I think when you see this level of support for a show like Star Trek it shows it has passed the point of being a mere "TV show" and has become a full-fledged cultural phenomenon like jazz or abstract art or classical music.
[Captain Tanneal]Well, YOU'RE WRONG! Star Trek is just a TV show based on fantasy escapism embraced by misanthropes who self-medicate with daily feasts of snack foods and justify their existence with baseless arrogance! Let's get it on![/Captain Tanneal]
(To avoid flamebait mods, Captain Tanneal is a character from the TV show MXC who opens every episode with a tirade against issues like health care or reforming criminals. Also, Star Trek sucks;) )
I think a better way is to require the companies to license the patent to competitors for a reasonable fee. This insures they profit from their R&D and it creates compeition in the marketplace.
Or a clause that the Federal government can supercede the assignee's rights and license the patent itself, with proceeds going to the assignee. Toss in enough checks & balances that such a clause is only used when necessary, but if there were a significant public need for a particular drug, and the patent's assignee was practicing some shade of extortion, then generic drug manufacturers could approach the Federal government for a licensing deal. They would still be paying the patent's assignee all the licensing fees, but those fees would be negotiated by the Federal government, taking into account the intensity of public need, the market value, the remaining life of the patent, the assignee's past conduct (i.e. how belligerent, benevolent they had been in licensing negotiations), and of course, campaign contributions. (Wish I were kidding.)
Something like that could be a very healthy mix of a socialist control on a capitalist system, in tune with our existing taxes, social security, tarriffs, etc.
As I understand it, this was the original intention of patents, to make technology widely available while protecting the investment made by the developer. I don't think it was meant to provide rapacious profits to drug companies by giving them a patent on the key to life or death for some patients.
The original intent of patents was actually a bargain with inventors. The inventor discloses his invention, and in trade, he is given a temporary monopoly on its use and sale. The idea was that this advances technology, because a patent does not cover the nonobvious improvements to the first invention. For bicycles and cotton gins, this was a marvelous idea because experimentation and improvement didn't cost billions of dollars. For pharmaceuticals, this idea doesn't function quite as well. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a broken idea, but simply that it functions differently in a different technology.
Because pharmaceuticals serve such a critical public interest, I don't think it would be terribly out of step with the Federal government's past activity to include a paragraph in law that the government can negotiate its own licensing deals. If I'm not mistaken, the Federal government does have the power to end labor strikes in certain industries and has an entire organization for mediating labor disputes. This would be a different application, but not an altogether different problem.
On the other hand, if Microsoft "embraced" enough of the open-source philosophy that it placated corporate customers, won't that be a significant blow to the rise of linux?
I doubt those corporate customers are interested in all the feel-good benefits of open source. The feel-good benefits are probably the most difficult for Microsoft to adopt. If I had to guess on what "shared-source" really means, I would guess "Beating linux and open source at its own game in order to solidify the corporate market."
Basically all of pop and hip hop is produced using MIDI. "MIDI" is the protocol used by these devices to communicate. It has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the sound being produced.
I can trivially produce an MP3 of a MIDI project that your hardware would have been incapable of reproducing with the MIDI file. Why distribute via MP3? Because MP3 is an audio file, a MIDI file is a protocol file, and with the MP3 file, you can actually hear the music rather than a chintzy recreation based upon the communications necessary to play the music.
No suing is far to petty for them. They just email thier corps and gets nice new headlines saying 'XYZ project infringes patent'. Patents are like guns in a knife fight. You don't really have to fire them to win the fight.
Only if the patent's validity has been tested in court. This is often the $100,000 question, quite literally. It often costs that much to perform a thorough prior art search and pay lawyers to challenge all the legal issues of a freshly issued patent (the USPTO never has and probably never will perform this function - their examination process is only intended to eliminate the blatantly absurd patents.)
This is OT for this post, but I'll toss it out since I'm already typing. The blurb says, "No doubt, all those IP lawyers think this is a good thing..." Uh, DUH. Once these things go through court, arguments will be heard and precedents will be set. The absurdity of some of these patents will be exposed in the ONLY venue can bring about change in the US patent system. IP lawyers know this. Anybody who doesn't think that getting these patents into a courtroom is a good thing doesn't know his elbow from his asshole with regard to patents.
Mom baked for three hours.
The pie baked for three hours.
"Mom" and "The pie" are the subjects. The verb and entire predicate are identical. Understanding the language disambiguates these sentences, but the ambiguity is part of what defines humor.
A man walked into a bar. Ouch!
A man wanted to win a pun contest in the local newspaper, so he entered 10 times in order to increase the chances that one of his entries would win. Unfortunately, no pun in ten did.
You can translate that 50 ways from Sunday but without understanding the language - understanding what makes those statements interesting - the machine will lose all their meaning.
My point is that patents, by design "lock out". That you would add the phrase "lockout" to describe a patent encourages me to explain stuff from the beginning, no offense intended. The second result is that I'm not always filled with patience to explain stuff from the beginning.
here's the scoop.
Here's the real scoop.
1. Your company never took advantage of 37 CFR 1.99.
2. Your company may have been screwed over by bad lawyers, but I couldn't say for sure. (If that's true, it obviously wasn't the system's fault.)
3. Your company may have been using technology that was lawfully and properly patented by someone else (don't fly off the handle here - keep in mind how much detail you've provided. Also, please don't discuss what "lawfully and properly patented" means unless you're going to cite laws and the MPEP. Anything else is playing armchair quarterback at best. If you'd like to phrase comments as legitimate questions, I'll try to be helpful.)
Here's my analysis. A company that doesn't pay its debts will eventually get screwed. A company that has intellectual property but ignores the patent system will eventually get screwed. It costs money to make money - investing in a few professional patent searches is never wasted money.
That said, if your company's lawyers didn't understand the technology, if they launched an incompetent validity attack, or if they never questions the patent's validity, then your company got screwed by moron lawyers, not a patent system wildly out of control and on the verge of anhilating the US economy. Likewise, if your company hired a moronic accountant and got nailed by the IRS, it would be the accountant's fault, not the crazy socialist tax code hell-bent on ruining the free market.
The system works fine for gadgets like cotton gins but is broken horribly with respect to software, and it will need serious reform before it ever will.
On this we agree. However, the system for serious reform is in place and has been for years. It is known as the Federal Circuit, and decisions by judges on the Federal Circuit will define how software related inventions can be patented. I agree with you that things need adjustment, but I think it's better to focus the energy and frustration on the people that ACTUALLY have the authority to fix it. They do not work for the USPTO. They sit on the Federal Circuit court.
Also, keep in mind that software related inventions were not accept by the USPTO at all until around 1995 when Diamond v. Diehr forced the USPTO to allow that software related inventions were patentable. These first applications would have been examined and issued around 1998 if there were no problems (indeed finding a software related patent before 1998 is nearly impossible.) Those first applications that were hard fought would have ended up at the Fed Circuit on appeals at 2001-2002 at the earliest. Therefore, the self-adjusting system has only been active for about 3 years with regard to software related inventions. Some parts of government were intended to work slowly, but whether this is appropriate for the patent system is a completely different topic.
I'm so glad you're volunteering to do pro bono work defending the next start-up that Microsoft decides to squash with one of these bogus patents.
Ah, but here you are merely wishful.
Or at least offer me a quick explanation as to why his patents are still on the books?
Have his patents been challenged in court? If not, your explanation lies in my previous post. If they have, your explanation lies in my previous post.
What I do know is that the company I work for had to defend itself against one of these bullshit lockout patents.
Ah, the fabled bullshit lockout patent, which lives in a land of milk and honey, frolicing with the unicorns and elves.
These patents hurt people, they cost money, and the system is not self-correcting.
These patents hurt people who invest heavily in a business enterprise yet can't spend a few thousand dollars for someone to search the patent database beforehand. Look, do the math. $5000 to hire a professional to search the patent database for a week, "millions to defend against" because nobody bothered. Life is full of hard lessons.
Yes, yes, the system is not self-correcting. Marvelously convincing argument you've built there. On my side we have more than 100 years of the system, founded by those silly pranksters who wrote the Constitution, and on your side we have an anecdote. That grinding sound is my rusty moral compass breaking away years of corruption, swinging around to your point of view like a tulip blossom reaching for the morning sun. Or not.
Sorry to hear that your employer was on the wrong end of an infringment suit. Patents are published for a reason, however, and the result would largely be the same if your employer failed to pay taxes to the IRS or failed to pay its debtors. A corporation that is heavily invested but doesn't search the patent database is a poorly run company, and unfortunately, therein lies the blame.
The sooner the industry is choked with these obvious lock-out bullshit patents, the sooner development will grind to a total stop for fear of litigation.
Alternatively, back in reality, the weak patents will either be used as wallpaper or invaldidated in court, while strong patents will function as intended.
This is how the system has worked for over 100 years. If you'd like to make a wager on whether it will continue for the next 100 years as it has for the last 100 years, I won't feel bad taking your money.
However, I Am An Intellectual Property Professional. Hate me if you must, but at least make a wager;)
Microsoft will NEVER defend this patent. 'Cause they will lose.
I wish I had mod points, because this sentence alone is worthy of a +1 Insightful.
Few people seem to understand that the USPTO doesn't actually get to "deny" patents. They get to "reject" them, which is basically a temporary refusal to issue, but an applicant with deep pockets can continue prosecution pretty much indefinitely. The USPTO's policy is that the examiners cease to get paid (and are therefore responsible for the outcome and working on their own time/dime) after 35ish hours per round of prosecution. Eventually someone is going to get fed up with the inanity and issue just about anything.
The flip side of this is that the examiner's arguments and cited prior art, no matter how futile, are a permanent part of that patent (part of the record of file, not actually included in the patent itself, yet still accessible to the public.) Even if the examiner can't actually stop the patent from issuing, he is able to provide a roadmap to challenging its validity in court.
While it's true that a patent is a "license to sue", many people seem to think that it is an unquestionable and perfect license to sue. That couldn't be further from the truth. A patent that cannot withstand a validity attack in court is nothing but expensive wallpaper.
The thing is that the patent examiners only search the database of issued and published patents.
That is simply false. Searching for and applying non-patent literature is a matter of routine. Many supervisors require a list of relevant non-patent literature from their examiners regardless of whether or not it was used to reject claims.
Which does not touch the stuff that was never patented.
This also is simply false. In addition to a database of issued patents, there is also a database of published applications, including those which were eventually abandoned. In case you were referring to "stuff" for which an application was never submitted, that generally falls into two categories: stuff that isn't patentable under 35 USC 101 and stuff that was known and used before anybody thought about patenting it. The non-patentable stuff under 101 is often found in text books, journal papers, and other non-patent literature sources routinely used by the examiners. The other stuff is intrinsically more difficult - finding adequate disclosure of some commercial software that you've never heard of, with solid dates, is always going to be tough.
Also, a patent does not necessarily have to use much industry-standard language. You can make up your own terms for things. So searching might not even do that much good.
Technically this is true, but 35 USC 112, second paragraph, does draw a line in this regard. Additionally, the USPTO separates the patent examiners into rather small groups (usually 8-15 examiners) in specific technologies. This helps deal with obfuscated applications. The 35 USC 112 and the USPTO also grant the examiners authority to declare an application as basically incomprehensible and full of terminology so different from that normally used in that technology that the application is summarily rejected. That is NOT fun for an agent/attorney, because you run the risk of losing the filing date, must supply a complete replacement application, run the risk of having the replacement rejected for containing new information (rather than just a replacement), and unless you're a partner in the law firm, it's really not that funny around the water cooler.
Patent examiners cannot afford the time to do extensive searching outside of their own database. The patent office is a velvet sweatshop and a revenue center for the Executive Branch....
With all due respect, you haven't convinced me that you're qualified to make these kinds of statements.
Fr instance, could we find out how fast his brain's process works - O(n) ? O(log(n))?
It doesn't sound like his brain performs an algorithm to arrive at a solution. As such, counting the steps of the algorithm to arrive at, for example, O(n) would be meaningless.
While you or I go through a routine to multiply two 3 digit numbers, and therefore have measurable, discrete steps, his description sounds almost like he transcends the answer.
Where you say, "This question could be answered experimentally," I think it would be more appropriate to say that he could, well, "benchmark" his brain against a normal algorithm. Maybe that's what you meant, I don't know. It is a fascinating question - I would be VERY interested in seeing how his benchmark compares to a traditional algorithm. Even you and I do not use a process that corresponds to big-Oh notation. Multiplying two 10 digit numbers is hard, but what if they both consist of 9 zeroes? We both know a shortcut - multiply the non-zero numbers and shift it left with 9 zeroes. Even identifying that two 10 digit numbers have 9 zeroes is an O(n) process, and there I don't believe a processor would make any arithmetic optimization (but I'm not a compiler expert.)
It would be interesting to see if there is some unusual correspondence for him, like every number divisible by 23,741 is especially easy to multiply, or large numbers with three or more prime digits, like 23,573 are very difficult to deal with.
In an effort to advance the discussion and understanding of the American patent system, I would like to point out that software is actually not patentable in the US.
Here are some relavant portions of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the bible by which patents are examined in the US.)
The USPTO's public MPEP
From MPEP 2106, all emphasis added
The claimed invention as a whole must accomplish a practical application. That is, it must produce a "useful, concrete and tangible result." State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601-02. The purpose of this requirement is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of "real world" value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research (Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 528-36, 148 USPQ 689, 693-96); In re Ziegler, 992, F.2d 1197, 1200-03, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, a complete disclosure should contain some indication of the practical application for the claimed invention, i.e., why the applicant believes the claimed invention is useful.
...
A process that consists solely of the manipulation of an abstract idea is not concrete or tangible. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Schrader, 22 F.3d at 295, 30 USPQ2d at 1459. Office personnel have the burden to establish a prima facie case that the claimed invention as a whole is directed to solely an abstract idea or to manipulation of abstract ideas or does not produce a useful result. Only when the claim is devoid of any limitation to a practical application in the technological arts should it be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Compare Musgrave, 431 F.2d at 893, 167 USPQ at 289; In re Foster, 438 F.2d 1011, 1013, 169 USPQ 99, 101 (CCPA 1971). Further, when such a rejection is made, Office personnel must expressly state how the language of the claims has been interpreted to support the rejection.
...
There is always some form of physical transformation within a computer because a computer acts on signals and transforms them during its operation and changes the state of its components during the execution of a process. Even though such a physical transformation occurs within a computer, such activity is not determinative of whether the process is statutory because such transformation alone does not distinguish a statutory computer process from a nonstatutory computer process. What is determinative is not how the computer performs the process, but what the computer does to achieve a practical application. See Arrhythmia, 958 F.2d at 1057, 22 USPQ2d at 1036.
...
For such subject matter to be statutory, the claimed process must be limited to a practical application of the abstract idea or mathematical algorithm in the technological arts. See Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1556-57 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192, 209 USPQ at 10). See also Alappat 33 F.3d at 1569, 31 USPQ2d at 1578-79 (Newman, J., concurring) ("unpatentability of the principle does not defeat patentability of its practical applications") (citing O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 114-19). A claim is limited to a practical application when the method, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result; i.e., the method recites a step or act of producing something that is concrete, tangible and useful. See AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358, 50 USPQ2d at 1452. Likewise, a machine claim is statutory when the machine, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result (as in State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601) and/or when a specific machine is being claimed (as in Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544, 31 USPQ2d at 1557 (in banc). For example, a computer process that simply calculates a mathematical
In re Chakrabarty, in reference to the scientist, was a very important case regarding 35 USC 101 and defined that at least some living material or animals were patentable.
Thanks for asking - I wish more folks were curious.
I'm not sure I can give the patent office any props, they have sunk so far in public opinion that any good press for them is a drop in the bucket of bad press.
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, so here goes without any tact:
From the article: In 1987, the patent office announced it would draw the line at humans, but it offered no legal rationale or statutory backing.
So you see, this position is 18 years old. Also, it is basic knowledge of the patent system (but also implied by the article) that the USPTO doesn't possess ultimate authority to interpret law - that is the role of the judicial system.
Alternatively, this "activist" didn't even bother to pursue the appeal process, thereby keeping his application OUT of the court system, thereby preventing his "activism" from generating new case law, thereby stopping his heroism short of actually achieving anything but publicity. The USPTO rejected his application based on a stance it took in 1987 - there was no legal basis for the USPTO's stance in 1987 and because this "activist" failed to appeal, there is STILL no legal basis for the USPTO's stance. There is -literally- nothing new in this story. Well, nothing newer than 18 years ago.
So, I don't want to sound condescending, but there it is. You say, "This cannot be lauded as a 'step in the right direction' for the USPO" [sic], but I can't see how this story has anything newsworthy in it at all. If anything, this is a 'step in the right direction' for the public, for they might become slightly more aware how the Courts are actually in charge of what is or is not patentable, not the USPTO.
Here's to hoping. Keyword from the article: Chakrabarty.
Also sat radio is, as far as I know, only really popular in north America.
Such a device would be useless abroad.
What is this "abroad" you speak of?
Seriously though, I uh.. can't speak at all to the technology. I can say that US radio is a broken mass media. I am a musician and a music fanatic and all I listen to is C-Span Radio. This is definitely a problem looking for a solution, and in North America, satellite radio is a very promising solution.
An iPod by itself isn't enough to convince me to buy one - I'd hack it, plus I have an mp3 player in my in-dash car stereo. Satellite-fed iPod radio, though, would be VERY enticing to me.
Excuse me, but whoinhell needs to buy that? I buy the motherboard, the cpu, the memory, video and sound card, cpu cooler, front panel usb portage, case, psu, hard drives etc from maybe half a dozen places when I want to build a new machine. I can run a screwdriver and put it all together.
PREACH ON! And what's with all these morons using "INPUT DEVICES"! HA! When I want to give my computer input, I do it right - punch cards.
All the idiots in the world today make me want to purchase spare parts for a backhoe, assemble the spare parts, refine some crude oil into diesel, put the diesel into the backhoe, buy some law books on residential zoning regulations, read the law books, file the paperwork to perform large scale excavation on my property, operate the backhoe in order to dig a significantly sized hole, and hide in it.
Your attitude about dealing with customers is similar to at least 1,000 others here.
The BOFH would electrocute you pansies and laugh while doing it.
The same misanthropic personality that drives so many of us to become geeks, sitting in basements playing D&D or celebrating when troublesome code finally compiles does not translate well into a capitalist, opportunistic state of mind. While we're all too happy to spawn camp somebody anonymously over the internet, ruining his evening of fun (everybody has done it or something analogous, be honest;) very few of us can stand up to people in the real world.
I worked in PC repair for 9 agonizing months dealing with the entire spectrum of customer attitudes. Aside from being a geek, my hobbies include weight lifting, (I wish I were a competent) amateur boxer, and debate. I found it VERY easy to deal with all the customers except the ones who refused to get upset and leave. Mind you, I was asked for a business card at least once a day and regularly given glorious compliments for my service and knowledge, but when people acted like asses, I told them to cough up the cash or find a lawyer.
We made an agreement. The customers sign it. If they have a legitimate complaint, I will always deal with it and make sure they're satisfied. I was paid to repair computers, not listen to people bitch at me. I told a few that if they expected me to stand their and listen to their nagging, I was going to bill them for my time. If I was in the clear and they were asses, I invited them to find a lawyer. I never touched a single machine until I had their signature on the service agreement. Never got a phone call from a lawyer, either.
If you really put an effort into developing a great customer base, each good customer is worth at least 3 nasty customers. Good customers will tell their friends (probably good people as well) and nasty customers will tell their friends (and you're probably better off without their business as well.)
So my advice to anyone who is still working in PC repair - take a cue from the BOFH. You can be damn sure HE wouldn't be harassed by a moronic customer, and you can be damn sure he wouldn't feel bad about charging for his excellent services.
That is the one thing I think the IEEE article had completely right - jurors are not qualified to make decisions on the validity of a patent. If a jury of peers can be claimed as an essential right it would still require that the jury be made up of scientists, engineers, and expert practitioners.
eh.. a jury of your peers is your right in a criminal trial. Infringing a patent is not a crime. A patent is invalidated in front of a patent judge, not a jury.
You seem to think "it's the law, and that trumps all".
When dealing with legal issues, that is completely correct.
Patent lawyers need to be reined in and the laws rewritten to eliminate patenting and I"P" (noxious phrase), as the law as written by technologically incompetent lawyer-goons is interfering with technological development.
Partly right in spirit. The laws do not need to be "rewritten". Case law needs to be established that will rectify the situation. The attorneys will always stretch the boundaries of the existing laws to their extreme, and this has been and always will be a property of a healthy legal system. This is what allows for progress, for example with regard to civil rights, and this is what illustrates inadequate statutes and case law, for example with current US IP law.
We engineers are not your servants - if you get in our way too much, we will simply remove the obstruction.
Now see, this is precisely what I talk about in many of my posts and am subsequently moderated as a troll. The "obstruction" is known as the judicial branch of the Federal government, but you and so many like you are unaware of that. If you understood the problem a little better, you would know that you are not railing against the USPTO but rather the rules that the USPTO must follow (loosely defined as case law that interprets 35 USC 101, 102, 103, and 112).
But feel free to believe in your heart that I'm wrong - I'm armed with facts and a well developed, functional understanding of the problem. You have your emotions and beliefs. I might characterize this as the dialogue between those who have faith in religion and those who are knowledgable of science, but that would be mostly inflammatory. I leave it up to you to think about whether or not your opinion is based on personal knowledge of how the system works or whether it is based on pedagoguery - merely rhetoric that has been preached to you and which you accept as gospel.
By the way, the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) defines every aspect of how a patent is to be examined, offers a guide for resolving every forseeable issue, and explains what statute, court decision, or federal rules justifies the procedure. It is freely and publicly available on the internet. Have you ever read it? I would recommend MPEP 2105 and 2106 as interesting starting points, as they briefly discuss what is or is not patentable under 35 USC 101.
Slashdot Mirror
[Captain Tanneal]Well, YOU'RE WRONG! Star Trek is just a TV show based on fantasy escapism embraced by misanthropes who self-medicate with daily feasts of snack foods and justify their existence with baseless arrogance! Let's get it on![/Captain Tanneal]
(To avoid flamebait mods, Captain Tanneal is a character from the TV show MXC who opens every episode with a tirade against issues like health care or reforming criminals. Also, Star Trek sucks
Or a clause that the Federal government can supercede the assignee's rights and license the patent itself, with proceeds going to the assignee. Toss in enough checks & balances that such a clause is only used when necessary, but if there were a significant public need for a particular drug, and the patent's assignee was practicing some shade of extortion, then generic drug manufacturers could approach the Federal government for a licensing deal. They would still be paying the patent's assignee all the licensing fees, but those fees would be negotiated by the Federal government, taking into account the intensity of public need, the market value, the remaining life of the patent, the assignee's past conduct (i.e. how belligerent, benevolent they had been in licensing negotiations), and of course, campaign contributions. (Wish I were kidding.)
Something like that could be a very healthy mix of a socialist control on a capitalist system, in tune with our existing taxes, social security, tarriffs, etc.
As I understand it, this was the original intention of patents, to make technology widely available while protecting the investment made by the developer. I don't think it was meant to provide rapacious profits to drug companies by giving them a patent on the key to life or death for some patients.
The original intent of patents was actually a bargain with inventors. The inventor discloses his invention, and in trade, he is given a temporary monopoly on its use and sale. The idea was that this advances technology, because a patent does not cover the nonobvious improvements to the first invention. For bicycles and cotton gins, this was a marvelous idea because experimentation and improvement didn't cost billions of dollars. For pharmaceuticals, this idea doesn't function quite as well. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a broken idea, but simply that it functions differently in a different technology.
Because pharmaceuticals serve such a critical public interest, I don't think it would be terribly out of step with the Federal government's past activity to include a paragraph in law that the government can negotiate its own licensing deals. If I'm not mistaken, the Federal government does have the power to end labor strikes in certain industries and has an entire organization for mediating labor disputes. This would be a different application, but not an altogether different problem.
On the other hand, if Microsoft "embraced" enough of the open-source philosophy that it placated corporate customers, won't that be a significant blow to the rise of linux?
I doubt those corporate customers are interested in all the feel-good benefits of open source. The feel-good benefits are probably the most difficult for Microsoft to adopt. If I had to guess on what "shared-source" really means, I would guess "Beating linux and open source at its own game in order to solidify the corporate market."
I can trivially produce an MP3 of a MIDI project that your hardware would have been incapable of reproducing with the MIDI file. Why distribute via MP3? Because MP3 is an audio file, a MIDI file is a protocol file, and with the MP3 file, you can actually hear the music rather than a chintzy recreation based upon the communications necessary to play the music.
Only if the patent's validity has been tested in court. This is often the $100,000 question, quite literally. It often costs that much to perform a thorough prior art search and pay lawyers to challenge all the legal issues of a freshly issued patent (the USPTO never has and probably never will perform this function - their examination process is only intended to eliminate the blatantly absurd patents.)
This is OT for this post, but I'll toss it out since I'm already typing. The blurb says, "No doubt, all those IP lawyers think this is a good thing..." Uh, DUH . Once these things go through court, arguments will be heard and precedents will be set. The absurdity of some of these patents will be exposed in the ONLY venue can bring about change in the US patent system. IP lawyers know this. Anybody who doesn't think that getting these patents into a courtroom is a good thing doesn't know his elbow from his asshole with regard to patents.
Mom baked for three hours.
The pie baked for three hours.
"Mom" and "The pie" are the subjects. The verb and entire predicate are identical. Understanding the language disambiguates these sentences, but the ambiguity is part of what defines humor.
A man walked into a bar. Ouch!
A man wanted to win a pun contest in the local newspaper, so he entered 10 times in order to increase the chances that one of his entries would win. Unfortunately, no pun in ten did.
You can translate that 50 ways from Sunday but without understanding the language - understanding what makes those statements interesting - the machine will lose all their meaning.
My point is that patents, by design "lock out". That you would add the phrase "lockout" to describe a patent encourages me to explain stuff from the beginning, no offense intended. The second result is that I'm not always filled with patience to explain stuff from the beginning.
here's the scoop.
Here's the real scoop.
1. Your company never took advantage of 37 CFR 1.99.
2. Your company may have been screwed over by bad lawyers, but I couldn't say for sure. (If that's true, it obviously wasn't the system's fault.)
3. Your company may have been using technology that was lawfully and properly patented by someone else (don't fly off the handle here - keep in mind how much detail you've provided. Also, please don't discuss what "lawfully and properly patented" means unless you're going to cite laws and the MPEP. Anything else is playing armchair quarterback at best. If you'd like to phrase comments as legitimate questions, I'll try to be helpful.)
Here's my analysis. A company that doesn't pay its debts will eventually get screwed. A company that has intellectual property but ignores the patent system will eventually get screwed. It costs money to make money - investing in a few professional patent searches is never wasted money.
That said, if your company's lawyers didn't understand the technology, if they launched an incompetent validity attack, or if they never questions the patent's validity, then your company got screwed by moron lawyers, not a patent system wildly out of control and on the verge of anhilating the US economy. Likewise, if your company hired a moronic accountant and got nailed by the IRS, it would be the accountant's fault, not the crazy socialist tax code hell-bent on ruining the free market.
The system works fine for gadgets like cotton gins but is broken horribly with respect to software, and it will need serious reform before it ever will.
On this we agree. However, the system for serious reform is in place and has been for years. It is known as the Federal Circuit, and decisions by judges on the Federal Circuit will define how software related inventions can be patented. I agree with you that things need adjustment, but I think it's better to focus the energy and frustration on the people that ACTUALLY have the authority to fix it. They do not work for the USPTO. They sit on the Federal Circuit court.
Also, keep in mind that software related inventions were not accept by the USPTO at all until around 1995 when Diamond v. Diehr forced the USPTO to allow that software related inventions were patentable. These first applications would have been examined and issued around 1998 if there were no problems (indeed finding a software related patent before 1998 is nearly impossible.) Those first applications that were hard fought would have ended up at the Fed Circuit on appeals at 2001-2002 at the earliest. Therefore, the self-adjusting system has only been active for about 3 years with regard to software related inventions. Some parts of government were intended to work slowly, but whether this is appropriate for the patent system is a completely different topic.
Ah, but here you are merely wishful.
Or at least offer me a quick explanation as to why his patents are still on the books?
Have his patents been challenged in court? If not, your explanation lies in my previous post. If they have, your explanation lies in my previous post.
What I do know is that the company I work for had to defend itself against one of these bullshit lockout patents.
Ah, the fabled bullshit lockout patent, which lives in a land of milk and honey, frolicing with the unicorns and elves.
These patents hurt people, they cost money, and the system is not self-correcting.
These patents hurt people who invest heavily in a business enterprise yet can't spend a few thousand dollars for someone to search the patent database beforehand. Look, do the math. $5000 to hire a professional to search the patent database for a week, "millions to defend against" because nobody bothered. Life is full of hard lessons.
Yes, yes, the system is not self-correcting. Marvelously convincing argument you've built there. On my side we have more than 100 years of the system, founded by those silly pranksters who wrote the Constitution, and on your side we have an anecdote. That grinding sound is my rusty moral compass breaking away years of corruption, swinging around to your point of view like a tulip blossom reaching for the morning sun. Or not.
Sorry to hear that your employer was on the wrong end of an infringment suit. Patents are published for a reason, however, and the result would largely be the same if your employer failed to pay taxes to the IRS or failed to pay its debtors. A corporation that is heavily invested but doesn't search the patent database is a poorly run company, and unfortunately, therein lies the blame.
Alternatively, back in reality, the weak patents will either be used as wallpaper or invaldidated in court, while strong patents will function as intended.
This is how the system has worked for over 100 years. If you'd like to make a wager on whether it will continue for the next 100 years as it has for the last 100 years, I won't feel bad taking your money.
However, I Am An Intellectual Property Professional. Hate me if you must, but at least make a wager ;)
I wish I had mod points, because this sentence alone is worthy of a +1 Insightful.
Few people seem to understand that the USPTO doesn't actually get to "deny" patents. They get to "reject" them, which is basically a temporary refusal to issue, but an applicant with deep pockets can continue prosecution pretty much indefinitely. The USPTO's policy is that the examiners cease to get paid (and are therefore responsible for the outcome and working on their own time/dime) after 35ish hours per round of prosecution. Eventually someone is going to get fed up with the inanity and issue just about anything.
The flip side of this is that the examiner's arguments and cited prior art, no matter how futile, are a permanent part of that patent (part of the record of file, not actually included in the patent itself, yet still accessible to the public.) Even if the examiner can't actually stop the patent from issuing, he is able to provide a roadmap to challenging its validity in court.
While it's true that a patent is a "license to sue", many people seem to think that it is an unquestionable and perfect license to sue. That couldn't be further from the truth. A patent that cannot withstand a validity attack in court is nothing but expensive wallpaper.
WTF, Canada has more than Toronto?
Having humor about one's disability is an ability, not a disability.
Inventions in outer space
Couldn't tell you. I've read plenty that consisted of nothing but non-patent literature.
That is simply false. Searching for and applying non-patent literature is a matter of routine. Many supervisors require a list of relevant non-patent literature from their examiners regardless of whether or not it was used to reject claims.
Which does not touch the stuff that was never patented.
This also is simply false. In addition to a database of issued patents, there is also a database of published applications, including those which were eventually abandoned. In case you were referring to "stuff" for which an application was never submitted, that generally falls into two categories: stuff that isn't patentable under 35 USC 101 and stuff that was known and used before anybody thought about patenting it. The non-patentable stuff under 101 is often found in text books, journal papers, and other non-patent literature sources routinely used by the examiners. The other stuff is intrinsically more difficult - finding adequate disclosure of some commercial software that you've never heard of, with solid dates, is always going to be tough.
Also, a patent does not necessarily have to use much industry-standard language. You can make up your own terms for things. So searching might not even do that much good.
Technically this is true, but 35 USC 112, second paragraph, does draw a line in this regard. Additionally, the USPTO separates the patent examiners into rather small groups (usually 8-15 examiners) in specific technologies. This helps deal with obfuscated applications. The 35 USC 112 and the USPTO also grant the examiners authority to declare an application as basically incomprehensible and full of terminology so different from that normally used in that technology that the application is summarily rejected. That is NOT fun for an agent/attorney, because you run the risk of losing the filing date, must supply a complete replacement application, run the risk of having the replacement rejected for containing new information (rather than just a replacement), and unless you're a partner in the law firm, it's really not that funny around the water cooler.
Patent examiners cannot afford the time to do extensive searching outside of their own database. The patent office is a velvet sweatshop and a revenue center for the Executive Branch....
With all due respect, you haven't convinced me that you're qualified to make these kinds of statements.
It doesn't sound like his brain performs an algorithm to arrive at a solution. As such, counting the steps of the algorithm to arrive at, for example, O(n) would be meaningless.
While you or I go through a routine to multiply two 3 digit numbers, and therefore have measurable, discrete steps, his description sounds almost like he transcends the answer.
Where you say, "This question could be answered experimentally," I think it would be more appropriate to say that he could, well, "benchmark" his brain against a normal algorithm. Maybe that's what you meant, I don't know. It is a fascinating question - I would be VERY interested in seeing how his benchmark compares to a traditional algorithm. Even you and I do not use a process that corresponds to big-Oh notation. Multiplying two 10 digit numbers is hard, but what if they both consist of 9 zeroes? We both know a shortcut - multiply the non-zero numbers and shift it left with 9 zeroes. Even identifying that two 10 digit numbers have 9 zeroes is an O(n) process, and there I don't believe a processor would make any arithmetic optimization (but I'm not a compiler expert.)
It would be interesting to see if there is some unusual correspondence for him, like every number divisible by 23,741 is especially easy to multiply, or large numbers with three or more prime digits, like 23,573 are very difficult to deal with.
higher up on the page.
Here are some relavant portions of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the bible by which patents are examined in the US.)
The USPTO's public MPEP
From MPEP 2106, all emphasis added
The claimed invention as a whole must accomplish a practical application. That is, it must produce a "useful, concrete and tangible result." State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601-02. The purpose of this requirement is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of "real world" value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research (Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 528-36, 148 USPQ 689, 693-96); In re Ziegler, 992, F.2d 1197, 1200-03, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, a complete disclosure should contain some indication of the practical application for the claimed invention, i.e., why the applicant believes the claimed invention is useful.
A process that consists solely of the manipulation of an abstract idea is not concrete or tangible. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Schrader, 22 F.3d at 295, 30 USPQ2d at 1459. Office personnel have the burden to establish a prima facie case that the claimed invention as a whole is directed to solely an abstract idea or to manipulation of abstract ideas or does not produce a useful result. Only when the claim is devoid of any limitation to a practical application in the technological arts should it be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Compare Musgrave, 431 F.2d at 893, 167 USPQ at 289; In re Foster, 438 F.2d 1011, 1013, 169 USPQ 99, 101 (CCPA 1971). Further, when such a rejection is made, Office personnel must expressly state how the language of the claims has been interpreted to support the rejection.
There is always some form of physical transformation within a computer because a computer acts on signals and transforms them during its operation and changes the state of its components during the execution of a process. Even though such a physical transformation occurs within a computer, such activity is not determinative of whether the process is statutory because such transformation alone does not distinguish a statutory computer process from a nonstatutory computer process. What is determinative is not how the computer performs the process, but what the computer does to achieve a practical application. See Arrhythmia, 958 F.2d at 1057, 22 USPQ2d at 1036.
For such subject matter to be statutory, the claimed process must be limited to a practical application of the abstract idea or mathematical algorithm in the technological arts. See Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1556-57 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192, 209 USPQ at 10). See also Alappat 33 F.3d at 1569, 31 USPQ2d at 1578-79 (Newman, J., concurring) ("unpatentability of the principle does not defeat patentability of its practical applications") (citing O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 114-19). A claim is limited to a practical application when the method, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result; i.e., the method recites a step or act of producing something that is concrete, tangible and useful. See AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358, 50 USPQ2d at 1452. Likewise, a machine claim is statutory when the machine, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result (as in State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601) and/or when a specific machine is being claimed (as in Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544, 31 USPQ2d at 1557 (in banc). For example, a computer process that simply calculates a mathematical
Thanks for asking - I wish more folks were curious.
I don't know how to ask this without sounding condescending, so here goes without any tact:
From the article: In 1987, the patent office announced it would draw the line at humans, but it offered no legal rationale or statutory backing.
So you see, this position is 18 years old. Also, it is basic knowledge of the patent system (but also implied by the article) that the USPTO doesn't possess ultimate authority to interpret law - that is the role of the judicial system.
Alternatively, this "activist" didn't even bother to pursue the appeal process, thereby keeping his application OUT of the court system, thereby preventing his "activism" from generating new case law, thereby stopping his heroism short of actually achieving anything but publicity. The USPTO rejected his application based on a stance it took in 1987 - there was no legal basis for the USPTO's stance in 1987 and because this "activist" failed to appeal, there is STILL no legal basis for the USPTO's stance. There is -literally- nothing new in this story. Well, nothing newer than 18 years ago.
So, I don't want to sound condescending, but there it is. You say, "This cannot be lauded as a 'step in the right direction' for the USPO" [sic], but I can't see how this story has anything newsworthy in it at all. If anything, this is a 'step in the right direction' for the public, for they might become slightly more aware how the Courts are actually in charge of what is or is not patentable, not the USPTO.
Here's to hoping. Keyword from the article: Chakrabarty.
What is this "abroad" you speak of?
Seriously though, I uh.. can't speak at all to the technology. I can say that US radio is a broken mass media. I am a musician and a music fanatic and all I listen to is C-Span Radio. This is definitely a problem looking for a solution, and in North America, satellite radio is a very promising solution.
An iPod by itself isn't enough to convince me to buy one - I'd hack it, plus I have an mp3 player in my in-dash car stereo. Satellite-fed iPod radio, though, would be VERY enticing to me.
PREACH ON! And what's with all these morons using "INPUT DEVICES"! HA! When I want to give my computer input, I do it right - punch cards.
All the idiots in the world today make me want to purchase spare parts for a backhoe, assemble the spare parts, refine some crude oil into diesel, put the diesel into the backhoe, buy some law books on residential zoning regulations, read the law books, file the paperwork to perform large scale excavation on my property, operate the backhoe in order to dig a significantly sized hole, and hide in it.
Jesus Christ man, get over yourself.
The BOFH would electrocute you pansies and laugh while doing it.
The same misanthropic personality that drives so many of us to become geeks, sitting in basements playing D&D or celebrating when troublesome code finally compiles does not translate well into a capitalist, opportunistic state of mind. While we're all too happy to spawn camp somebody anonymously over the internet, ruining his evening of fun (everybody has done it or something analogous, be honest ;) very few of us can stand up to people in the real world.
I worked in PC repair for 9 agonizing months dealing with the entire spectrum of customer attitudes. Aside from being a geek, my hobbies include weight lifting, (I wish I were a competent) amateur boxer, and debate. I found it VERY easy to deal with all the customers except the ones who refused to get upset and leave. Mind you, I was asked for a business card at least once a day and regularly given glorious compliments for my service and knowledge, but when people acted like asses, I told them to cough up the cash or find a lawyer.
We made an agreement. The customers sign it. If they have a legitimate complaint, I will always deal with it and make sure they're satisfied. I was paid to repair computers, not listen to people bitch at me. I told a few that if they expected me to stand their and listen to their nagging, I was going to bill them for my time. If I was in the clear and they were asses, I invited them to find a lawyer. I never touched a single machine until I had their signature on the service agreement. Never got a phone call from a lawyer, either.
If you really put an effort into developing a great customer base, each good customer is worth at least 3 nasty customers. Good customers will tell their friends (probably good people as well) and nasty customers will tell their friends (and you're probably better off without their business as well.)
So my advice to anyone who is still working in PC repair - take a cue from the BOFH. You can be damn sure HE wouldn't be harassed by a moronic customer, and you can be damn sure he wouldn't feel bad about charging for his excellent services.
eh.. a jury of your peers is your right in a criminal trial. Infringing a patent is not a crime. A patent is invalidated in front of a patent judge, not a jury.
When dealing with legal issues, that is completely correct.
Patent lawyers need to be reined in and the laws rewritten to eliminate patenting and I"P" (noxious phrase), as the law as written by technologically incompetent lawyer-goons is interfering with technological development.
Partly right in spirit. The laws do not need to be "rewritten". Case law needs to be established that will rectify the situation. The attorneys will always stretch the boundaries of the existing laws to their extreme, and this has been and always will be a property of a healthy legal system. This is what allows for progress, for example with regard to civil rights, and this is what illustrates inadequate statutes and case law, for example with current US IP law.
We engineers are not your servants - if you get in our way too much, we will simply remove the obstruction.
Now see, this is precisely what I talk about in many of my posts and am subsequently moderated as a troll. The "obstruction" is known as the judicial branch of the Federal government, but you and so many like you are unaware of that. If you understood the problem a little better, you would know that you are not railing against the USPTO but rather the rules that the USPTO must follow (loosely defined as case law that interprets 35 USC 101, 102, 103, and 112).
But feel free to believe in your heart that I'm wrong - I'm armed with facts and a well developed, functional understanding of the problem. You have your emotions and beliefs. I might characterize this as the dialogue between those who have faith in religion and those who are knowledgable of science, but that would be mostly inflammatory. I leave it up to you to think about whether or not your opinion is based on personal knowledge of how the system works or whether it is based on pedagoguery - merely rhetoric that has been preached to you and which you accept as gospel.
By the way, the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) defines every aspect of how a patent is to be examined, offers a guide for resolving every forseeable issue, and explains what statute, court decision, or federal rules justifies the procedure. It is freely and publicly available on the internet. Have you ever read it? I would recommend MPEP 2105 and 2106 as interesting starting points, as they briefly discuss what is or is not patentable under 35 USC 101.