Later, the patent system is viewed as a 'reward' for the R&D investments.
Do not forget that large companies, but also smaller ones, put large amounts of money in R&D. In the electronics world, the result would be a circuit with resistors, transistors, capacitors, etc. According to your statement, this should still be patentable.
Currently, this kind of inventions is implemented in software in an OTP or EEPROM memory on a PCB. It does the same as the other (patentable) invention, the only difference is the implementation.
Can you please explain me why the second implementation would not be patentable?
Still vast amounts of money are put in R&D. Without patenting, companies would not be able to get back this money. This would mean they have no money for future research. End of progress (ok, I'm making a statement now).
The problem in this specific case is that we are faced with a patent application (it's still no patent yet) for an invention that's probably obvious over prior art. But in what way can be proved that it's really obvious?
This also gets to the point what all the fuzz is about on software patents: prior art is not well described and therefore not searchable by patent authorities.
Add this to the incompetenty of the USPTO (according to a US patent attorney colleague of mine) and you have a lot of patents not worth anything.
IMHO, this is the real problem with software patents, especially in the US.
Groote Ka
no patent attorney (NL and Europe) yet
Take some patents that relate to your invention as an example on how to describe/claim your invention.
But when you think you're gonna make major bucks on your invention, I advise to go have a chit-chat with a patent attorney (or patent agent, probably cheaper in the US and good enough for filing and prosecution of your application) over your self-written patent.
Too many people pennywise & poundfoolish.
IANAPA (yet).