not that so many patents are issued. If need be, you can strike them down, though it is costly. But it's possible. Once we move to the first to file method of patent law, these numbers will seem quaint. At least with first to invent you have the opportunity to right a wrong.
I think you may misunderstand the first to file vs. first to invent situation.
Under both systems, if you have no patent, and somebody with a patent sues you for infringement, you can invalidate the patent by demonstrating prior art. This is exactly the same under either system.
The ONLY situation where first to file vs. first to invent matters is when you have a patent application and someone else also has a patent application for the SAME INVENTION. Note that NEITHER of you actually have a patent yet. In first to file systems, the person who filed first gets the patent. In the US with a first to invent system, we hold an "interference" proceeding to determine, then and there, which one of you invented first. This is extremely expensive for everyone involved, can take well over a year to straighten out, and is of questionable benefit.
Consider the alternative - you invented it first and can prove it, but someone else filed first. You won't get the patent, however you WILL have some valuable information: You can probably invalidate that patent with hardly a struggle. The patent that issued is far weaker, if not abandoned altogether. You don't get the patent protection you may have deserved, but the patent that was issued to the other guy is crippled. The subject matter of a patent that has been abandoned or invalidated becomes public domain, and therefore free to use by anybody.
The only people who win with a first to invent system are those people who truly seek their right to exclude but, for whatever reason, have delayed about filing the patent paperwork. There are many people who think we'd be better off harmonizing with the rest of the world and using a first to file system.
So this actually looks like one of the first articles on slashdot that actually covers a real patent. Not some stupid lame one-click, conjugation, whatever other simple and obvious nonsense. This format for these disks actually seems fairly patent worthy.
Keep dreaming.
It covers a patent application. There has been no grant of a patent yet.
I've just read the blurb, so don't take this as gospel regarding this specific case.
The allegation that they withheld prior art is in reference to 37 CFR 1.56, the Duty to Disclose information to the patent office. In brief, this means that if you (the attorney, inventor, or assignee (owner) of the patent application) knows that there is some relevant prior art, regardless of whether or not that establishes novelty or non-obviousness, you are obligated to provide those documents to the USPTO. This is largely enforced with an honor system, because it is absurdly impractical for patent examiners to investigate what information you had available to you, in addition to the usual issues of patentability.
However, this honor system has some razor sharp penalties. If it is determined in a courtroom that you withheld documents that were known during prosecution at the USPTO, it is very likely that this will be ruled as inequitable conduct. This means that the patent which issued will almost certainly be ruled invalid. It can also mean that OTHER patents prosecuted by the same inventor, assignee, and attorney can be found invalid under the "doctrine of unclean hands". (One instance of inequitable conduct very often leads to similar determinations in other circumstances.) Further, once an registered practitioner (a person who has passed the Patent Bar, not necessarily an attorney) has been tangled up in one of these situations, and is the person at fault, his/her career in patent law is essentially over. (If the inventor withheld information, the attorney should emerge unscathed. If the attorney is at fault, he had better be up to date in malpractice insurance.) It is possible to have your registration revoked, which literally means you cannot practice before the USPTO. Short of that, it is the type of black eye on your resume that prevents you from working again.
So, in conclusion, 37 CFR 1.56 is an honor system with a razor blade penalty. If you're aware of material that is relavant to the issue of patentability, it should be provided to the USPTO else you risk all sorts of legal (and financial) headaches down the road.
When exactly did you 'give me the benefit of the doubt' in the first place? always rude, always arrogant, always imperious, nothing has changed.
Like I said before, if you miss your mama, give her a call. Or walk upstairs. Whatever fits your situation.
Once again you present yourself as the end all expert on patents. Frankly, I don't see it.
Yeah, actually, I present myself as knowing a hell of a lot more than you about patents. As I said in the first place, I'm paid a lot of money to know a heck of a lot about patents. How you perceive that is your business and your problem.
Besides a couple of vague references to case law, which you present without any real discussion about it's merits, most of your posts are just a collection of insults. You have lots of bravado, but very little substance, just like the Bush administration.
What infected your head and convinced you that it's MY responsibility to spell out every last nuance of this topic to you? I made raised an extremely basic point about the patent system, specifically regarding the concept of obviousness, and your response was a link to State Street, which is completely non sequitur. Your response to that was some tangent about business law and hypothetical something-or-other, which was completely off the original topic. How could I possibly have any discussion about the merits of the issue with you? You won't even stick to your OWN points for more than a paragraph.
That was your link, not mine. I found that it was particularly funny that you didn't even read it at all. I don't know how much they pay you, and I don't care. It was far more about showing that you didn't even read the page which you linked. VERY poor research, perhaps you are a patent examiner as you seem to claim.
Wow. I mean seriously, wow. I linked to a patent examiner salary table as evidence that "patent examiner" is a paid position in the US government. It isn't my fault that you latched onto that 8 year old data as some sort of silver bullet for your argument. That's your fault. You're the one who thought that 8 year old data was somehow relevant to the topic at hand. I merely pointed to the fact that the government pays patent examiners, not patent clerks.
And I'll PayPal you $5 if you can put together anything resembling a coherent argument that supports this notion you have that I claim to be a patent examiner.
Again, with that 'point'; As you are still asking for clarification, I'll spell it out clearly, in words simple enough even you might understand; I was ribbing you, baiting you, and fucking with you in general.
That's what I would say if I were and have been completely exposed as a twit. "Oh I'm not REALLY so stupid that I'd argue with somebody about a topic that entirely escapes me - I was only TROLLING!" Sure you were.
Hey man, you win. You used State Street to respond to a point about 35 USC 103. You used 8 year old salary data to conclude that patent examiners are underpaid (and I have no f'n clue what point you were trying to make with that gem). You refer to "business law" to prove that "patent clerks" exist in the US patent system despite there being no such position. You declare that "victory" in this flame-fest hinges upon whether or not I post messages in other, unrelated Slashdot stories. You possess unmitigated genius. Victory is clearly yours.
But I have marked you as a "friend". I wouldn't want to miss your future posts in the patent-related stories here on Slashdot. I hope you'll do the same because I look forward to reading your insights in the future.
Alright, you've won. I've given you the benefit of the doubt in our discussion, but you have forced me to conclude that you're mentally deficient.
Here is why.
But you 'sir' are the expert? You seem to say "everybody is stupid but me", and I believe that's what you really think. Well, you haven't posted to any new threads on that otherwise very active account in over a week, and I have seen patent stories. So I am still 'winning'.
This is purely incoherent babbling. First, you have yet to bring up any points that are factually relevant or accurate. Therefore, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to refute the straw-man you have created, that I suggest that everyone but myself is stupid. Any middle school debate team would recognize that I've never made such an argument, of course, but even BAD middle school debate teams know you should defeat the straw man you create. Instead, your attention span inexplicably flits over to how many posts I've made on "an otherwise very active account" and then concludes victory. You're either poorly attempting to confuse me or else you're simply mentally deficient. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt any longer.
So now one can only respond to the 'man-god Back_pages' direct questions? Is that what you are now commanding? Classic. Just in case you missed the pattern our questions are all rhetorical, and generally only given in an effort to make the other look foolish. WOW, I said before that you need pills, but now I'm starting to think that you need a long-sleeved jacket with lots of heavy buckles.
This one is a prime example of how you have convinced me of your mental incompetence. You quoted me making a declarative statement. Then you said, "...I'll answer." Since there was no question posed, what in the fuck are you rambling about? And now this response cements the situation. You can't be illiterate, yet even an elementary school-aged child would recognize that you can't provide the answer before the question. I have no alternative explanations for your behavior - you have convinced me that you are mentally deficient.
thanks for the link to the Bust Patents website, perhaps you should read it. The page you linked comes to the conclusion that Patent examiners are too poorly paid to attract quality candidates. Perhaps that's why someone with such an obvious personality flaw actually got a job.
Here is more evidence that you're simply a moron. That was a link to a salary table from 9 years ago. I don't know how to explain this at your level except to say that 9 years is a pretty long time, during which many things have changed. For example, that salary table is way out of date. The salaries listed there are not the current salaries. They are the salaries from 9 years ago. As in, "the past". Your entire conclusion is based on an analysis of nearly-decade old data. I cannot spell it out any more simply: You are forcing me to conclude that you are mentally deficient.
I said that you would try to defend your ignorance with a weak technically, however those of us who have studied business law, know the term 'patent clerk'. Is that what you are a frustrated government employee who gets worked up about job titles? (you see, rhetorical question, I expect a vague answer, if at all). That is if you are actually a USPTO patent examiner, like you seem to claim.
Aw, is that what you think? Business law is how we frame the discussion of the patent system? Aw, that's adorable. And then we can use Singapore's fire code to discuss the merits of mandatory sentencing guidelines in the United States! This is sheer genius, or you are a dumb person.
Weeeellll, the State Street decision created business method patents, and the name of the thread is "Business Models" (aka Business Methods, in the future I'll endeavor to use the correct term). You might not see the relevance, but I'm fairly certain that that 'others' would. Unlike you appear to be, I am not here
First, you'll be shocked to discover that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The manual of patent examining procedure is the official government document that defines how the USPTO operates, and makes roughly 9,000,000 references to "patent examiners" and approximately 0 references to "patent clerks". "Patent clerk" is not a paid position in the United States Government. "Patent Examiner" is a paid position.
Here is a link to Patent Examiner Salaries from 1998. This exists because there is such a thing as a "patent examiner". The US Government does not publish a "Patent Clerk" salary table because the US Government does not pay "patent clerks".
If Wikipedia attempts to define "patent clerk" as synonymous with "patent examiner," that's your and Wikipedia's problem.
It's nice that you are finally getting around to calmly discussing patents on this thread, so I'll answer.
You were not responding to a question. Those end with little curly things like this: ?
Your next paragraph is one of the most inane things I have ever skimmed past. What in hell are you babbling about? I gave you an extremely focused and coherent point: Most people on Slashdot abuse the definition of "obvious" in the patent system. Your response is apparently directed to neo-con vs. liberal political ideology with what appears to be an allegation that I cannot cite laws just because I like them (I implicitly cited the 1952 Patent Act which codified the entire modern patent system, so there's no subtle way to express how dumb you're making yourself look). Then a link to State Street? Are you attempting the Chewbacca Defense? How in hell does State Street have anything to do with my argument about obviousness?
Groupthink isn't always right, but just slamming it as such, isn't much of an argument in itself.
Consider for a moment where that word originates.
Someone who doesn't even know what a Patent Clerk is, telling me that a third party would think you're intelligent and I'm the fool.
I'm being dead serious here. Think for a moment what it means when you call someone a tool. It means that they are easily manipulated by other people. When I said that I don't know what a patent clerk is, I knew full well that 1) the USPTO does not employ anybody with a job title "patent clerk", 2) the US government does not have a salary position called "patent clerk", 3) the manual of patent examining procedure makes no reference to a "patent clerk", and 4) lots of misinformed people think a "patent clerk" exists in the United States. I tossed out that comment at the very top of a post and left it hanging. Then I offered lots of factual information that provide some insight into the topic at hand.
Honestly, I didn't expect that you would be THIS easy to manipulate.
Your response indicates that you believe you've latched onto some kryptonite with this "patent clerk" silliness. You put the words "patent clerk" in bold font no fewer than 4 times to, heh heh, draw my attention to what a fool I must be. But of course, this was all in vain. You probably had no idea about points 1-3 I listed above, which generally point to a lack of experience with the patent system, but Wikipedia rode to your false rescue with point 4.
Seriously, contemplate what it means to be a tool.
Do you want to go for another round before this article closes? I suspect that I won't see another thread from 'back_pages', so we better get it in while we can. BTW, if I don't see another patent thread from this profile then I 'win', and you will have poisoned the account you're posting under (and I suspect it's not the first time).
Are you literally mentally handicapped? You can click on my profile and read at least my most recent 25 posts, almost all of which are on the topic of patents or the observation that Slashdot is filled with a
Again a new low, what's next physical threats? Seriously, see a therapist, no better yet, see a doctor, you need pills. Look as far as I can tell you are some guy who works destop support for an IP firm. You are no expert, yet you try to carry yourself off as one, IP professional my ass, you don't even claim to be a patent clerk, and even if you were you have at best 2 years experience in the industry.
You're wrong on all counts there, Killer. While you're on a streak, what on Earth is a patent clerk? They don't have those at the USPTO, so you must be talking about something else.
This is off topic, but have you ever realized that where your expertise stops, somebody else can usually step in? For example, if you're not an expert in thermodynamics, somewhere, somebody is an expert in thermodynamics? If you're not a medical practitioner, but you fall ill, you probably seek medical attention from somebody who is a doctor. If he gives you a diagnosis that you don't like, do you launch into this tirade about how he's probably a pharmacist's assistant?
Because that's exactly what you're doing here. Here's your original statement:
Many claim that they often violate the novelty, and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law as well.
I remarked that "many" are demonstrably ignorant of even the most basic concepts of patent law. Many of the loudest voices on Slashdot that rail against the patent system would be amazed at the universe of knowledge they never knew existed if they sat through the 1st day of a patent law class or patent examiner training. (As an aside, the manual of patent examining procedure is written for an audience of patent examiners - people who are hired for a technical degree but are not lawyers, who must then become competent in patent prosecution. Why is it SO RARE that anybody on Slashdot ever thinks of referencing that manual? It is online in its entirety. My hypothesis is that this is deliberate ignorance, but that's another topic.) On the subject of patents, Slashdot is nothing but a magnet for ignorant, baseless ego-stroking for those who scream the groupthink.
And I don't toss around the word "demonstrably" lightly. The next time a patent story is posted, take note of how many people imply that "obvious" means "simple" in the patent system. That idea is completely and entirely ignorant of 54 years of judicial precedent regarding 35 USC 103. An explanation can be found in MPEP 2143 and subsequent sections, as well as by research the famous Graham v. Deere decision. It is irrefutable. People who act like "obvious" equals "simple" are demonstrably ignorant of the US patent system.
And often times, those people "claim that patents violate the novelty and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law."
They claim, but they don't have a f'n clue.
So why didn't you simply ask what I was talking about? Instead, I'm inclined to just lump you in with the deliberately ignorant on Slashdot who prefer to hate the system about which they don't have the slightest understanding. It's not a pretty place to be, in my opinion, but you can do what you like. I'm a "fool to be toyed with"? Quit kidding yourself. You're WAY out of your element when talking about the patent system and any third party who reads this thread will immediately recognize how you've let yourself be manipulated by your anger.
Have a nice weekend. In the future, if you think we'd disagree about the patent system, why don't you ASK for some clarification instead of some bullshit "I'm rubber and you're glue" nonsense?
Again, you show a complete lack of kindness, intelligence, and relevance to the discussion.
I don't think you could be any further from the issue.
Your previous post presented nothing but a kindergarten taunt a la "I'm rubber and you're glue."
It deserved far less acknowledgement than the mild mocking I gave it.
Your current post is nothing but allegation.
I think it's extremely rude for a person to start a conversation with me and thereby force me into the conclusion that the person is a dumb tool. I'm not interested. It's a waste of my time. In order to convince myself that you're not a dumb tool, I'm going to presume that you've skimmed my posting history (it is a mere two clicks away to any of my recent posts) and recognize that I consistently post links to the manual of patent examining procedure and title 35 USC. When other Slashdotters have honest questions or criticisms about the patent system, I do my best to respond informatively. Being both a computer scientist and an IP professional, that's my humble contribution to the Slashdot community.
But I'm under no burden to show kindness. If you miss your mama, give her a call.
And while you're at it, tell her about your witty "I'm rubber and you're glue" post, and THEN how you TOTALLY BURNED me by accusing me of straying from the subject of conversation.
unless of course one 'claims to know', in that case, you're 'special', just like every one else.
Ignorance is in abundance, especially at Slashdot.
Q.E.D.
If that passes for a zinger in your household, be careful with your sharp wit. I wouldn't want you to fall and hurt yourself.
It has everything to do with this. This is an obvious patent to strike down unmercifully. The patent itself says that verb conjugation has been around online and that the only major difference is that this method *might* detect spelling errors (gee, like *that* hasn't been done) and would allow a person to imput their native verb to get conjugations in another language (not novel in the least). If the USPTO can't even pass basic common sense tests, why should they be allowed to issue anything that could lead to million dollar court battles?
This is not insightful.
The article is NOT in reference to a PATENT. There is no "patent to strike down unmercifully". The article describes a patent application. A PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATION HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. All of your comments about the USPTO are literally, and according to the dictionary definition, BASELESS in this instance.
Nobody goes around talking about the eternally great weather in London, except for the rain, or the snow, or the fog, or the cold, or the humidity, or this, or that...
If you can make a grand sweeping statement with ONE exception, well, it is the exception that proves the rule.
While you have made it clear that you fancy yourself an expert on the patent process, your stance on the merit of the system is less clear. It should be obvious to an expert such as yourself that the real objection so many silly little Slashdotters continually voice isn't with the verbage of suspect patent claims, but rather with the patent system itself. Because you state something 20 times and 20 times people disagree with you doesn't necessarily mean that in every case they failed to understand you, they just disagree with you.
As a matter of fact, it's objectively true that I'm well versed on the patent system. My stance on the merit of the system has never been the topic. My topic in this thread is and always has been that the Slashdot community doesn't have a clue how the patent system operates or why it operates the way it does.
Your "It should be obvious..." statement is merely conclusory and simply off topic.
Personally, I abhor the patent system.
And the KKK abhors African Americans via ignorance, North Korean citizens hate the US via ignorance, blue collar Americans hate quality beer via ignorance, blah blah, history rolls on. I don't doubt that you do abhor the patent system, but do realize that in order to convince of the validity of your complaints, you'll have to also demonstrate a little knowledge of the thing you abhor.
Although I have done almost zero research on the Amazon "One Click" patent, I imagine it is crafted precisely to the letter of the patent law. However, I take strong objection to the existence of any such law that would grant an entity exclusive right to such an obvious process, for a term of 20 years none the less. It's infuriating. Especially when you consider all the underlying technology that makes such a simple process even possible.
Ah, Steven Colbert would be proud. I understand that you feel infuriated, but you've basically summarized Colbert's "I don't need facts, I FEEL the truth" rigamarole. Friendly suggestion - maybe by becoming more informed about the patent system, that feeling of infuriation would turn into a focused critique?
Don't like it? Neither do I.
I'd be more than happy to write a crash course in patent topics in the right forum. Clearly it's not Slashdot - I'd rather flame people occasionally than be the first jerk thrown to the lions trying to be helpful. My stance on the patent system has never been the topic of discussion here, and I certainly have my criticisms of it. Do you think that raising the general level of knowledge about the patent system would improve or harm the Slashdot community? In my opinion, it's teetering on baseless and blind ignorant hatred on the topic of patents. It would be hard to screw that up. Any suggestions?
And look what gets +4 informative on slashdot... someone pasting the obtuse text of a patent that when stripped down obviously describes the type of navigation that NeXT was using for file browsers a decade before the patent. Besides that, organizing stuff in a visual heirarchy is not novel. Or at least certainly wasn't when the patent was issued. Doing it with a music player isn't ingenious. It's a stupid patent. Big surprise.
Here's why you're wrong.
The claim language defines the scope of patent protection. MPEP 608.01(i)
Regardless of whether you believe the claim text is "obtuse," it is the only part of the patent that governs whether or not something infringes. The criticality of each word cannot be overstated. For example, the difference between the words "comprising" and "consisting" is monumental. MPEP 2111.03
Can you figure out what I'm driving at? You cannot "strip down" the text of a claim and form a valid conclusion about anything. The claim describes a portable music player. Your argument does not. Apples and oranges.
Is there anyone out there who still thinks that patents foster more innovation than they stifle?
Basically everybody except the deliberately ignorant Slashdotters who incessantly stroke each other's egos by moderating absurdly inaccurate posts to +5. Are you one of the deliberately ignorant? Did you follow the links I posted? Did you read what you found? If so, congratulations - you have taken a few steps toward actually understanding the thing that you apparently hate.
I'm not a historian, but I think history tells us that it's better to understand the things you hate rather than to misrepresent them or hate them out of blind fear and ignorance.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a historian. I do know that if you choose to blindly hate something you don't understand, you won't be alone in the history of the world. There's definitely prior art for that, comrade.
Dude, we're sick and tired of these patents . Are you even a programmer?
Yes.
If so, did you read the claims you linked to? It's basically two data structures: A tree consisting of 1)a virtual root node (supercontainer), that shows a 2)set of 3)containers, each containing 4)items. The other structure is a list.
Uh, thanks for your insight, I guess. In addition to being a programmer, I'm also up to my neck in the patent system on a daily basis. (That doesn't mean I read about it in the newspapers, that means I participate in patent prosecution with the patent office on a daily basis.)
As the claims progress, the patent makes it clearer and clearer that you can navigate down into the tree, and select items and collections to add to the playlist. Furthermore, it employs polymorphism to make clear that containers can also be playlists and whatnot.
"As the claims progress" they get narrower and narrower, i.e. smaller and smaller in scope. This is required by 35 USC 112 fourth paragraph. What I'm saying is that if the 1st claim is patentable over the prior art, the subsequent claims are also allowable over the prior art because they are MORE specific. So it could be polymorphism - who cares? Why don't we focus on the broader topic - the first claim - before celebrating the narrower topics?
How is this non-obvious? As for the prior art people keep jesting about to varying degrees of seriousness, that very prior art ought demonstrate that this is obvious. Hell, I'm no top-notch programmer, but even I could have pulled this off my junior year in college (which was before the filing date).
(I'm honestly trying to be helpful here.) Your argument is non sequitur, but it's not your fault. You begin with the issue of "non-obvious" in the patent system, and conclude with "simplicity". In Slashdot and the dictionary, these concepts are VERY close. However, in the patent system, "obviousness" has literally nothing to do with simplicity.
Here's a link: MPEP 2143. If you're really interested, read the next couple of sections as well.
You'll note that nothing about "obviousness" hinges on simplicity. In patents, "obvious" is requires a combination of things found in the prior art as well as other criteria.
So as you can see, your argument is non sequitur. Maybe this patent IS a simple idea, but that's completely irrelevant. Hell the patent office has an entire classification system for "bottles and jars". That's not exactly high technology to most people, but luckily for jar inventors, "being complicated" is not a requirement of patentability.
Calling Slashdot the Fox News of patent stories is a nice red herring - if you want to maintain that, please give us a point-by-point analysis on in which ways this is.
Right... How about you do your homework and I'll do mine. I'm not morally obliged to hold your hand through every accurate observation I toss out.
However, here's a start - read through my posting history. You'll find that I'm either 1) off the topic of patents, 2) flaming someone, or 3) illustrating that basically nobody on Slashdot has any clue about how the patent system works. If you want the point-by-point analysis, then you can spend the time collecting the evidence.
(I'll give you a hint as to how it may differ: Fox News is a TV broadcasting medium - the channel chooses what to send. Slashdot is a set of links to stories that a bunch of people throw in their two cents on including you and I.)
Ok, I'll bite at this one. Fox News regurgitates public opinion as purportedly correct or accurate which creates a closed-loop system that simply reinforces ignorant, emotional decision making and actively squashes critical analysis. This is precisely what Slashdot does about patents. The posts are wildly inaccurate and full of ignorance, they are moderated as "Insightful"
You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. (This is the 1 sentence that has replaced the 100 line flame that I just deleted.)
Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but it is not the claims from the patent. If you'd like to respond, I'm going to require that you read the claims of the patent because otherwise you are literally wasting my time. Here is the link. The Patent
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work.
First, you are apparently unaware of a JMOL for clearly unreasonable patent infringement suits. Secondly, it's called "a defense". Technically it's optional.
Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented.
It's called "patent prosecution" and it's the only way to get a patent in the United States. Clever idea.
The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.
(I've already deleted 100 lines of flame but let me say) I don't believe for a second that you have the slightest idea what is or is not a valid patent. Secondly, I don't think you have put any thought whatsoever into how you would prove or disprove this at a trial from scratch. (I say my patent is valid. We're done. Oh no - suddenly someone has to prove it's INVALID - we're right back to the problem you claim to have solved.) I think that you are unaware that patent prosecution before the patent office takes anywhere from 2-6 years. You suggest we move that (or some variant) into the COURTROOM? Are you trolling? Thirdly, you have begun your paragraph with a groundless conclusion and end it the same way - how in God's name would this make trolling any more difficult? Under your system, I don't even need to WIN the infringement suit, I can simply tie up your exorbitantly expensive legal team for an additional 5 years. It's legal extortion at its best.
I know this post is not very nice but please bear in mind that what you've read is completely rewritten. I don't intend to flame, but I do think you're completely out of your element. The bottom line, for me, is that I really wish Slashdot would stop carrying stories about patents because misinformation and worse is consistently moderated to the top. Without a doubt, Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.
Christ alive Slashdot is a joke when it comes to patent stories. At the time I'm reading this, your post is +4 Interesting. Let's see what passes for +4 Interesting in a Slashdot patent story:
This method is: "The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album."
This is factually incorrect. Whatever you're quoting is not the patented method. Claim 1 of the patent in question (6,928,433) is:
1. A method of selecting at least one track from a plurality of tracks stored in a computer-readable medium of a portable media player configured to present sequentially a first, second, and third display screen on the display of the media player, the plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy, the hierarchy having a plurality of categories, subcategories, and items respectively in a first, second, and third level of the hierarchy, the method comprising: selecting a category in the first display screen of the portable media player; displaying the subcategories belonging to the selected category in a listing presented in the second display screen; selecting a subcategory in the second display screen; displaying the items belonging to the selected subcategory in a listing presented in the third display screen; and accessing at least one track based on a selection made in one of the display screens.
That took me 20 seconds to look up, copy, and paste.
+4 Interesting? Give me a break. Can we please just moderate every comment in these patent stories as "+5 Doesn't have the slightest idea"?
I mean, isn't that how the stuff is organized in the record store too?
Oddest f'n record store that accesses tracks in a display screen.
hahaha, your serious aren't you? look at some of the stuff "Patented" today, how much of that stuff do you honestly think will fall into the public domain in 20 years?
You clearly don't have much experience with the patent system. Every patent issued after 1997 will expire after 20 years from the filing date, at which point the subject matter contained therein becomes public domain. This is basic, basic stuff.
hell how much stuff has tons of prior art and is already in the public domain that companies and patent leeches are trying to patent & have succefully patented?
I'm not even sure that's a coherent sentence. Is that one question or two questions? I'll address it all at once by reiterating that you clearly don't have much experience with the patent system.
A completely thorough, comprehensive, second-only-to-God's-omnipotence prior art search costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Look at ANY patent infringement suit and you will find evidence of this fact. The patent office does a prior art search for about $1000. Stick with me here:
$1000 is less than $1,000,000
If you think you can get a completely thorough, comprehensive, second-only-to-God's-omnipotence prior art search for $1000, you are a fucking retard.
If you don't like my tone, then you know how I feel about yours. Here's a shock - when it comes to topics you don't know about, somebody somewhere is an expert. On that topic, they know what the hell they're talking about and you don't. That's a life lesson, free of charge.
2) If it's true, someone will patent it and it won't be free - on the contrary, it will still somehow cost me as much as energy does now, as greed seems to outpace progress these days.
If "it" is a natural phenomena, it is not subject to patent in the United States. Manual of Patent Examination Procedure - Section 2106 If "it" is a machine that converts a natural phenomena into traditional energy like electricity, then that machine could be patented but nothing stops you from developing improvements to it or an entirely different machine. Regardless, the patent for that machine would expire 20 years from its filing date and would then become public domain.
If you have a computer system on your desk, there are probably at least 100 different patented products on your desk. That hasn't barred you from owning and enjoying the technology, however. There would be an incredible demand for "free" energy, and therefore market forces would provide ample incentive for competing scientists to develop non-patented devices to harness that energy. Sure, there might be some nasty legal battles, but in the end the original inventor will be able to patent at best what he has contributed to the technology.
In my experience, the people who make the biggest difference often don't want a big deal made of what they do. That's either because of their social proclivity (shyness) or because they're genuinely modest.
Yes, unless you've ever been involved with a journal publication, a research grant, or any other aspect of the field of mathematics. It's called "Gauss-Jordan Elimination" not because Gauss or Jordan were involved in developing the technique, but because those guys were a blast at parties. The "Newtonian Iterative method" of solving equations was actually named after a rude joke involving Sir Isaac Newton, a lewd woman, and a saw horse.
All that aside, you completely missed (whoosh) my point that Russia is not the West. Which means that perhaps this person is more interested in what his fellow Russian mathematicians (perhaps coworkers and friends) think than in where he sits in the estimation of some American researchers.
Yes, clearly, I was too caught up in reading the things that you typed rather than catching your point. Here's my advice to you - if your point was that Russia is not in the West, don't write a post about the values of Western civilization. Even the History Channel will tell you that the last 400 years of Russian history have been largely involved in embracing and competing with Western values. Beyond that simple fact, I don't know what the fuck you could have meant.
Now run along and find an anonymous journal author or a professor at a research institute who avoids putting his name on his graduate students' work.
The incredulity that this mathematician might have been more interested in the challenge of the work than fame and fortune in the Western world practically oozes from each sentence.
No, it does not.
If you're referring to the Slashdot blurb, it notes that the guy has made an amazing contribution to mathematics but might not show up to be acknowledged by the community. That's remarkable regardless of the field - art, engineering, religion, philosophy, whatever. In the annals of history, the people who change the world generally take credit for their work. Maybe you think it's horrible to observe that, in addition to solving the problem, he did it for it's own sake? There is no "oozing" in the summary. You are not being insightful.
If you're referring to the article, it describes how the guy went to Russia and apparently isn't responding to emails. Again, this is unusual for someone who has solved a globally recognized difficult problem. You are not being insightful.
In my opinion, it's unfortunate that 4 or 5 people have spent their moderation points to label your post "insightful". It is not. A person merely needs a basic understanding of human nature to recognize that it's somewhat surprising that someone doesn't bother to take credit for changing the world in a positive way. From Mother Theresa to Gandhi, Bono to Einstein, Salk to Lincoln, these people appreciate being acknowledged for what they do. Even those whose contributions are at best debatable - Mao, Marx, Nobel (for the dynamite, not the prize), Oppenheimer, etc. - generally accept their due.
Fawning over Eastern mysticism and foreign culture is interesting to college freshmen. For most other people, it's simply old fashioned. But hey - know your audience and positive moderation will be yours.
Lots of legal correspondence is done in caps. Some people have a system that dictates when to underline, italicize, bold, and capitalize. Many people throw moderation to the wind _AND_HIT_THE_HEAVY_SHIT_AT_THE_DROP_OF_A_HAT. If you take away caps, you take away at least 50% of the effectiveness of the breathless exasperation available to these esteemed legal writers.
And yes, taking away 1 of 4 options means losing 50% of the effectiveness. The reason is that the first 3 options are insufficient - they fail to properly express the food-flying-from-the-mouth outrage that is necessary to rationally convey their logic. That fourth escalation - all caps - is what cinches the deal. The sum is more than the parts.
However, you could get rid of legal correspondence. Hm..
How about centrally controlled buyout prices fixed at something like 2 times the average selling price for an item. If a seller miraculously has a suspicious number of buyout sales, set off a flag to be investigated by staff. And of course, even in an anonymous auction system, the staff can see who is buying and who is selling.
Just a thought. I actually quit playing online RPGs altogether in large part because of the horrendous management of the online economies. In the game I played, the standard procedure for selling items WAS auctions, and it was customary to list a buyout price as well. It was fully non-anonymous, though, and you could just as easily hand the money and items to another player.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may misunderstand the first to file vs. first to invent situation.
Under both systems, if you have no patent, and somebody with a patent sues you for infringement, you can invalidate the patent by demonstrating prior art. This is exactly the same under either system.
The ONLY situation where first to file vs. first to invent matters is when you have a patent application and someone else also has a patent application for the SAME INVENTION. Note that NEITHER of you actually have a patent yet. In first to file systems, the person who filed first gets the patent. In the US with a first to invent system, we hold an "interference" proceeding to determine, then and there, which one of you invented first. This is extremely expensive for everyone involved, can take well over a year to straighten out, and is of questionable benefit.
Consider the alternative - you invented it first and can prove it, but someone else filed first. You won't get the patent, however you WILL have some valuable information: You can probably invalidate that patent with hardly a struggle. The patent that issued is far weaker, if not abandoned altogether. You don't get the patent protection you may have deserved, but the patent that was issued to the other guy is crippled. The subject matter of a patent that has been abandoned or invalidated becomes public domain, and therefore free to use by anybody.
The only people who win with a first to invent system are those people who truly seek their right to exclude but, for whatever reason, have delayed about filing the patent paperwork. There are many people who think we'd be better off harmonizing with the rest of the world and using a first to file system.
Keep dreaming.
It covers a patent application. There has been no grant of a patent yet.
The allegation that they withheld prior art is in reference to 37 CFR 1.56, the Duty to Disclose information to the patent office. In brief, this means that if you (the attorney, inventor, or assignee (owner) of the patent application) knows that there is some relevant prior art, regardless of whether or not that establishes novelty or non-obviousness, you are obligated to provide those documents to the USPTO. This is largely enforced with an honor system, because it is absurdly impractical for patent examiners to investigate what information you had available to you, in addition to the usual issues of patentability.
However, this honor system has some razor sharp penalties. If it is determined in a courtroom that you withheld documents that were known during prosecution at the USPTO, it is very likely that this will be ruled as inequitable conduct. This means that the patent which issued will almost certainly be ruled invalid. It can also mean that OTHER patents prosecuted by the same inventor, assignee, and attorney can be found invalid under the "doctrine of unclean hands". (One instance of inequitable conduct very often leads to similar determinations in other circumstances.) Further, once an registered practitioner (a person who has passed the Patent Bar, not necessarily an attorney) has been tangled up in one of these situations, and is the person at fault, his/her career in patent law is essentially over. (If the inventor withheld information, the attorney should emerge unscathed. If the attorney is at fault, he had better be up to date in malpractice insurance.) It is possible to have your registration revoked, which literally means you cannot practice before the USPTO. Short of that, it is the type of black eye on your resume that prevents you from working again.
So, in conclusion, 37 CFR 1.56 is an honor system with a razor blade penalty. If you're aware of material that is relavant to the issue of patentability, it should be provided to the USPTO else you risk all sorts of legal (and financial) headaches down the road.
Like I said before, if you miss your mama, give her a call. Or walk upstairs. Whatever fits your situation.
Once again you present yourself as the end all expert on patents. Frankly, I don't see it.
Yeah, actually, I present myself as knowing a hell of a lot more than you about patents. As I said in the first place, I'm paid a lot of money to know a heck of a lot about patents. How you perceive that is your business and your problem.
Besides a couple of vague references to case law, which you present without any real discussion about it's merits, most of your posts are just a collection of insults. You have lots of bravado, but very little substance, just like the Bush administration.
What infected your head and convinced you that it's MY responsibility to spell out every last nuance of this topic to you? I made raised an extremely basic point about the patent system, specifically regarding the concept of obviousness, and your response was a link to State Street, which is completely non sequitur. Your response to that was some tangent about business law and hypothetical something-or-other, which was completely off the original topic. How could I possibly have any discussion about the merits of the issue with you? You won't even stick to your OWN points for more than a paragraph.
That was your link, not mine. I found that it was particularly funny that you didn't even read it at all. I don't know how much they pay you, and I don't care. It was far more about showing that you didn't even read the page which you linked. VERY poor research, perhaps you are a patent examiner as you seem to claim.
Wow. I mean seriously, wow. I linked to a patent examiner salary table as evidence that "patent examiner" is a paid position in the US government. It isn't my fault that you latched onto that 8 year old data as some sort of silver bullet for your argument. That's your fault. You're the one who thought that 8 year old data was somehow relevant to the topic at hand. I merely pointed to the fact that the government pays patent examiners, not patent clerks.
And I'll PayPal you $5 if you can put together anything resembling a coherent argument that supports this notion you have that I claim to be a patent examiner.
Again, with that 'point'; As you are still asking for clarification, I'll spell it out clearly, in words simple enough even you might understand; I was ribbing you, baiting you, and fucking with you in general.
That's what I would say if I were and have been completely exposed as a twit. "Oh I'm not REALLY so stupid that I'd argue with somebody about a topic that entirely escapes me - I was only TROLLING!" Sure you were.
Hey man, you win. You used State Street to respond to a point about 35 USC 103. You used 8 year old salary data to conclude that patent examiners are underpaid (and I have no f'n clue what point you were trying to make with that gem). You refer to "business law" to prove that "patent clerks" exist in the US patent system despite there being no such position. You declare that "victory" in this flame-fest hinges upon whether or not I post messages in other, unrelated Slashdot stories. You possess unmitigated genius. Victory is clearly yours.
But I have marked you as a "friend". I wouldn't want to miss your future posts in the patent-related stories here on Slashdot. I hope you'll do the same because I look forward to reading your insights in the future.
Here is why.
But you 'sir' are the expert? You seem to say "everybody is stupid but me", and I believe that's what you really think. Well, you haven't posted to any new threads on that otherwise very active account in over a week, and I have seen patent stories. So I am still 'winning'.
This is purely incoherent babbling. First, you have yet to bring up any points that are factually relevant or accurate. Therefore, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to refute the straw-man you have created, that I suggest that everyone but myself is stupid. Any middle school debate team would recognize that I've never made such an argument, of course, but even BAD middle school debate teams know you should defeat the straw man you create. Instead, your attention span inexplicably flits over to how many posts I've made on "an otherwise very active account" and then concludes victory. You're either poorly attempting to confuse me or else you're simply mentally deficient. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt any longer.
So now one can only respond to the 'man-god Back_pages' direct questions? Is that what you are now commanding? Classic. Just in case you missed the pattern our questions are all rhetorical, and generally only given in an effort to make the other look foolish. WOW, I said before that you need pills, but now I'm starting to think that you need a long-sleeved jacket with lots of heavy buckles.
This one is a prime example of how you have convinced me of your mental incompetence. You quoted me making a declarative statement. Then you said, "...I'll answer." Since there was no question posed, what in the fuck are you rambling about? And now this response cements the situation. You can't be illiterate, yet even an elementary school-aged child would recognize that you can't provide the answer before the question. I have no alternative explanations for your behavior - you have convinced me that you are mentally deficient.
thanks for the link to the Bust Patents website, perhaps you should read it. The page you linked comes to the conclusion that Patent examiners are too poorly paid to attract quality candidates. Perhaps that's why someone with such an obvious personality flaw actually got a job.
Here is more evidence that you're simply a moron. That was a link to a salary table from 9 years ago. I don't know how to explain this at your level except to say that 9 years is a pretty long time, during which many things have changed. For example, that salary table is way out of date. The salaries listed there are not the current salaries. They are the salaries from 9 years ago. As in, "the past". Your entire conclusion is based on an analysis of nearly-decade old data. I cannot spell it out any more simply: You are forcing me to conclude that you are mentally deficient.
I said that you would try to defend your ignorance with a weak technically, however those of us who have studied business law, know the term 'patent clerk'. Is that what you are a frustrated government employee who gets worked up about job titles? (you see, rhetorical question, I expect a vague answer, if at all). That is if you are actually a USPTO patent examiner, like you seem to claim.
Aw, is that what you think? Business law is how we frame the discussion of the patent system? Aw, that's adorable. And then we can use Singapore's fire code to discuss the merits of mandatory sentencing guidelines in the United States! This is sheer genius, or you are a dumb person.
Weeeellll, the State Street decision created business method patents, and the name of the thread is "Business Models" (aka Business Methods, in the future I'll endeavor to use the correct term). You might not see the relevance, but I'm fairly certain that that 'others' would. Unlike you appear to be, I am not here
First, you'll be shocked to discover that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The manual of patent examining procedure is the official government document that defines how the USPTO operates, and makes roughly 9,000,000 references to "patent examiners" and approximately 0 references to "patent clerks". "Patent clerk" is not a paid position in the United States Government. "Patent Examiner" is a paid position.
Here is a link to Patent Examiner Salaries from 1998. This exists because there is such a thing as a "patent examiner". The US Government does not publish a "Patent Clerk" salary table because the US Government does not pay "patent clerks".
If Wikipedia attempts to define "patent clerk" as synonymous with "patent examiner," that's your and Wikipedia's problem.
It's nice that you are finally getting around to calmly discussing patents on this thread, so I'll answer.
You were not responding to a question. Those end with little curly things like this: ?
Your next paragraph is one of the most inane things I have ever skimmed past. What in hell are you babbling about? I gave you an extremely focused and coherent point: Most people on Slashdot abuse the definition of "obvious" in the patent system. Your response is apparently directed to neo-con vs. liberal political ideology with what appears to be an allegation that I cannot cite laws just because I like them (I implicitly cited the 1952 Patent Act which codified the entire modern patent system, so there's no subtle way to express how dumb you're making yourself look). Then a link to State Street? Are you attempting the Chewbacca Defense? How in hell does State Street have anything to do with my argument about obviousness?
Groupthink isn't always right, but just slamming it as such, isn't much of an argument in itself.
Consider for a moment where that word originates.
Someone who doesn't even know what a Patent Clerk is, telling me that a third party would think you're intelligent and I'm the fool.
I'm being dead serious here. Think for a moment what it means when you call someone a tool. It means that they are easily manipulated by other people. When I said that I don't know what a patent clerk is, I knew full well that 1) the USPTO does not employ anybody with a job title "patent clerk", 2) the US government does not have a salary position called "patent clerk", 3) the manual of patent examining procedure makes no reference to a "patent clerk", and 4) lots of misinformed people think a "patent clerk" exists in the United States. I tossed out that comment at the very top of a post and left it hanging. Then I offered lots of factual information that provide some insight into the topic at hand.
Honestly, I didn't expect that you would be THIS easy to manipulate.
Your response indicates that you believe you've latched onto some kryptonite with this "patent clerk" silliness. You put the words "patent clerk" in bold font no fewer than 4 times to, heh heh, draw my attention to what a fool I must be. But of course, this was all in vain. You probably had no idea about points 1-3 I listed above, which generally point to a lack of experience with the patent system, but Wikipedia rode to your false rescue with point 4.
Seriously, contemplate what it means to be a tool.
Do you want to go for another round before this article closes? I suspect that I won't see another thread from 'back_pages', so we better get it in while we can. BTW, if I don't see another patent thread from this profile then I 'win', and you will have poisoned the account you're posting under (and I suspect it's not the first time).
Are you literally mentally handicapped? You can click on my profile and read at least my most recent 25 posts, almost all of which are on the topic of patents or the observation that Slashdot is filled with a
You're wrong on all counts there, Killer. While you're on a streak, what on Earth is a patent clerk? They don't have those at the USPTO, so you must be talking about something else.
This is off topic, but have you ever realized that where your expertise stops, somebody else can usually step in? For example, if you're not an expert in thermodynamics, somewhere, somebody is an expert in thermodynamics? If you're not a medical practitioner, but you fall ill, you probably seek medical attention from somebody who is a doctor. If he gives you a diagnosis that you don't like, do you launch into this tirade about how he's probably a pharmacist's assistant?
Because that's exactly what you're doing here. Here's your original statement:
Many claim that they often violate the novelty, and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law as well.
I remarked that "many" are demonstrably ignorant of even the most basic concepts of patent law. Many of the loudest voices on Slashdot that rail against the patent system would be amazed at the universe of knowledge they never knew existed if they sat through the 1st day of a patent law class or patent examiner training. (As an aside, the manual of patent examining procedure is written for an audience of patent examiners - people who are hired for a technical degree but are not lawyers, who must then become competent in patent prosecution. Why is it SO RARE that anybody on Slashdot ever thinks of referencing that manual? It is online in its entirety. My hypothesis is that this is deliberate ignorance, but that's another topic.) On the subject of patents, Slashdot is nothing but a magnet for ignorant, baseless ego-stroking for those who scream the groupthink.
And I don't toss around the word "demonstrably" lightly. The next time a patent story is posted, take note of how many people imply that "obvious" means "simple" in the patent system. That idea is completely and entirely ignorant of 54 years of judicial precedent regarding 35 USC 103. An explanation can be found in MPEP 2143 and subsequent sections, as well as by research the famous Graham v. Deere decision. It is irrefutable. People who act like "obvious" equals "simple" are demonstrably ignorant of the US patent system.
And often times, those people "claim that patents violate the novelty and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law."
They claim, but they don't have a f'n clue.
So why didn't you simply ask what I was talking about? Instead, I'm inclined to just lump you in with the deliberately ignorant on Slashdot who prefer to hate the system about which they don't have the slightest understanding. It's not a pretty place to be, in my opinion, but you can do what you like. I'm a "fool to be toyed with"? Quit kidding yourself. You're WAY out of your element when talking about the patent system and any third party who reads this thread will immediately recognize how you've let yourself be manipulated by your anger.
Have a nice weekend. In the future, if you think we'd disagree about the patent system, why don't you ASK for some clarification instead of some bullshit "I'm rubber and you're glue" nonsense?
I don't think you could be any further from the issue.
Your previous post presented nothing but a kindergarten taunt a la "I'm rubber and you're glue."
It deserved far less acknowledgement than the mild mocking I gave it.
Your current post is nothing but allegation.
I think it's extremely rude for a person to start a conversation with me and thereby force me into the conclusion that the person is a dumb tool. I'm not interested. It's a waste of my time. In order to convince myself that you're not a dumb tool, I'm going to presume that you've skimmed my posting history (it is a mere two clicks away to any of my recent posts) and recognize that I consistently post links to the manual of patent examining procedure and title 35 USC. When other Slashdotters have honest questions or criticisms about the patent system, I do my best to respond informatively. Being both a computer scientist and an IP professional, that's my humble contribution to the Slashdot community.
But I'm under no burden to show kindness. If you miss your mama, give her a call.
And while you're at it, tell her about your witty "I'm rubber and you're glue" post, and THEN how you TOTALLY BURNED me by accusing me of straying from the subject of conversation.
And tell her I say Hello.
Ignorance is in abundance, especially at Slashdot.
Q.E.D.
If that passes for a zinger in your household, be careful with your sharp wit. I wouldn't want you to fall and hurt yourself.
Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.
Many people claim, few of them know. Ignorance is in abundance, especially at Slashdot.
~One who is paid to know.
This is not insightful.
The article is NOT in reference to a PATENT. There is no "patent to strike down unmercifully". The article describes a patent application. A PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATION HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. All of your comments about the USPTO are literally, and according to the dictionary definition, BASELESS in this instance.
SLASHDOT IS THE FOX NEWS OF PATENTS.
Carry on.
Nobody goes around talking about the eternally great weather in London, except for the rain, or the snow, or the fog, or the cold, or the humidity, or this, or that...
If you can make a grand sweeping statement with ONE exception, well, it is the exception that proves the rule.
Peak of Eternal Light it is.
I say that every day.
Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.
As a matter of fact, it's objectively true that I'm well versed on the patent system. My stance on the merit of the system has never been the topic. My topic in this thread is and always has been that the Slashdot community doesn't have a clue how the patent system operates or why it operates the way it does.
Your "It should be obvious..." statement is merely conclusory and simply off topic.
Personally, I abhor the patent system.
And the KKK abhors African Americans via ignorance, North Korean citizens hate the US via ignorance, blue collar Americans hate quality beer via ignorance, blah blah, history rolls on. I don't doubt that you do abhor the patent system, but do realize that in order to convince of the validity of your complaints, you'll have to also demonstrate a little knowledge of the thing you abhor.
Although I have done almost zero research on the Amazon "One Click" patent, I imagine it is crafted precisely to the letter of the patent law. However, I take strong objection to the existence of any such law that would grant an entity exclusive right to such an obvious process, for a term of 20 years none the less. It's infuriating. Especially when you consider all the underlying technology that makes such a simple process even possible.
Ah, Steven Colbert would be proud. I understand that you feel infuriated, but you've basically summarized Colbert's "I don't need facts, I FEEL the truth" rigamarole. Friendly suggestion - maybe by becoming more informed about the patent system, that feeling of infuriation would turn into a focused critique?
Don't like it? Neither do I.
I'd be more than happy to write a crash course in patent topics in the right forum. Clearly it's not Slashdot - I'd rather flame people occasionally than be the first jerk thrown to the lions trying to be helpful. My stance on the patent system has never been the topic of discussion here, and I certainly have my criticisms of it. Do you think that raising the general level of knowledge about the patent system would improve or harm the Slashdot community? In my opinion, it's teetering on baseless and blind ignorant hatred on the topic of patents. It would be hard to screw that up. Any suggestions?
Here's why you're wrong.
The claim language defines the scope of patent protection. MPEP 608.01(i)
Regardless of whether you believe the claim text is "obtuse," it is the only part of the patent that governs whether or not something infringes. The criticality of each word cannot be overstated. For example, the difference between the words "comprising" and "consisting" is monumental. MPEP 2111.03
Can you figure out what I'm driving at? You cannot "strip down" the text of a claim and form a valid conclusion about anything. The claim describes a portable music player. Your argument does not. Apples and oranges.
Is there anyone out there who still thinks that patents foster more innovation than they stifle?
Basically everybody except the deliberately ignorant Slashdotters who incessantly stroke each other's egos by moderating absurdly inaccurate posts to +5. Are you one of the deliberately ignorant? Did you follow the links I posted? Did you read what you found? If so, congratulations - you have taken a few steps toward actually understanding the thing that you apparently hate.
I'm not a historian, but I think history tells us that it's better to understand the things you hate rather than to misrepresent them or hate them out of blind fear and ignorance.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a historian. I do know that if you choose to blindly hate something you don't understand, you won't be alone in the history of the world. There's definitely prior art for that, comrade.
Yes.
If so, did you read the claims you linked to? It's basically two data structures: A tree consisting of 1)a virtual root node (supercontainer), that shows a 2)set of 3)containers, each containing 4)items. The other structure is a list.
Uh, thanks for your insight, I guess. In addition to being a programmer, I'm also up to my neck in the patent system on a daily basis. (That doesn't mean I read about it in the newspapers, that means I participate in patent prosecution with the patent office on a daily basis.)
As the claims progress, the patent makes it clearer and clearer that you can navigate down into the tree, and select items and collections to add to the playlist. Furthermore, it employs polymorphism to make clear that containers can also be playlists and whatnot.
"As the claims progress" they get narrower and narrower, i.e. smaller and smaller in scope. This is required by 35 USC 112 fourth paragraph. What I'm saying is that if the 1st claim is patentable over the prior art, the subsequent claims are also allowable over the prior art because they are MORE specific. So it could be polymorphism - who cares? Why don't we focus on the broader topic - the first claim - before celebrating the narrower topics?
How is this non-obvious? As for the prior art people keep jesting about to varying degrees of seriousness, that very prior art ought demonstrate that this is obvious. Hell, I'm no top-notch programmer, but even I could have pulled this off my junior year in college (which was before the filing date).
(I'm honestly trying to be helpful here.) Your argument is non sequitur, but it's not your fault. You begin with the issue of "non-obvious" in the patent system, and conclude with "simplicity". In Slashdot and the dictionary, these concepts are VERY close. However, in the patent system, "obviousness" has literally nothing to do with simplicity.
Here's a link: MPEP 2143. If you're really interested, read the next couple of sections as well.
You'll note that nothing about "obviousness" hinges on simplicity. In patents, "obvious" is requires a combination of things found in the prior art as well as other criteria.
So as you can see, your argument is non sequitur. Maybe this patent IS a simple idea, but that's completely irrelevant. Hell the patent office has an entire classification system for "bottles and jars". That's not exactly high technology to most people, but luckily for jar inventors, "being complicated" is not a requirement of patentability.
Calling Slashdot the Fox News of patent stories is a nice red herring - if you want to maintain that, please give us a point-by-point analysis on in which ways this is.
Right... How about you do your homework and I'll do mine. I'm not morally obliged to hold your hand through every accurate observation I toss out.
However, here's a start - read through my posting history. You'll find that I'm either 1) off the topic of patents, 2) flaming someone, or 3) illustrating that basically nobody on Slashdot has any clue about how the patent system works. If you want the point-by-point analysis, then you can spend the time collecting the evidence.
(I'll give you a hint as to how it may differ: Fox News is a TV broadcasting medium - the channel chooses what to send. Slashdot is a set of links to stories that a bunch of people throw in their two cents on including you and I.)
Ok, I'll bite at this one. Fox News regurgitates public opinion as purportedly correct or accurate which creates a closed-loop system that simply reinforces ignorant, emotional decision making and actively squashes critical analysis. This is precisely what Slashdot does about patents. The posts are wildly inaccurate and full of ignorance, they are moderated as "Insightful"
Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but it is not the claims from the patent. If you'd like to respond, I'm going to require that you read the claims of the patent because otherwise you are literally wasting my time. Here is the link. The Patent
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work.
First, you are apparently unaware of a JMOL for clearly unreasonable patent infringement suits. Secondly, it's called "a defense". Technically it's optional.
Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented.
It's called "patent prosecution" and it's the only way to get a patent in the United States. Clever idea.
The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.
(I've already deleted 100 lines of flame but let me say) I don't believe for a second that you have the slightest idea what is or is not a valid patent. Secondly, I don't think you have put any thought whatsoever into how you would prove or disprove this at a trial from scratch. (I say my patent is valid. We're done. Oh no - suddenly someone has to prove it's INVALID - we're right back to the problem you claim to have solved.) I think that you are unaware that patent prosecution before the patent office takes anywhere from 2-6 years. You suggest we move that (or some variant) into the COURTROOM? Are you trolling? Thirdly, you have begun your paragraph with a groundless conclusion and end it the same way - how in God's name would this make trolling any more difficult? Under your system, I don't even need to WIN the infringement suit, I can simply tie up your exorbitantly expensive legal team for an additional 5 years. It's legal extortion at its best.
I know this post is not very nice but please bear in mind that what you've read is completely rewritten. I don't intend to flame, but I do think you're completely out of your element. The bottom line, for me, is that I really wish Slashdot would stop carrying stories about patents because misinformation and worse is consistently moderated to the top. Without a doubt, Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.
This method is: "The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album."
This is factually incorrect. Whatever you're quoting is not the patented method. Claim 1 of the patent in question (6,928,433) is:
1. A method of selecting at least one track from a plurality of tracks stored in a computer-readable medium of a portable media player configured to present sequentially a first, second, and third display screen on the display of the media player, the plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy, the hierarchy having a plurality of categories, subcategories, and items respectively in a first, second, and third level of the hierarchy, the method comprising: selecting a category in the first display screen of the portable media player; displaying the subcategories belonging to the selected category in a listing presented in the second display screen; selecting a subcategory in the second display screen; displaying the items belonging to the selected subcategory in a listing presented in the third display screen; and accessing at least one track based on a selection made in one of the display screens.
That took me 20 seconds to look up, copy, and paste.
+4 Interesting? Give me a break. Can we please just moderate every comment in these patent stories as "+5 Doesn't have the slightest idea"?
I mean, isn't that how the stuff is organized in the record store too?
Oddest f'n record store that accesses tracks in a display screen.
You clearly don't have much experience with the patent system. Every patent issued after 1997 will expire after 20 years from the filing date, at which point the subject matter contained therein becomes public domain. This is basic, basic stuff.
hell how much stuff has tons of prior art and is already in the public domain that companies and patent leeches are trying to patent & have succefully patented?
I'm not even sure that's a coherent sentence. Is that one question or two questions? I'll address it all at once by reiterating that you clearly don't have much experience with the patent system.
A completely thorough, comprehensive, second-only-to-God's-omnipotence prior art search costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Look at ANY patent infringement suit and you will find evidence of this fact. The patent office does a prior art search for about $1000. Stick with me here:
$1000 is less than $1,000,000
If you think you can get a completely thorough, comprehensive, second-only-to-God's-omnipotence prior art search for $1000, you are a fucking retard.
If you don't like my tone, then you know how I feel about yours. Here's a shock - when it comes to topics you don't know about, somebody somewhere is an expert. On that topic, they know what the hell they're talking about and you don't. That's a life lesson, free of charge.
If "it" is a natural phenomena, it is not subject to patent in the United States. Manual of Patent Examination Procedure - Section 2106 If "it" is a machine that converts a natural phenomena into traditional energy like electricity, then that machine could be patented but nothing stops you from developing improvements to it or an entirely different machine. Regardless, the patent for that machine would expire 20 years from its filing date and would then become public domain.
If you have a computer system on your desk, there are probably at least 100 different patented products on your desk. That hasn't barred you from owning and enjoying the technology, however. There would be an incredible demand for "free" energy, and therefore market forces would provide ample incentive for competing scientists to develop non-patented devices to harness that energy. Sure, there might be some nasty legal battles, but in the end the original inventor will be able to patent at best what he has contributed to the technology.
Yes, unless you've ever been involved with a journal publication, a research grant, or any other aspect of the field of mathematics. It's called "Gauss-Jordan Elimination" not because Gauss or Jordan were involved in developing the technique, but because those guys were a blast at parties. The "Newtonian Iterative method" of solving equations was actually named after a rude joke involving Sir Isaac Newton, a lewd woman, and a saw horse.
All that aside, you completely missed (whoosh) my point that Russia is not the West. Which means that perhaps this person is more interested in what his fellow Russian mathematicians (perhaps coworkers and friends) think than in where he sits in the estimation of some American researchers.
Yes, clearly, I was too caught up in reading the things that you typed rather than catching your point. Here's my advice to you - if your point was that Russia is not in the West, don't write a post about the values of Western civilization. Even the History Channel will tell you that the last 400 years of Russian history have been largely involved in embracing and competing with Western values. Beyond that simple fact, I don't know what the fuck you could have meant.
Now run along and find an anonymous journal author or a professor at a research institute who avoids putting his name on his graduate students' work.
No, it does not.
If you're referring to the Slashdot blurb, it notes that the guy has made an amazing contribution to mathematics but might not show up to be acknowledged by the community. That's remarkable regardless of the field - art, engineering, religion, philosophy, whatever. In the annals of history, the people who change the world generally take credit for their work. Maybe you think it's horrible to observe that, in addition to solving the problem, he did it for it's own sake? There is no "oozing" in the summary. You are not being insightful.
If you're referring to the article, it describes how the guy went to Russia and apparently isn't responding to emails. Again, this is unusual for someone who has solved a globally recognized difficult problem. You are not being insightful.
In my opinion, it's unfortunate that 4 or 5 people have spent their moderation points to label your post "insightful". It is not. A person merely needs a basic understanding of human nature to recognize that it's somewhat surprising that someone doesn't bother to take credit for changing the world in a positive way. From Mother Theresa to Gandhi, Bono to Einstein, Salk to Lincoln, these people appreciate being acknowledged for what they do. Even those whose contributions are at best debatable - Mao, Marx, Nobel (for the dynamite, not the prize), Oppenheimer, etc. - generally accept their due.
Fawning over Eastern mysticism and foreign culture is interesting to college freshmen. For most other people, it's simply old fashioned. But hey - know your audience and positive moderation will be yours.
And yes, taking away 1 of 4 options means losing 50% of the effectiveness. The reason is that the first 3 options are insufficient - they fail to properly express the food-flying-from-the-mouth outrage that is necessary to rationally convey their logic. That fourth escalation - all caps - is what cinches the deal. The sum is more than the parts.
However, you could get rid of legal correspondence. Hm..
Just a thought. I actually quit playing online RPGs altogether in large part because of the horrendous management of the online economies. In the game I played, the standard procedure for selling items WAS auctions, and it was customary to list a buyout price as well. It was fully non-anonymous, though, and you could just as easily hand the money and items to another player.
I think I like the OP's suggestion quite a lot.