If Apple didn't care you would be able to use FairPlay in other MP3 players and iPods would accept other forms of DRM. The raison d'etre for FairPlay, and the only reason for its continued existance, is to keep users shackled to iPods. Nothing more, nothing less. Apple cares because if people aren't buying FairPlay music from iTMS then their strategy is not working. Their ability to compete on grounds other than design and usability (in which nobody can touch Apple but things are rapidly changing) will soon go away.
I, for one, have over 2,500 tracks on my iPod of which exactly 7 are FairPlay that I got for free from iTMS (I forget why they gave them to me). The rest are from CDs I bought and ripped. In fact, I have 8 additional free tracks on my iTunes account which I have not used. I just hate to use them for music that I like as the quality generally stinks and I know I will not be able to take them with me when/if I switch to a different MP3 player. I save them for crap music my wife makes me download for her.
I think we are seeing a second generation of people who see all the shiny non-apple palyers available but know they cannot move because they would have to re-purchase all their music. These people are probably staying with Apple for the time being but are not about to dig themselves a bigger hole. As for new users, they are more educated on the insidious evil that is DRM and are probably avoiding it like the plague.
To me, the FM modulator complaint is not so important. As car-makers make satelite radios and AUX ports standard equipment the use of FM modulators will wane into insignificance. Ironically, the reason I didn't use an FM modulator in my previous car (my new ine has Sirius built-in) is that I live in a very crowded FM environment (Miami/Fort Lauderdale) and there was simply no clear space in the spectrum where FM transmissions would not interfere with the modulator signal. SO I sprang for an after-market aux port and installed it myself.
To me, a Sirius subscriber, the most interesting part is the NAB and NPR's complaint about the shenangans XM is apparently playing with its re-transmission towers. From the article:
The NAB letter further alleges that 28%, or 221 of XM's repeaters, exceed their authorized power level. XM says that has not adversely affected other broadcasters' transmissions, and it's working with the FCC to correct such problems.
This clearly explains to me why XM seems to have much more sucess than Sirius in not dropping signals under overpasses, tunnels, trees etc. IMHO this filing is actually going to help Sirius a lot more than the NAB or NPR.
It is hard to tell since the article is silent on it but it's probably a design patent which only covers the appearance of the device, not its functionality. Practically useless for a product like this.
Cheesedog, can you please tell us where you got that this is a provisional patent application? (BTW, there is no such thing as aprovisional patent). No disrespect but you seem way out of your element. You don't really know what you are talking about.
I posted this already but here it is again for your benefit (and that of anyone who reads your "rebuttal"): Provisional applications are never published. A provisional patent application simply gives the applicant to the ability to file a non-provisional (i.e., "real") patent application within 1 year and claim the benefit of the early filing daye of the provisional with respect to prior art. NO OTHER RIGHTS are conveyed by a provisional patent application. Therefore, a provisional patent application is not "enforceable" against anyone or anything. Provisional patent applications are NEVER examined. They simply sit in a file.
Having said that, the application we are talking about is a non-provisional application and makes no reference, nor claims any priority, to a provisional application. I don't know wher you got that this is a provisional application.
I know you mean well and your essential point (that the sky is not falling) is correct. But there are essential mis-statements regarding the patent system in your post that tend to fuel the hysteria of slashdotters. I want to throw my 2 cents in to correct them:
1. There is NO SUCH THING as a "provisional patent." A provisional patent APPLICATION simply gives the applicant to the ability to file a non-provisional (i.e., "real") patent application within 1 year and claim the benefit of the early filing daye of the provisional with respect to prior art. NO OTHER RIGHTS are conveyed by a provisional patent application. Therefore, a provisional patent application is not "enforceable" against anyone or anything. As you ponted out, provisional patent applications are NEVER examined. They simply sit in a file.
2. The application that just published and is the subject of this thread is not a provisional application. It is a non-provisional application that doesn't make any reference whatsoever to a provisional application. It is easy to know this because provisional applications are never published. I don't know where people got sidetracked into talking about provisional rights but they do not apply to this application.
Now, as many have said before, the USPTO has very little latitude in just dimissing out of hand an application before it gets examined. Therefore, the mere fact that this is being published is nothing to be alarmed about. You can track the status of this application from the USPTO website (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair) and I can see that this application was only docketed last month. My experience is that it will be at least 6 months (but probably more like 12) before this is even examined. I would wait until then to get alarmed if it looks like a patent will issue.
As for what rights the publication give the applicant, the answer is easy, none. True, the applicant can wave his arms and say that he has a patent pending and threaten to sue WHEN AND IF the patent issues. But he could have done that from the day after he filed his application. The application is withheld from publication for 18 months only for the applicant's benefit and protection. He could have made the application public long ago and inf fact requested the USPTO to publish it early.
The only benefit to the applicant from publication is that he can begin accruing damages form the date his application became publicly know. However, the damages would be recoverable if, and only if, (1) the applicant gives specific notice to the accused infringers (this explains ther cease and desist letters), (2) the patent issues with claims substantially identical to those published. The second requirement is rarely ever true. As I said before, the appplicant did not have to wait until publication to make his application publicly known. So nothing has been gained by publication (except additional publicity and slashdot hysteria)
For what its worth, I think this patent will be rejected because it consitutes non-patentable subject matter. That is, although it is couched as a "process" (statutorily patentable), it realy is an abstract idea (statutorily non-patentable).
The patents is question are 5,722,067 filed in 1998 and 6,157,823 filed in 2000.
Wrong!
5,722,067 was filed on December 23, 1994. 6,157,823 was filed on January 20, 1998 as a continuation of 5,722,067. This is hugely important because for purposes of prior art, both patents have a PRIORITY date of December 23, 1994.
This means that in order for prior art (e.g. a written publication or public use) to be effective in invalidating either patent, it would have to have been published (or otherwise be made publicly known) on or before December 23, 1993. That's 12 years ago folks, long before pay-as-you-go cellular service was even a germ of an idea for most people.
As ususal in these patent-related articles, posts abound with the knee-jerk "this is obvious", "I have seen this before", "patents suck" dribble. Nobody bothers to read the patent to see what it actually claims or when it was filed.
I am obviously (pun intended) disregarding your call for non-patent attorneys as I am one. I normally respond negatively to these Slashdot stories criticizing people for filing "stupid" patents. Normally, the OP over-simplifies and labels as "stupid" a patent application that is much more complex than it gets credit for.
But in this case, I have to agree with the OP. This patent application is absurd and Microsoft should be ashamed for filing it. But I am not ready to condemn the USPTO until they actually grants this.
Coca-cola could still sue you for trademark dilution (and would likely win).
To the OP:
The View Touch application (not a registratio yet!) is for a "presentation screen for displaying graphical images to a viewing audience"
Your registration is for (sorry for the all-caps, cut and pasted from USPTO):
COMPUTERIZED ON-LINE RETAIL STORE SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF SOFTWARE; COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR FACILITATING AND PROVIDING POINT-OF-SALE AND TRANSACTION PROCESSING AND REPORTING; and PROVIDING TEMPORARY ACCESS TO ON-LINE DOWN-LOADABLE SOFTWARE
I don't see a whole lot of overlap there so I am not sure what you are complaining about. Besides, your mark is fairly weak given that is entirely composed of common english words. If you wanted sstronger protection you should have gone for something a little more "fanciful" or "arbitrary" (like Yahoo or Google)
The "cost" of filing a patent is much greater than that. I would estimate that the total cost of securing a software patent soup-to-nuts is about $15,000 to $20,000 (that is a low estimate). However,the patent office only gets between $1,000 and $2,000 of this in filing fees. The rest is attorneys' fees. If the patent office raises its fees it will make it much more difficult for small inventors to apply for patents. The large corporations will happily agree to higher fees since its just a drop in the bucket to them and it shuts out the small inventor who competes with them.
But the problem is more fundamental than that. For decades, Congress has "diverted" funds from the patent office. That is, much of what the patent office collects in fees is taken away and thrown into the general budget for things like social security and other agencies. Many argue this constitutes an unconstitutional tax on inventors that goes to pay services unrelated to the original reason for the tax. Every year Congress says it will correct the situation but nothing gets done. Like I said before, the real players have no incentive to improve the quality of examination at the patent office.
The other problem, of course, is the pathetic way the USPTO is run. They have wasted billions of dollars in bungled atttempts at automation over the past 10 years. The system is a bunch of cobbled-up outdated technologies which, if you ask anyone who uses them on a daily basis, dont work. However, the higher ups pretend that they do and declare that due to all the automation no more examiners are needed. Generally speaking, the top job at the USPTO is given to a career politician who wouldn't know a patent if it bit him in the arse. They use the job as a springboard to a better office and leave the USPTO in worse shape than they found it. It is a disgrace.
So, if you are really interested in improving the system, write your congressperson and complain about the situation at the USPTO but you should not blame the examiners (BTW, I am NOT and examiner). As much as I love/., I don't think anyone from Congress hangs around here.
Well, I prosecute patents on a daily basis (probably about 50 every year) and therefore feel I have a leg to stand on when I speak about this. I can tell you that you have a very distorted view of the process. My statement os 100% correct and I stand by it. You pick out one or two cases with which you do not agree and then make generalizations and assumptions about the process which are just plain wrong.
It is because of the spread of disinformation like that in your OP that people fail to see what is broken in the system and not think about constructive solutions.
Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement.
Using your scenario,any solution at which a bunch of programmers could independently arrive would, under most circumstances, be "obvious" and therefore not patentable. The problem is not the patent laws, it is the implementation.
There aren't sufficient examiners skilled in the art of software programming to determine in most cases when something is obvious. Those examiners who are skilled are overwhelmed and can only do a very cursory job of searching in the time alloted to examine every application. Most of the time, the only search done is of patent prior art which in the field of software is sparse.
As much as I hate saying this, this is one of those problems that does require money being thrown at it in order to solve. We need to hire more and better examiners. We need to pay the skilled examiners better to retain them.
That is not to say that the USPTO does not have other problems. But lack of funding is certainly one of the biggest. Of course, the reason for this is that nobody in aposition to do something about this really has any incentive to do so.
I am not sure who told you that but you are dead wrong. The patent office makes a search of the prior art and if your invention is anticipated by the prior art, or is obvious inview of it, you get rejected.
Searching for prior art is the primary function of a patent examiner
No. The USPTO is moving its offices and they have been experiencing all kinds of problems with their servers. That's prolly the reason. I have used this countless of times but today I was laso getting the error.
Not sure if e-mail addresses are given in the results, i believe it is only telephone nos. FWIW, the uspto uses e-mail addresses in the format firstname.lastname@uspto.gov so its pretty easy to figure them out.
Except for a few cases, every patent application filed is published 18 months after it is filed. During the first 30 days after publication the public can forward any prior art it wishes the USPTO to consider in examining the application. I know it is not the same as the post-issuance opposition that you are suggesting but it is available. Yet, for all the complaining, this right of the public to comment on prospective new patents is almost never exercised.
A lot of people here often complaint about how thinghs "should be" yet they don't even bother to learn how things are.
There are 3 independent claims, 1, 9 and 16. They are reproduced below. Forget about all of the flowery language in the description. The claims are what determines what the patent holder can prevent others from doing. If Bezos & Co. decides to enforce this patent, they would have to prove that the accused infringer is practicing EVERY ELEMENT of at least one of the claims. I will leave it to others to comment on how difficult that would be.
The claims are:
1. A method in a computer system for exchanging information between users of web sites, the method comprising:
providing a mapping between a first web site and a second web site; when a first user accesses the first web site, providing a web page of the first web site; receiving information from the first user; and storing the received information based on the provided mapping; and when a second user accesses the second web site, providing a web page of the second web site; retrieving the stored information based on the provided mapping; and providing a display of the retrieved information so that the first and second users can exchange information.
9. A method in a computer system for controlling the exchange of information between users of web pages, the method comprising:
receiving an indication of a web page from a first user computer; retrieving the web page from a first web server; sending the retrieved web page to the first user computer; retrieving information associated with the web page, the retrieved information having been previously received from second user computer when accessing a web page of a second web server; and sending the retrieved information to the first user computer.
16. A method in a computer system for accessing information associated with a web page, the method comprising:
sending a request for a first web page; and in response to sending the request, receiving the first web page; and receiving information associated with the first web page, the information being previously entered by a user when accessing a second web page, the information having been entered separately from the second web page.
Actually, from my understanding, pretty much all of the US Congress is following this case with great interest. It turns out that on 9/11 about the only communications device working in Washingon D.C. was the balckberry network. Therefore they are advocating that it is in the national interest that the dispute be resolved without any disruption in service.
I have read that various members of Congress have written to the judge in charge of the Court case, the parties, and have even offered to mediate the dispute. I guess the congressmen cannot bear the thought of departing from their beloved "crackberries"
Actually, this is not even an issue in this case nor is this the revolutionary concept you make it out to be. RIM is a Canadian company, true, but they operate in the US, sell their (allegedly) infringing devices and services in the US, and activelly promote the majority of their business activity to US consumers. Therefore, they are subject to US laws in connection with their activities in the US.
US Courts enforce US patent laws against foreign companies (and vice versa) every day and this has been going on for decades. And the sky has not fallen.
Under your theory a US company is free to infringe a Canadian patent by selling infringing products in Canada simply because it is "physically located" in the US (whatever that means).
Your premise that "patent holders are permitted to sit on their patents and do nothing, even when they are aware of infringing acts" is simply incorrect. The law (under something called the doctrine of laches) specifically prohibits someone from "sitting on his rights" so that additional damages accrue. The doctrine of laches applies to basically every civil action including an action for patent infringement.
In addition, there is already a statute of limitation for patent actions. You are not allowed to recover damages for infringements which occurred 6 or more years from the date you file your lawsuit.
There is longstanding precedent in the US that you can only sue the government for failure to comply with their administartive duties (i.e duties which are purely administrative and require no real "judgment" decisions), not for failure to comply with discretionary duties (i.e., "judgment calls"). In other words you can sue the government for failing to properly fill in a pothole on the highway which results in an accident. However you cannot sue the governemnt for issuing a patent that should not have been issues as this is a discresionary decision.
There is a reason for this. Without this type of immunity, the Government, and its employees, would be paralysed for fear of liability and would never make a decision
This already exists. Its called a maintenance payment on a patent. Maintenance payments are due at 4, 8 and 12 years after issue and are progressive in natur (increase over time.) Failure to make a maintence paymentresults in abandonment of the patent and dedication of same to the public.
The writer utilizes every form of intellectual property as if they were interchangeable. It demonstrates that the writer does not understand any of them. Its kind of sad for such an intriguing story to make it to slashdot on such a poor introduction. Doesn't anyone edit these things?
I think there should be a mechanism to mod down an entire story when it is presented like this. Pretty sad.
In most countries a trademark does not need to be registered to have legal effect. However, in order to gain trademark rights over a name you must make "trademark use" of it. In the U.S. this means you must make "use in commerce" of the mark (I have no idea about the law in the UK but assume it is similar.)
Not knowing exactly how the "katie.com" name was used on the original site, it is difficult to tell whether it constituted "use in commerce." However, US courts have repeatedly held that the mere use of a domain name on a website does not necessarily constitute "use in commerce."
The U.S. courts have generally equated a domain name with a telephone number. That is, it is not considered a trademark unless it is promoted as such and identifies particular goods or services. Using the telephone analogy, just because a company has had the same telephone number for years does not mean they have trademark rights on it. On the other hand, some companies have given their telephone numbers trademark significance through promotion (i.e., "1800CONTACTS", "1800FLOWERS", etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple didn't care you would be able to use FairPlay in other MP3 players and iPods would accept other forms of DRM. The raison d'etre for FairPlay, and the only reason for its continued existance, is to keep users shackled to iPods. Nothing more, nothing less. Apple cares because if people aren't buying FairPlay music from iTMS then their strategy is not working. Their ability to compete on grounds other than design and usability (in which nobody can touch Apple but things are rapidly changing) will soon go away.
I, for one, have over 2,500 tracks on my iPod of which exactly 7 are FairPlay that I got for free from iTMS (I forget why they gave them to me). The rest are from CDs I bought and ripped. In fact, I have 8 additional free tracks on my iTunes account which I have not used. I just hate to use them for music that I like as the quality generally stinks and I know I will not be able to take them with me when/if I switch to a different MP3 player. I save them for crap music my wife makes me download for her.
I think we are seeing a second generation of people who see all the shiny non-apple palyers available but know they cannot move because they would have to re-purchase all their music. These people are probably staying with Apple for the time being but are not about to dig themselves a bigger hole. As for new users, they are more educated on the insidious evil that is DRM and are probably avoiding it like the plague.
To me, a Sirius subscriber, the most interesting part is the NAB and NPR's complaint about the shenangans XM is apparently playing with its re-transmission towers. From the article:
This clearly explains to me why XM seems to have much more sucess than Sirius in not dropping signals under overpasses, tunnels, trees etc. IMHO this filing is actually going to help Sirius a lot more than the NAB or NPR.
I second the Barracuda firewall. Have been using it for 3 years at our office (about 40 users) and has worked great with Exchange so far.
It is hard to tell since the article is silent on it but it's probably a design patent which only covers the appearance of the device, not its functionality. Practically useless for a product like this.
Cheesedog, can you please tell us where you got that this is a provisional patent application? (BTW, there is no such thing as aprovisional patent). No disrespect but you seem way out of your element. You don't really know what you are talking about.
I posted this already but here it is again for your benefit (and that of anyone who reads your "rebuttal"): Provisional applications are never published. A provisional patent application simply gives the applicant to the ability to file a non-provisional (i.e., "real") patent application within 1 year and claim the benefit of the early filing daye of the provisional with respect to prior art. NO OTHER RIGHTS are conveyed by a provisional patent application. Therefore, a provisional patent application is not "enforceable" against anyone or anything. Provisional patent applications are NEVER examined. They simply sit in a file.
Having said that, the application we are talking about is a non-provisional application and makes no reference, nor claims any priority, to a provisional application. I don't know wher you got that this is a provisional application.
A little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing.
I know you mean well and your essential point (that the sky is not falling) is correct. But there are essential mis-statements regarding the patent system in your post that tend to fuel the hysteria of slashdotters. I want to throw my 2 cents in to correct them:
1. There is NO SUCH THING as a "provisional patent." A provisional patent APPLICATION simply gives the applicant to the ability to file a non-provisional (i.e., "real") patent application within 1 year and claim the benefit of the early filing daye of the provisional with respect to prior art. NO OTHER RIGHTS are conveyed by a provisional patent application. Therefore, a provisional patent application is not "enforceable" against anyone or anything. As you ponted out, provisional patent applications are NEVER examined. They simply sit in a file.
2. The application that just published and is the subject of this thread is not a provisional application. It is a non-provisional application that doesn't make any reference whatsoever to a provisional application. It is easy to know this because provisional applications are never published. I don't know where people got sidetracked into talking about provisional rights but they do not apply to this application.
Now, as many have said before, the USPTO has very little latitude in just dimissing out of hand an application before it gets examined. Therefore, the mere fact that this is being published is nothing to be alarmed about. You can track the status of this application from the USPTO website (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair) and I can see that this application was only docketed last month. My experience is that it will be at least 6 months (but probably more like 12) before this is even examined. I would wait until then to get alarmed if it looks like a patent will issue.
As for what rights the publication give the applicant, the answer is easy, none. True, the applicant can wave his arms and say that he has a patent pending and threaten to sue WHEN AND IF the patent issues. But he could have done that from the day after he filed his application. The application is withheld from publication for 18 months only for the applicant's benefit and protection. He could have made the application public long ago and inf fact requested the USPTO to publish it early.
The only benefit to the applicant from publication is that he can begin accruing damages form the date his application became publicly know. However, the damages would be recoverable if, and only if, (1) the applicant gives specific notice to the accused infringers (this explains ther cease and desist letters), (2) the patent issues with claims substantially identical to those published. The second requirement is rarely ever true. As I said before, the appplicant did not have to wait until publication to make his application publicly known. So nothing has been gained by publication (except additional publicity and slashdot hysteria)
For what its worth, I think this patent will be rejected because it consitutes non-patentable subject matter. That is, although it is couched as a "process" (statutorily patentable), it realy is an abstract idea (statutorily non-patentable).
5,722,067 was filed on December 23, 1994. 6,157,823 was filed on January 20, 1998 as a continuation of 5,722,067. This is hugely important because for purposes of prior art, both patents have a PRIORITY date of December 23, 1994.
This means that in order for prior art (e.g. a written publication or public use) to be effective in invalidating either patent, it would have to have been published (or otherwise be made publicly known) on or before December 23, 1993. That's 12 years ago folks, long before pay-as-you-go cellular service was even a germ of an idea for most people.
As ususal in these patent-related articles, posts abound with the knee-jerk "this is obvious", "I have seen this before", "patents suck" dribble. Nobody bothers to read the patent to see what it actually claims or when it was filed.
I am obviously (pun intended) disregarding your call for non-patent attorneys as I am one. I normally respond negatively to these Slashdot stories criticizing people for filing "stupid" patents. Normally, the OP over-simplifies and labels as "stupid" a patent application that is much more complex than it gets credit for.
But in this case, I have to agree with the OP. This patent application is absurd and Microsoft should be ashamed for filing it. But I am not ready to condemn the USPTO until they actually grants this.
Coca-cola could still sue you for trademark dilution (and would likely win).
To the OP:
The View Touch application (not a registratio yet!) is for a "presentation screen for displaying graphical images to a viewing audience"
Your registration is for (sorry for the all-caps, cut and pasted from USPTO):
COMPUTERIZED ON-LINE RETAIL STORE SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF SOFTWARE; COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR FACILITATING AND PROVIDING POINT-OF-SALE AND TRANSACTION PROCESSING AND REPORTING; and PROVIDING TEMPORARY ACCESS TO ON-LINE DOWN-LOADABLE SOFTWARE
I don't see a whole lot of overlap there so I am not sure what you are complaining about. Besides, your mark is fairly weak given that is entirely composed of common english words. If you wanted sstronger protection you should have gone for something a little more "fanciful" or "arbitrary" (like Yahoo or Google)
The "cost" of filing a patent is much greater than that. I would estimate that the total cost of securing a software patent soup-to-nuts is about $15,000 to $20,000 (that is a low estimate). However,the patent office only gets between $1,000 and $2,000 of this in filing fees. The rest is attorneys' fees. If the patent office raises its fees it will make it much more difficult for small inventors to apply for patents. The large corporations will happily agree to higher fees since its just a drop in the bucket to them and it shuts out the small inventor who competes with them.
/., I don't think anyone from Congress hangs around here.
But the problem is more fundamental than that. For decades, Congress has "diverted" funds from the patent office. That is, much of what the patent office collects in fees is taken away and thrown into the general budget for things like social security and other agencies. Many argue this constitutes an unconstitutional tax on inventors that goes to pay services unrelated to the original reason for the tax. Every year Congress says it will correct the situation but nothing gets done. Like I said before, the real players have no incentive to improve the quality of examination at the patent office.
The other problem, of course, is the pathetic way the USPTO is run. They have wasted billions of dollars in bungled atttempts at automation over the past 10 years. The system is a bunch of cobbled-up outdated technologies which, if you ask anyone who uses them on a daily basis, dont work. However, the higher ups pretend that they do and declare that due to all the automation no more examiners are needed. Generally speaking, the top job at the USPTO is given to a career politician who wouldn't know a patent if it bit him in the arse. They use the job as a springboard to a better office and leave the USPTO in worse shape than they found it. It is a disgrace.
So, if you are really interested in improving the system, write your congressperson and complain about the situation at the USPTO but you should not blame the examiners (BTW, I am NOT and examiner). As much as I love
Well, I prosecute patents on a daily basis (probably about 50 every year) and therefore feel I have a leg to stand on when I speak about this. I can tell you that you have a very distorted view of the process. My statement os 100% correct and I stand by it. You pick out one or two cases with which you do not agree and then make generalizations and assumptions about the process which are just plain wrong.
It is because of the spread of disinformation like that in your OP that people fail to see what is broken in the system and not think about constructive solutions.
Using your scenario,any solution at which a bunch of programmers could independently arrive would, under most circumstances, be "obvious" and therefore not patentable. The problem is not the patent laws, it is the implementation.
There aren't sufficient examiners skilled in the art of software programming to determine in most cases when something is obvious. Those examiners who are skilled are overwhelmed and can only do a very cursory job of searching in the time alloted to examine every application. Most of the time, the only search done is of patent prior art which in the field of software is sparse.
As much as I hate saying this, this is one of those problems that does require money being thrown at it in order to solve. We need to hire more and better examiners. We need to pay the skilled examiners better to retain them.
That is not to say that the USPTO does not have other problems. But lack of funding is certainly one of the biggest. Of course, the reason for this is that nobody in aposition to do something about this really has any incentive to do so.
I am not sure who told you that but you are dead wrong. The patent office makes a search of the prior art and if your invention is anticipated by the prior art, or is obvious inview of it, you get rejected.
Searching for prior art is the primary function of a patent examiner
No. The USPTO is moving its offices and they have been experiencing all kinds of problems with their servers. That's prolly the reason. I have used this countless of times but today I was laso getting the error.
Not sure if e-mail addresses are given in the results, i believe it is only telephone nos. FWIW, the uspto uses e-mail addresses in the format firstname.lastname@uspto.gov so its pretty easy to figure them out.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/emploc.htm
Knock yourself out
Except for a few cases, every patent application filed is published 18 months after it is filed. During the first 30 days after publication the public can forward any prior art it wishes the USPTO to consider in examining the application. I know it is not the same as the post-issuance opposition that you are suggesting but it is available. Yet, for all the complaining, this right of the public to comment on prospective new patents is almost never exercised.
A lot of people here often complaint about how thinghs "should be" yet they don't even bother to learn how things are.
Reading Patents 101:
There are 3 independent claims, 1, 9 and 16. They are reproduced below. Forget about all of the flowery language in the description. The claims are what determines what the patent holder can prevent others from doing. If Bezos & Co. decides to enforce this patent, they would have to prove that the accused infringer is practicing EVERY ELEMENT of at least one of the claims. I will leave it to others to comment on how difficult that would be.
The claims are:
1. A method in a computer system for exchanging information between users of web sites, the method comprising:
providing a mapping between a first web site and a second web site;
when a first user accesses the first web site,
providing a web page of the first web site;
receiving information from the first user; and
storing the received information based on the provided mapping; and
when a second user accesses the second web site,
providing a web page of the second web site;
retrieving the stored information based on the provided mapping; and
providing a display of the retrieved information so that the first and second users can exchange information.
9. A method in a computer system for controlling the exchange of information between users of web pages, the method comprising:
receiving an indication of a web page from a first user computer;
retrieving the web page from a first web server;
sending the retrieved web page to the first user computer;
retrieving information associated with the web page, the retrieved information having been previously received from second user computer when accessing a web page of a second web server; and
sending the retrieved information to the first user computer.
16. A method in a computer system for accessing information associated with a web page, the method comprising:
sending a request for a first web page; and
in response to sending the request,
receiving the first web page; and
receiving information associated with the first web page, the information being previously entered by a user when accessing a second web page, the information having been entered separately from the second web page.
Really ...
Actually, from my understanding, pretty much all of the US Congress is following this case with great interest. It turns out that on 9/11 about the only communications device working in Washingon D.C. was the balckberry network. Therefore they are advocating that it is in the national interest that the dispute be resolved without any disruption in service.
I have read that various members of Congress have written to the judge in charge of the Court case, the parties, and have even offered to mediate the dispute. I guess the congressmen cannot bear the thought of departing from their beloved "crackberries"
Actually, this is not even an issue in this case nor is this the revolutionary concept you make it out to be. RIM is a Canadian company, true, but they operate in the US, sell their (allegedly) infringing devices and services in the US, and activelly promote the majority of their business activity to US consumers. Therefore, they are subject to US laws in connection with their activities in the US.
US Courts enforce US patent laws against foreign companies (and vice versa) every day and this has been going on for decades. And the sky has not fallen.
Under your theory a US company is free to infringe a Canadian patent by selling infringing products in Canada simply because it is "physically located" in the US (whatever that means).
Who modded this up?
Your premise that "patent holders are permitted to sit on their patents and do nothing, even when they are aware of infringing acts" is simply incorrect. The law (under something called the doctrine of laches) specifically prohibits someone from "sitting on his rights" so that additional damages accrue. The doctrine of laches applies to basically every civil action including an action for patent infringement.
In addition, there is already a statute of limitation for patent actions. You are not allowed to recover damages for infringements which occurred 6 or more years from the date you file your lawsuit.
There is longstanding precedent in the US that you can only sue the government for failure to comply with their administartive duties (i.e duties which are purely administrative and require no real "judgment" decisions), not for failure to comply with discretionary duties (i.e., "judgment calls"). In other words you can sue the government for failing to properly fill in a pothole on the highway which results in an accident. However you cannot sue the governemnt for issuing a patent that should not have been issues as this is a discresionary decision.
There is a reason for this. Without this type of immunity, the Government, and its employees, would be paralysed for fear of liability and would never make a decision
This already exists. Its called a maintenance payment on a patent. Maintenance payments are due at 4, 8 and 12 years after issue and are progressive in natur (increase over time.) Failure to make a maintence paymentresults in abandonment of the patent and dedication of same to the public.
The writer utilizes every form of intellectual property as if they were interchangeable. It demonstrates that the writer does not understand any of them. Its kind of sad for such an intriguing story to make it to slashdot on such a poor introduction. Doesn't anyone edit these things?
I think there should be a mechanism to mod down an entire story when it is presented like this. Pretty sad.
In most countries a trademark does not need to be registered to have legal effect. However, in order to gain trademark rights over a name you must make "trademark use" of it. In the U.S. this means you must make "use in commerce" of the mark (I have no idea about the law in the UK but assume it is similar.)
Not knowing exactly how the "katie.com" name was used on the original site, it is difficult to tell whether it constituted "use in commerce." However, US courts have repeatedly held that the mere use of a domain name on a website does not necessarily constitute "use in commerce."
The U.S. courts have generally equated a domain name with a telephone number. That is, it is not considered a trademark unless it is promoted as such and identifies particular goods or services. Using the telephone analogy, just because a company has had the same telephone number for years does not mean they have trademark rights on it. On the other hand, some companies have given their telephone numbers trademark significance through promotion (i.e., "1800CONTACTS", "1800FLOWERS", etc.)