I heard an interesting talk about the future of China on Cspan radio back in December. Long story short, they pointed out that the west always competed with the Soviet Union economically and took a stand against their policies. When the Soviet Union discriminated against Jews, the United States passed some legislation which put up significant and painful trade barriers with the Soviets. This had a dramatic impact on their economy, thus their ability to raise revenue, thus their ability to fund research and produce a military.
The conclusion was that if the United States funded the Soviet Union to the degree that we fund the Chinese government, the Soviet Union would be alive and well today, and it wouldn't be far fetched for the Soviet Union to be the dominant force in the world. We defeated the Soviets by economically isolating them. A significant portion of the Chinese government's power base is directly tied to trade with America (and I imagine to some extent the rest of the western world, although this wasn't addressed and I really don't have any idea who trades with China or to what extent.)
I'm a little sloshed and tired at the moment (and that's my excuse for laziness here) but if you Google for something along the lines of oppression of the Jews in the Soviet Union and US legislation (I believe in the 1980s) you might find what I'm blathering about.
All kidding aside, technological advancements not only displace jobs, but also create them as well. There is a small difference between paying 20 robotics engineers to develop, create, and maintain the robots exorbitant salaries as much as hiring 150 "guys off the street" to do the same stuff.
Right. You sustain 20 families instead of 150 families.
If you and every other factory owner have similar policies, you stand to lose roughly 130 households of potential customers... per factory. Brilliant!
Ah, Slashdot, are you a rabid communist or a passionate capitalist? It seems we must consult the magic 8 ball to answer that.
Regarding the public forum, some of that functionality exists.
Patent applications are published under the WIPO agreement that went into effect in 1999 or 2000. All applications must be published within 18 months of their submission. Further, the US has a system in place where a third party can submit relavent prior art (I believe it's 37 CFR 1.99, but I'm too tired to look it up at the moment).
The problems that arise in a highly structured "public forum" type system are generally related to unfairly burdening your competitor's patents. If CorpA can get a "public examiner" on a selective panel, or if CorpA can swamp the USPTO with paperwork, either regarding CorpB's patents, this creates an entirely new problem in addition to the existing ones. The existing 3rd party submission rules state that you can submit, but cannot explain the relavence, and will receive no reply. The examiners are either under no obligation to the 3rd party art or required only to "consider" it (which can mean as little as glancing at it once) to prevent CorpA from piling up so much paperwork on CorpB's applications that it becomes a corporate attack.
Of course, if CorpA submits something really juicy, it is completely in the examiner's best interest to recognize it and use it.
Takin the "public forum" approach to a more eloquent expression, I am surprised that nobody is interested (for profit, for good of society, or for non-profit) to organize a group that exploits this 3rd party submission rule. If they did it properly, they would be loved by the examiners and contribute greatly to the strength of patents that are issued, to say nothing of decreasing the number of patents invalidated during litigation. The cynic in me says that the real reason for this lack of community action is that while everybody is willing to criticize the examiners, while everybody is willing to complain, nobody is willing to step into that role in a volunteer scenario. In order to make a difference, I would estimate that they would need to submit 3rd party prior art on about 100-200 different applications per week, and it would be entirely thankless work with no tangible reward.
Anyway, the largest conflict between/. and reality regarding the patent system is the disconnect between the $2k search the USPTO does and the $100k search expected during litigation, and indirectly the volume of cases handled by the USPTO (350,000 last year). The second biggest conflict between/. and reality is the idea that an issued patent is suddenly a golden goose. The truth is that the patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless it can survive an invalidation attack in court - anybody who blindly forks over licensing fees to an untested patent needs to fire their lawyers.
I'm not deeply familiar with all the particulars of these patents (and in my context, this means that I haven't read the related art cited on the front of the patent) but patents that can be easily invalidated are the ones caught by the USPTO. That's what the intention of the quick and cheap prior art search performed by the examiners is.
While all patents are presumed valid until proven otherwise, only they who are fools believe that a perfect prior art search can be conducted for under $2k in 10 hours on application after application after application. There are about 30 patents cited as related art on the front of the patent. The internet text version doesn't show whether that was art submitted under 37 CFR 1.56 or cited by the examiner, but it does suggest that a sizable search was done and prosecution wasn't a straight-forward rubber stamp.
What's more, I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if the limitations recited by the claims were not commonly disclosed in 1997, when the patent was filed. It's certainly not my field of expertise, but online banking with an automated paper check scanning system might have existed before 1997, but I would be surprised if anybody had published the details of their system in an accessible medium and with enough detail to prove, before a judge, that the claimed invention already existed or would have been an obvious modification.
And do note that "obvious" has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, but rather the case law establishing that word under 35 USC 103
Its the USPTO's job to do that and since when has it cost $100,000? Thats a couple of man years work,a ridiculous figure pulled from the air.
A thorough prior art search conducted by a law firm in preparation for an infringement defense will often take over 1000 man-hours of highly skilled labor. The rest of your points demonstrate more of an infamiliarity with the patent system rather than a persuasive argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but a duck is a duck.
And a small company that is allegedly violating patents is supposed to shell out those $100k to do what the PO should have been doing in the fist place?
Why do you think the USPTO should be giving out $100k prior art searches for $2k? Or do you think a patent applicant should be required to shell out $100k to apply for a patent? If so, are you aware of how the pre-American patent systems worked in Europe?
A patent search reveals US6032137 and US5910988, each having the title: 'Remote image capture with centralized processing and storage -- System for central management, storage and report generation of remotely captured paper transactions from documents and receipts.'
The title of a patent is meaningless. I read one last week for "Remote Control Device" which was a high pressure hydraulic hoze/nozzle that could be aimed from a distance, used in mining operations. There is no legal weight in a patent title and while the intention is that they are informative, there is uneven enforcement of that rule.
From one of the abstracts: 'The system retrieves transaction data such as credit card receipts checks in either electronic or paper form at one or more remote locations, encrypts the data, transmits the encrypted data to a central location, transforms the data to a usable form, performs identification verification using signature data and biometric data, generates informative reports from the data and transmits the informative reports to the remote location(s).'
The abstract of a patent has no legal weight. The rules regarding abstracts are more evenly enforced than titles, as the abstracts are useful to examiners, but the typical attorney couldn't care if the abstract recited a recipe for meatloaf.
Here are the patents under debate: 6032137 5910988
Linking to the actual patent is trivial, however undermines the element of FUD which wins the submitter such karma and peer approval. (Rather than mod this as a troll, proving at least to myself how correct I am, feel free to explain to me why failing to link to the patents themselves helps an intelligent discussion rather than perpetuating the FUD.)
The claims of a patent are the only part of a patent that undisputably carries legal weight. Any discussion about whether a patent should or should not have been issued that does not relate strictly to the claims is nonsense - it is directly analogous to praising Windows because you can use a mouse on a graphical screen. It is uneducated, pointless, and irritating to anyone who knows that other operating systems use mouse pointers and graphical screens.
Further, these patents will come under extreme attack if they are used in court. Merely having these patents is meaningless. When these patents are used against someone, he would be a complete idiot to not first question whether the patents can be invalidated in court. This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000. Only the media and those who do not properly understand the existing system of patent litigation expect the USPTO to provide a perfect search of prior art for 2% of the market value of such a search.
In conclusion, while there may be a great deal of problems with these patents, and plenty of legitimate complaints about the how the system works, the submitter of this story addresses nothing but meaningless and baseless fluff. There would be more substance to the complaints if he griped about the poor scan quality of the documents. Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing the merits of these patents, but rather pointing out that the submitter addresses no valid complaints because, by analogy, he's busy arguing whether the Windows is better than OSX by pointing out how pretty the Windows desktop is.
But moderators, if you fear that facts might interfere with your self-affirmation, by all means convince me that I'm correct (regarding the subject line) and moderate this as a troll.
Let's be honest here, you're not being true to your faith if you're not actively trying to turn people who don't believe (since almost all faiths require this). So the better a believer you are, the more likely you are to be affecting the life of the person you replied to.
At no point did I say anything that was meant as a command for religious people.
If you aren't even cognizant of your own comments, you undermine any point you might have wished to make.
Add to this the US patent office's blatant inability to understand the industry, and terrible track-record on prior art (eg, people were able to successfully patent the idea of "hyperlinks", even many years after the web became mainstream), and you have a situation where patents are issued almost carte-blanche, and it is left up to the legal system to decide who owns what (which rapidly becomes a case of "who can afford the most justice"). If it's left up to the legal system to decide on patent claims, invariably the richest company or individual will succeed, and many (most?) smaller developers and inventors are simply priced out of the market - they can't afford to defend their patents, so they aren't worth the paper thay're written on.
I would ask why you are so proud of a "blatant inability to understand" the role of the patent office.
I must presume you are an expert, since you brazenly share your opinions on the matter in a public forum, so I am quite certain you are aware that a typical patent application provides about $1,000 for the USPTO to do a prior art search. When an infringement lawsuit is filed, a corporate defense team will commonly spend $100,000 conducting a prior art search. Examiners at the USPTO are afforded 5-20 man-hours to do a search. To prepare for an infringement suit, it's common to spend 1000+ man-hours conducting a search.
The circumstances surrounding the simple act of finding prior art seem quite clear to me. If the USPTO were expected by applicants and the court system to produce a perfect search of the prior art, then it only stands to reason that the cost of applying for a patent would be in the $100,000 range and there would be no reasonable chance of invalidating a patent in court.
Of course, the end result would be the same. Weak patents would be invalidated and small companies with poor legal guidance would still be suckered into coughing up money despite doing no wrong. (The money spent on legal defense to invalidate a patent can often be recovered.)
Regarding any specific example of a weak patent, such as "hyperlinks" or "one click shopping", I'd wonder why you don't mention the 1250-1500 patents issued by the USPTO on any given week of the year? It's really an easily defeated tactic of debate to point to something like 0.001% of a group and draw a conclusion about the whole. It might amuse you and like minded people, but there is not persuasive content in such an argument.
Since I must presume that you are an expert, I ask how you would amend 35 USC 101 or 112 in order to "solve" the problem of claim interpretation regarding software-related inventions? Bear in mind that patent examiners have about 5 hours per application to assess the legal issues (outside of prior art). Unless you also propose a policy change at the USPTO, the examiners don't have the opportunity to drag a case through adjudication or arbitration, so your proposed amendments to 35 USC must cut like a knife through the issue with no ambiguity and no room for debate. (Good luck with that - if you haven't recognized already, this is a snare that I would be delighted to see you step into.) Also, the current backlog at the USPTO is, on average, 18 months. The USPTO is doing all that it can to reduce this, so make sure that your proposed changes don't undermine that project.
OK, I know people who believe can believe strange and illogical things, but that is ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people who have faith don't influence the lives of the atheists and the agnostics?
And you appear to be an atheist or an agnostic attempting to influence the life of a person with faith. Your point, had you one, equally demonstrates how out of line you are with your own tirade.
How about the immediate social stigma you gather in tons of circles when you admit to not believing in God?
Calling special attention to yourself as a minority doesn't make your life easier? Oh my gosh, you should write a book! I think you have stumbled upon some true wisdom that could really help people!
It would be easier to have respect for the faithful if they had any respect for the non-faithful.
Your post leads to the implication that it's easy to have respect for the non-faithful while you show disrespect to the faithful. It's almost as though you're implying some sort of inherent status possessed by the non-faithful that grants them an ethical superiority, a status that only truly exists if you have believe it hard enough. You ought to include something about this in your book, and ascribe the source of this special status to some unseen, intangible concept that steers the universe. Afterwards, you could hold weekly book club meetings and take donations.
Let's be honest here, you're not being true to your faith if you're not actively trying to turn people who don't believe (since almost all faiths require this). So the better a believer you are, the more likely you are to be affecting the life of the person you replied to.
Ah, clearly we're dealing with an expert, and one who feels no qualms about dictating what other people should or should not do, while preaching that influencing the lives of others is reprehensible. A prophet of convoluted hypocrisy!
And look! An "Insightful" point bonus! Peer moderation has confirmed that Britney Spears is award winning music, Keanu Reeves is a great actor, and jsebrech is Slashdot's very own ethical compass! I, for one, am completely convinced you're not full of crap.
In the US, offering the invention for sale is certainly the equivalent of publishing it. From the date it was first offered for sale, you have 1 year to apply for the patent. If you wait longer than a year and the patent examiner discovers it was offered for sale, you are subject to a 35 USC 102(b) statutory bar which means your invention falls into the legal category of SOL regarding a patent.
Speak up. It's hard to hear people from miscellaneous little countries when you're sitting in the driver seat of the world. I think I heard you say something about overcompensating for feeling insignificant in light of losing a global empire, but it was hard to tell because of all the money and power crowding my position. I'm sure you can imagine what it's like to be from an important country. In fact, we publish some marvelous history books in my country that will tell you all about yours and its proper place in the world.
And more to the point, why is it that so many British people can't even form a complete sentence in English?
If you find something revolting, revolt! Before it is too late!
For Christ's sake, the language is NAMED for your country and you can't even express yourself properly. You should return to grammar school. "Before it is too late!"
its fair to mod this funny but do keep in mind that your PTO grants patents on plants. In particular, plant species newly discovered or produced for the first time by some form of hybridization...so what, other than religous dogma, would keep them from granting patents on strains of cat or dog?
**>In another case addressingSupreme Courtnewly developed plant breeds J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int' l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 143-46, 122 S.Ct. 593, 605-06, 60 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (2001) (The scope of coverage of 35 U.S.C.101 is not limited by the Plant Patent Act or the Plant Variety Protection Act; each statute can be regarded as effective because of its different requirements and protections).Following the reasoning in Chakrabarty, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has also determined that animals are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. In Ex parte Allen, 2 USPQ2d 1425 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), the Board decided that a polyploid Pacific coast oyster could have been the proper subject of a patent under 35 U.S.C. 101 if all the criteria for patentability were satisfied. Shortly after the Allen decision, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks issued a notice (Animals - Patentability, 1077 O.G. 24, April 21, 1987) that the Patent and Trademark Office would now consider nonnaturally occurring, nonhuman multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Found by searching Google for "35 usc 101 patent animal". Information about the patent system is incredibly easy to obtain. It would benefit the Slashdot community if we relied on facts rather than dogma and hearsay when talking about the US patent system.
I don't want to seem unnecessarily harsh on the parent poster, but the answer to his question is as easily found as "Can you use php with Apache?" If you successfully argue that a dog is nonnatural, you may seek patent protection for the dog. The problem is that any dog which could have been produced through, ahem, standard copulation, would be easily proven a natural animal. For race horses, there is virtually no argument that such a thing is "nonnatural".
Looks like he had time to remove the javascript window (I don't see it anymore either) and post an anonymous retort.
I wasn't aware that his lights were recently mentioned on Slashdot - that could/would explain the Javascript window. On the other hand, I don't see how it's a case of "think before you write". I don't obsess over what is posted on Slashdot and I don't see why anybody should be expected to know what's been posted.
While I certainly earned that flamebait mod (it's been awhile; it feels good) and was an ass, I did think before I wrote.
For Christ's sake, plugging your work is one thing, acting innocent while including a Javascript window that says, "Oh noes, I'm getting Slashdotted, what ausprise!" is reprehensible.
Your Christmas webcam sucks. Thanks for contributing more crap to the internet, because we were getting low on stupid crap.
How's that for a community response to your off-topic self promotion? Bite me, Merry Christmas.
What the hell did you think you were talking about?
Just tell those Indian dudes how comfortable they will be in if they go to live in Mississippi.
And tell that white guy to go live in SE Washington DC, or Harlem, or downtown Detroit. What's your fucking point?
I know the difference between jackasses and racists, and I contend WE Americans are both.
Why don't you find someone who disagrees with you and go pick an argument with THAT guy. Dumbass.
I can see you backtracking now...
Yeah, boy you called it. Fucking figure out some reading comprehension, until then I'll leave you sitting where you are and "backtrack" to over here where the coherent people sit.
Tacit approval of this sort of thing (cracking) paints us all with the same unsavory brush. If we do not start policing our own, the "geek/nerd" stigma will deepen. We are professionals, let's act like it.
Right, but I see you have a UID in the seven hundred thousands. You're new here! You see, you are absolutely correct - if we are professionals, then we should act like professionals. Unfortunately, the parent post is more correct - with the direction Slashdot has been going lately, I'm surprised that this wasn't posted under YRO.
I'm just going to wager a guess - you live south of the Mason-Dixon line.
I could be wrong, but I've lived both in the Old Dominion (the South) as well as the north, and people in the north are definitely colder to strangers.
I wasn't being funny, of course. This is a nation of jackasses. From glam rap to the E! channel to Jerry Springer to WWE to the nightly news to your average bus driver, we all get off on being the tough guy. Hell, even the people who rant and rave about how this is a nation founded on the Bible are the same way. If you gave them a button that would magically "fix" the nation but grant them no fame, publicity, or personal credit, I'm confident that a large portion of them would hesitate and ultimately refuse to push it.
My point: Of course your experience with us Americans was great! You are white so it's all good. Paint your face with chocolate or charcoal and be in for a rude awakening.
Fucking spare me. If you're white, then other white people don't give you a hard time for being white. Black people might, and so might hispanics. Go take a look at the US demographics by race - white people aren't as huge a majority as you might think.
Anyway, I'm white, and if you think I don't deal with people being jackasses on a daily basis (and ESPECIALLY if you think it's because I'm white) then you are deluding yourself.
It would do this country a hell of a lot of good if we got rid of the popular "That guy has it easier than I do" bullshit. Why don't you paint your face white and hang out in an urban center - you'd be in for a rude awakening. Why don't you paint your face white, wear shabby clothes, and stand around rich white people - you'd be in for a rude awakening. Why don't you paint your face white, dress like you went to college, and stand around with rural white people - you'd be in for a rude awakening.
Get over yourself. Americans are jackasses. Racism is something entirely different. Have the self respect to NOT say "I'm a victim too" and you might EARN some respect from other people.
I don't know enough about the program to refute you, but my girlfriend is on the H1-B program and her situation is quite different. She (alone) makes about 150% of the average household income in the area where she works, but she's highly educated in polymer chemistry and works in the middle of nowhere. Apparently it was hard to get an American to leave a large technical school and live 2 hours from any decent sized small town.
I couldn't say much about the indentured servant aspect either, but with her credentials, I find it very difficult to think that she would have trouble finding another employer to cover the relatively insignificant filing fees for the visa.
Again - I'm definitely not an expert on the issue but my experience as an observer is that it isn't entirely bad.
I had a bus-driver asking me what kind of education I had and from which filthy country I came from, when I asked him about a bus stop, and found out that I was on the wrong bus, and he had to take the bus to the side and let me get out (this was 3 weeks into my US adventure).
Welcome to A-freaking-merica.
You have described the encounters that life-long American citizens have with other life-long American citizens, encounters that people from small towns have with people from large cities, encounters that women have when surrounded by men, encounters that poorly dressed people have around the rich, and encounters that the rich have when surrounded by the poor.
I'm sorry you had a rough time, but here's yet another custom to learn about America - we're jackasses, we like being jackasses, and we don't care if you figure out that we're jackasses. Our cultural identity is based on cowboys and conquest and cut-throat capitalism - don't be shocked when we're not the most friendly people you meet.
I'm not trying to be harsh. I, for one, value the contributions that H1-B workers bring to America and am thankful that this country is an importer of educated workers. That said, I don't know how someone could form an opinion that we're a bunch of nice people. We can hardly stand ourselves, let alone people who are legitimately outsiders.
I dunno.. I saw the video someone linked above and her pics and I'd say she's like 6, 6.5. She's not unattractive - I'd surely notice her when she's dressed up to be on camera or for a photo shoot - but she's not setting off fireworks for me. I guess she and I just don't have the right mathematics, nyuk nyuk.
I'd go for a pretty dark haired girl over a blonde any day, though, so maybe I'm unusual in that as well.
Well, a "killer feature" could turn your interface into something that people do need. I guess where my brain is stuck is that I have never found myself playing a 3D computer game of any sort and thought, "You know, this would make a great user interface for a computer." As you have pointed out, the 3D API could allow you to do a lot more than just turn everything into a VR desktop. Just off the top of my head, the ability to quickly and easily zoom into a window would be nice - too many times I've read news on the internet with tiny little pictures I could hardly see.
If you haven't looked at Synergy, it's a cross platform software KM switch (as opposed to a hardware KVM switch). It allows you to use 1 mouse & keyboard on several networked machines (Windows, Linux, and miscellaneous) each having its own monitor. It's something that I never knew I needed until I tried it, and a well conceived 3D interface could be the same.
Yeah, you did. I hope it goes well for you, however I'm still not convinced that a 3D interface is something I *need*. I'm more inclined to get excited about interfaces developed specifically for a dual-head or dual system (Synergy is awesome) interfaces.
But, of course, I'm a lot of talk and no action. I run Synergy across 3 machines and it *has* changed how I use my computers and it has become a must have. There is certainly a lot of room for creative new interfaces and I'm sure using a 3D API opens up a ton of possibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
The conclusion was that if the United States funded the Soviet Union to the degree that we fund the Chinese government, the Soviet Union would be alive and well today, and it wouldn't be far fetched for the Soviet Union to be the dominant force in the world. We defeated the Soviets by economically isolating them. A significant portion of the Chinese government's power base is directly tied to trade with America (and I imagine to some extent the rest of the western world, although this wasn't addressed and I really don't have any idea who trades with China or to what extent.)
I'm a little sloshed and tired at the moment (and that's my excuse for laziness here) but if you Google for something along the lines of oppression of the Jews in the Soviet Union and US legislation (I believe in the 1980s) you might find what I'm blathering about.
Right. You sustain 20 families instead of 150 families.
If you and every other factory owner have similar policies, you stand to lose roughly 130 households of potential customers... per factory. Brilliant!
Ah, Slashdot, are you a rabid communist or a passionate capitalist? It seems we must consult the magic 8 ball to answer that.
Patent applications are published under the WIPO agreement that went into effect in 1999 or 2000. All applications must be published within 18 months of their submission. Further, the US has a system in place where a third party can submit relavent prior art (I believe it's 37 CFR 1.99, but I'm too tired to look it up at the moment).
The problems that arise in a highly structured "public forum" type system are generally related to unfairly burdening your competitor's patents. If CorpA can get a "public examiner" on a selective panel, or if CorpA can swamp the USPTO with paperwork, either regarding CorpB's patents, this creates an entirely new problem in addition to the existing ones. The existing 3rd party submission rules state that you can submit, but cannot explain the relavence, and will receive no reply. The examiners are either under no obligation to the 3rd party art or required only to "consider" it (which can mean as little as glancing at it once) to prevent CorpA from piling up so much paperwork on CorpB's applications that it becomes a corporate attack.
Of course, if CorpA submits something really juicy, it is completely in the examiner's best interest to recognize it and use it.
Takin the "public forum" approach to a more eloquent expression, I am surprised that nobody is interested (for profit, for good of society, or for non-profit) to organize a group that exploits this 3rd party submission rule. If they did it properly, they would be loved by the examiners and contribute greatly to the strength of patents that are issued, to say nothing of decreasing the number of patents invalidated during litigation. The cynic in me says that the real reason for this lack of community action is that while everybody is willing to criticize the examiners, while everybody is willing to complain, nobody is willing to step into that role in a volunteer scenario. In order to make a difference, I would estimate that they would need to submit 3rd party prior art on about 100-200 different applications per week, and it would be entirely thankless work with no tangible reward.
Anyway, the largest conflict between /. and reality regarding the patent system is the disconnect between the $2k search the USPTO does and the $100k search expected during litigation, and indirectly the volume of cases handled by the USPTO (350,000 last year). The second biggest conflict between /. and reality is the idea that an issued patent is suddenly a golden goose. The truth is that the patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless it can survive an invalidation attack in court - anybody who blindly forks over licensing fees to an untested patent needs to fire their lawyers.
While all patents are presumed valid until proven otherwise, only they who are fools believe that a perfect prior art search can be conducted for under $2k in 10 hours on application after application after application. There are about 30 patents cited as related art on the front of the patent. The internet text version doesn't show whether that was art submitted under 37 CFR 1.56 or cited by the examiner, but it does suggest that a sizable search was done and prosecution wasn't a straight-forward rubber stamp.
What's more, I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if the limitations recited by the claims were not commonly disclosed in 1997, when the patent was filed. It's certainly not my field of expertise, but online banking with an automated paper check scanning system might have existed before 1997, but I would be surprised if anybody had published the details of their system in an accessible medium and with enough detail to prove, before a judge, that the claimed invention already existed or would have been an obvious modification.
And do note that "obvious" has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, but rather the case law establishing that word under 35 USC 103
A thorough prior art search conducted by a law firm in preparation for an infringement defense will often take over 1000 man-hours of highly skilled labor. The rest of your points demonstrate more of an infamiliarity with the patent system rather than a persuasive argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but a duck is a duck.
Why do you think the USPTO should be giving out $100k prior art searches for $2k? Or do you think a patent applicant should be required to shell out $100k to apply for a patent? If so, are you aware of how the pre-American patent systems worked in Europe?
The title of a patent is meaningless. I read one last week for "Remote Control Device" which was a high pressure hydraulic hoze/nozzle that could be aimed from a distance, used in mining operations. There is no legal weight in a patent title and while the intention is that they are informative, there is uneven enforcement of that rule.
From one of the abstracts: 'The system retrieves transaction data such as credit card receipts checks in either electronic or paper form at one or more remote locations, encrypts the data, transmits the encrypted data to a central location, transforms the data to a usable form, performs identification verification using signature data and biometric data, generates informative reports from the data and transmits the informative reports to the remote location(s).'
The abstract of a patent has no legal weight. The rules regarding abstracts are more evenly enforced than titles, as the abstracts are useful to examiners, but the typical attorney couldn't care if the abstract recited a recipe for meatloaf.
Here are the patents under debate:
6032137
5910988
Linking to the actual patent is trivial, however undermines the element of FUD which wins the submitter such karma and peer approval. (Rather than mod this as a troll, proving at least to myself how correct I am, feel free to explain to me why failing to link to the patents themselves helps an intelligent discussion rather than perpetuating the FUD.)
The claims of a patent are the only part of a patent that undisputably carries legal weight. Any discussion about whether a patent should or should not have been issued that does not relate strictly to the claims is nonsense - it is directly analogous to praising Windows because you can use a mouse on a graphical screen. It is uneducated, pointless, and irritating to anyone who knows that other operating systems use mouse pointers and graphical screens.
Further, these patents will come under extreme attack if they are used in court. Merely having these patents is meaningless. When these patents are used against someone, he would be a complete idiot to not first question whether the patents can be invalidated in court. This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000. Only the media and those who do not properly understand the existing system of patent litigation expect the USPTO to provide a perfect search of prior art for 2% of the market value of such a search.
In conclusion, while there may be a great deal of problems with these patents, and plenty of legitimate complaints about the how the system works, the submitter of this story addresses nothing but meaningless and baseless fluff. There would be more substance to the complaints if he griped about the poor scan quality of the documents. Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing the merits of these patents, but rather pointing out that the submitter addresses no valid complaints because, by analogy, he's busy arguing whether the Windows is better than OSX by pointing out how pretty the Windows desktop is.
But moderators, if you fear that facts might interfere with your self-affirmation, by all means convince me that I'm correct (regarding the subject line) and moderate this as a troll.
At no point did I say anything that was meant as a command for religious people.
If you aren't even cognizant of your own comments, you undermine any point you might have wished to make.
I would ask why you are so proud of a "blatant inability to understand" the role of the patent office.
I must presume you are an expert, since you brazenly share your opinions on the matter in a public forum, so I am quite certain you are aware that a typical patent application provides about $1,000 for the USPTO to do a prior art search. When an infringement lawsuit is filed, a corporate defense team will commonly spend $100,000 conducting a prior art search. Examiners at the USPTO are afforded 5-20 man-hours to do a search. To prepare for an infringement suit, it's common to spend 1000+ man-hours conducting a search.
The circumstances surrounding the simple act of finding prior art seem quite clear to me. If the USPTO were expected by applicants and the court system to produce a perfect search of the prior art, then it only stands to reason that the cost of applying for a patent would be in the $100,000 range and there would be no reasonable chance of invalidating a patent in court.
Of course, the end result would be the same. Weak patents would be invalidated and small companies with poor legal guidance would still be suckered into coughing up money despite doing no wrong. (The money spent on legal defense to invalidate a patent can often be recovered.)
Regarding any specific example of a weak patent, such as "hyperlinks" or "one click shopping", I'd wonder why you don't mention the 1250-1500 patents issued by the USPTO on any given week of the year? It's really an easily defeated tactic of debate to point to something like 0.001% of a group and draw a conclusion about the whole. It might amuse you and like minded people, but there is not persuasive content in such an argument.
Since I must presume that you are an expert, I ask how you would amend 35 USC 101 or 112 in order to "solve" the problem of claim interpretation regarding software-related inventions? Bear in mind that patent examiners have about 5 hours per application to assess the legal issues (outside of prior art). Unless you also propose a policy change at the USPTO, the examiners don't have the opportunity to drag a case through adjudication or arbitration, so your proposed amendments to 35 USC must cut like a knife through the issue with no ambiguity and no room for debate. (Good luck with that - if you haven't recognized already, this is a snare that I would be delighted to see you step into.) Also, the current backlog at the USPTO is, on average, 18 months. The USPTO is doing all that it can to reduce this, so make sure that your proposed changes don't undermine that project.
Thanks for clearing this up.
And you appear to be an atheist or an agnostic attempting to influence the life of a person with faith. Your point, had you one, equally demonstrates how out of line you are with your own tirade.
How about the immediate social stigma you gather in tons of circles when you admit to not believing in God?
Calling special attention to yourself as a minority doesn't make your life easier? Oh my gosh, you should write a book! I think you have stumbled upon some true wisdom that could really help people!
It would be easier to have respect for the faithful if they had any respect for the non-faithful.
Your post leads to the implication that it's easy to have respect for the non-faithful while you show disrespect to the faithful. It's almost as though you're implying some sort of inherent status possessed by the non-faithful that grants them an ethical superiority, a status that only truly exists if you have believe it hard enough. You ought to include something about this in your book, and ascribe the source of this special status to some unseen, intangible concept that steers the universe. Afterwards, you could hold weekly book club meetings and take donations.
Let's be honest here, you're not being true to your faith if you're not actively trying to turn people who don't believe (since almost all faiths require this). So the better a believer you are, the more likely you are to be affecting the life of the person you replied to.
Ah, clearly we're dealing with an expert, and one who feels no qualms about dictating what other people should or should not do, while preaching that influencing the lives of others is reprehensible. A prophet of convoluted hypocrisy!
And look! An "Insightful" point bonus! Peer moderation has confirmed that Britney Spears is award winning music, Keanu Reeves is a great actor, and jsebrech is Slashdot's very own ethical compass! I, for one, am completely convinced you're not full of crap.
In the US, offering the invention for sale is certainly the equivalent of publishing it. From the date it was first offered for sale, you have 1 year to apply for the patent. If you wait longer than a year and the patent examiner discovers it was offered for sale, you are subject to a 35 USC 102(b) statutory bar which means your invention falls into the legal category of SOL regarding a patent.
Speak up. It's hard to hear people from miscellaneous little countries when you're sitting in the driver seat of the world. I think I heard you say something about overcompensating for feeling insignificant in light of losing a global empire, but it was hard to tell because of all the money and power crowding my position. I'm sure you can imagine what it's like to be from an important country. In fact, we publish some marvelous history books in my country that will tell you all about yours and its proper place in the world.
And more to the point, why is it that so many British people can't even form a complete sentence in English?
If you find something revolting, revolt! Before it is too late!
For Christ's sake, the language is NAMED for your country and you can't even express yourself properly. You should return to grammar school. "Before it is too late!"
**>In another case addressingSupreme Courtnewly developed plant breeds J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int' l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 143-46, 122 S.Ct. 593, 605-06, 60 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (2001) (The scope of coverage of 35 U.S.C.101 is not limited by the Plant Patent Act or the Plant Variety Protection Act; each statute can be regarded as effective because of its different requirements and protections).Following the reasoning in Chakrabarty, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has also determined that animals are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. In Ex parte Allen, 2 USPQ2d 1425 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), the Board decided that a polyploid Pacific coast oyster could have been the proper subject of a patent under 35 U.S.C. 101 if all the criteria for patentability were satisfied. Shortly after the Allen decision, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks issued a notice (Animals - Patentability, 1077 O.G. 24, April 21, 1987) that the Patent and Trademark Office would now consider nonnaturally occurring, nonhuman multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Found by searching Google for "35 usc 101 patent animal". Information about the patent system is incredibly easy to obtain. It would benefit the Slashdot community if we relied on facts rather than dogma and hearsay when talking about the US patent system.I don't want to seem unnecessarily harsh on the parent poster, but the answer to his question is as easily found as "Can you use php with Apache?" If you successfully argue that a dog is nonnatural, you may seek patent protection for the dog. The problem is that any dog which could have been produced through, ahem, standard copulation, would be easily proven a natural animal. For race horses, there is virtually no argument that such a thing is "nonnatural".
I wasn't aware that his lights were recently mentioned on Slashdot - that could/would explain the Javascript window. On the other hand, I don't see how it's a case of "think before you write". I don't obsess over what is posted on Slashdot and I don't see why anybody should be expected to know what's been posted.
While I certainly earned that flamebait mod (it's been awhile; it feels good) and was an ass, I did think before I wrote.
Your Christmas webcam sucks. Thanks for contributing more crap to the internet, because we were getting low on stupid crap.
How's that for a community response to your off-topic self promotion? Bite me, Merry Christmas.
Grassroots Moderation: -1 Not funny.
Just tell those Indian dudes how comfortable they will be in if they go to live in Mississippi.
And tell that white guy to go live in SE Washington DC, or Harlem, or downtown Detroit. What's your fucking point?
I know the difference between jackasses and racists, and I contend WE Americans are both.
Why don't you find someone who disagrees with you and go pick an argument with THAT guy. Dumbass.
I can see you backtracking now...
Yeah, boy you called it. Fucking figure out some reading comprehension, until then I'll leave you sitting where you are and "backtrack" to over here where the coherent people sit.
Right, but I see you have a UID in the seven hundred thousands. You're new here! You see, you are absolutely correct - if we are professionals, then we should act like professionals. Unfortunately, the parent post is more correct - with the direction Slashdot has been going lately, I'm surprised that this wasn't posted under YRO.
I could be wrong, but I've lived both in the Old Dominion (the South) as well as the north, and people in the north are definitely colder to strangers.
I wasn't being funny, of course. This is a nation of jackasses. From glam rap to the E! channel to Jerry Springer to WWE to the nightly news to your average bus driver, we all get off on being the tough guy. Hell, even the people who rant and rave about how this is a nation founded on the Bible are the same way. If you gave them a button that would magically "fix" the nation but grant them no fame, publicity, or personal credit, I'm confident that a large portion of them would hesitate and ultimately refuse to push it.
Fucking spare me. If you're white, then other white people don't give you a hard time for being white. Black people might, and so might hispanics. Go take a look at the US demographics by race - white people aren't as huge a majority as you might think.
Anyway, I'm white, and if you think I don't deal with people being jackasses on a daily basis (and ESPECIALLY if you think it's because I'm white) then you are deluding yourself.
It would do this country a hell of a lot of good if we got rid of the popular "That guy has it easier than I do" bullshit. Why don't you paint your face white and hang out in an urban center - you'd be in for a rude awakening. Why don't you paint your face white, wear shabby clothes, and stand around rich white people - you'd be in for a rude awakening. Why don't you paint your face white, dress like you went to college, and stand around with rural white people - you'd be in for a rude awakening.
Get over yourself. Americans are jackasses. Racism is something entirely different. Have the self respect to NOT say "I'm a victim too" and you might EARN some respect from other people.
I couldn't say much about the indentured servant aspect either, but with her credentials, I find it very difficult to think that she would have trouble finding another employer to cover the relatively insignificant filing fees for the visa.
Again - I'm definitely not an expert on the issue but my experience as an observer is that it isn't entirely bad.
Welcome to A-freaking-merica.
You have described the encounters that life-long American citizens have with other life-long American citizens, encounters that people from small towns have with people from large cities, encounters that women have when surrounded by men, encounters that poorly dressed people have around the rich, and encounters that the rich have when surrounded by the poor.
I'm sorry you had a rough time, but here's yet another custom to learn about America - we're jackasses, we like being jackasses, and we don't care if you figure out that we're jackasses. Our cultural identity is based on cowboys and conquest and cut-throat capitalism - don't be shocked when we're not the most friendly people you meet.
I'm not trying to be harsh. I, for one, value the contributions that H1-B workers bring to America and am thankful that this country is an importer of educated workers. That said, I don't know how someone could form an opinion that we're a bunch of nice people. We can hardly stand ourselves, let alone people who are legitimately outsiders.
I'd go for a pretty dark haired girl over a blonde any day, though, so maybe I'm unusual in that as well.
If you haven't looked at Synergy, it's a cross platform software KM switch (as opposed to a hardware KVM switch). It allows you to use 1 mouse & keyboard on several networked machines (Windows, Linux, and miscellaneous) each having its own monitor. It's something that I never knew I needed until I tried it, and a well conceived 3D interface could be the same.
But, of course, I'm a lot of talk and no action. I run Synergy across 3 machines and it *has* changed how I use my computers and it has become a must have. There is certainly a lot of room for creative new interfaces and I'm sure using a 3D API opens up a ton of possibilities.