It is sad that after 1 1/2 year, we are still talking about reforming the patent system, instead of actually doing something.
I've posted about this numerous times.
The first hurdle "we" face is that as a group defined by our membership or fandom of Slashdot, "we" don't know the first thing about how the patent system works. There are still people who do not understand that "obviousness", as regards patents, is based entirely upon evidence found in prior art, not some intangible concept of being "trivial" or "simple".
Add to that the deliberate ignorance of the patent system that is praised as though it were a virtue (just skim the responses to my posts about the patent system, and kindly overlook the occasions where I fly into a rage;) and you'll immediately understand why "we" are still merely talking about it.
Slashdot talking about the patent system is like Grandma and her friends talking about how AOL improved the internet.
I was saying the same thing last night when I was caught holding a bloody knife.
Everytime something like this happens there are unusual dead people discovered later on in the evening, and then people scream bloody murder that it is murder and demand immediate and overwhelming regulations be put in place right now.
g) The resulting incentives would cause practitioners to present overbroad claims in the initial examination phases, to guard client rights to present claims as well as from a sense of self-preservation. This would burden the USPTO, because examiners must examine and enter rejections of claims that otherwise would not have been presented
An overly broad claim is easy to reject. Think about it for a second. It's easy to find prior art for "an airplane". It's difficult to find prior art for a specific airplane feature. This does not require examiners to enter additional rejections, and that suggestion is, at best, bizarre. Figure out who is making those proposals and whose interests they're protecting. A claim requires 1 rejection. A broad claims requires 1 rejection. Their argument is absurd. Broad claims are merely easier to reject.
Moreover, if the examiner did a poor job and did not notice that the claim was overbroad, a patent could mistakenly issue with very broad claims, to the detriment of the public.
Oh so true. (Sidebar: there is no such thing as an "overbroad patent". The whole notion is silly. You're trying to refer to a patent claim for which prior art exists however a rejection was not made.) Think really hard about a patent claim for which prior art is readily available. Duh. DUR DUR DUH. That patent is worthless because it is trivial to invalidate. You show up in court, you present this readily available prior art, and you go home.
So, about these patent examiners screwing up all the time... How many patents do you hear about being invalidated because prior art was readily available? Present your answer as a percentage of the roughly 70,000 patents issued annually.
I take it, either you are not a patent examiner, or you are a patent examiner who does a poor job..
If I were you, I would start posting anonymously and tossing insults too, because you are clearly out of your element and, like I said 3 posts ago, know next to nothing about how the patent system works. I thought I was pretty polite the first time, but now you're asking to be slapped around a little. Take a hint. I'm more than happy to be informative but belligerent ignorance fails to inspire my helpful side.
Unfortunately the patent examiners are a bit stupid when it comes to software patents and hence overbroad software patents are being filed and approved.
What do you know about patents? From what you've already demonstrated, the answer is "next to nothing".
Please cite ANY legal basis for rejecting an "overbroad software patent". There is no such legal basis. That you believe such a concept might exists is evidence that you don't know much of anything about how the US patent system works.
That was my original point. Your response to my point provided evidence substantiating my point. Respond however you like, but I consider my point thoroughly proven and the discussion complete.
What's hilarious is that this is moderated insightful. It is foremost indicative of the general Slashdot understanding of the patent system.
Novel and non-obvious is a pretty succinct way of describing a bad idea. People rarely publish their stupid ideas; it reflects badly on the inventor. In fact, the best rule-of-thumb for patentability is how stupid an idea is. The worse the idea, the less likely it is that a patent examiner can prove it has been done before.
As some of the more astute posters have replied, there is ample motivation to produce an invention like this from, if nothing else, piles of science fiction novels. While that doesn't prove it can be done, there can be no argument that it would be obvious to try to make the invention, at least taken as a whole.
Since it is obviously a great idea for an invention (even a typical Slashdot reader can recognize that) the patent application must be given the highest scrutiny possible. If it were a stupid idea, the resulting patent would be merely ornamental, and subsequently easier to secure.
In summary, when I compare what I read on Slashdot about the patent system to facts, I find it quite humorous. There is no comparison. I respectfully urge interested Slashdot readers to skim the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, particularly chapter 2100 (more specifically, 2141, 2143, 2144, 2164 to get started).
I fully expect to be flamed for this post, as is customary when someone with actual experience or expertise posts about the patent system. I clearly don't care about that or I would have quit long posting about patents long abo. My point is this: Nobody with any knowledge of the patent system will ever listen to anything coming from Slashdot until it exhibits a basic understanding of the system it criticizes. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to educate yourselves. More to the point at hand, there is absolutely no legal requirement that a patent should be denied to a simple or stupid invention. If you think that "obviousness" refutes that, please read MPEP 2143 and 2144 to understand why that is incorrect.
Re:#9: Immersion and the invisible hand of God
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
This annoyed the hell out of me in the Everquest for the PS2 (the only version of Everquest I'll admit to having played, thank you). There was no jumping and the camera angles were so constricting that playing the game eventually made me feel claustrophobic.. in expansive outdoor environments.
The only way I could escape that was jumping off of cliffs or off the top of the Dark Elf cave. They have a huge skull shaped mountain entrance, and there is (or was) a way to climb up to the very top of it and jump off the front.
That was about the funniest and most amusing thing you could do in Everquest on the PS2. I am deadly serious. That game disables large portions of your brain.
It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.
So?
Yeah, they don't...
Please look up "coherent" and "argument". Try www.onelook.com.
The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.
You do not understand what a persuasive argument is. Neither 35 USC nor 37 CFR mention a "cotton gin", "cathode ray tube", "teflon", or "rocket ship". You have successfully demonstrated that you do not have a functional understanding of the difference between the intentionally broad "statutory basis" of 35 USC and the very specific guidance of case law. You have clearly persuaded me that you can cite numerous references, without adequate understanding of the topic, and then expect me to be so dazzled by copious amounts of dull information that I won't detect that you're argument is complete bullshit puked forth from your equally impressive brain.
See how easy that is? If you don't want to talk about the facts, I won't talk about the facts.
They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.
You can't even write a coherent argument about the bad law. No, I'm not going to read through your references and find that argument for you. You don't understand what makes an effective argument, therefore you provide a pile of references and hope that something in there might support your opinion. Bzzt. You lose. You have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate this idea about the USPTO supporting bad laws.
The most miserable thing is that it's not even an opinion with which I completely disagree, but I'm foremost appalled at what you present as an argument.
Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.
You misspelled "baffle-with-facts". In response, I have my own responsibilities. If other people are not smart enough to keep up with the topic, it's not my responsibility when they look like morons for opening their mouths. If you're baffled by the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 35 USC, or 37 CFR, you probably should have shut up a few posts ago.
As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them.
That's funny. The "field" is patent law. The "experts" are software engineers. We could make a Sesame Street skit out of this. Hey kids, does "patent law" equal "software engineering"? Get some colorful puppets to sing a little song about how cats and dogs are different, boats and cars are different, apples and oranges are different and so on. Oh yeah, but seriously, with all due respect, you make a compelling point that I haven't laughed at previously on several occasions. Keep up the insightful diatribe!
It doesn't matter where they came from, it's the result that matter and the results are TRASH with companies wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on bogus patent claims.
Well, in fairness, a 3rd grade social studies textbook probably wouldn't fill you in on the complex mechanics of case law. You'd probably need at least a middle school social studies text book. You've heard of things like "Brown v. Board of Education", which was a court decision that changed how law in the US functions.
I know I've been an ass, but now I'm being informative. Listen closely.
35 USC works just fine for basically every technology under the sun except for softwa
Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.
If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded. Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability. The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government.
If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.
But seriously, I'd love it if you showed me that you know what you're talking about by discussing one of those patents you linked. Of course, I'm clearly baiting you into looking like a dumbass, but you'll have to ask yourself with whom the blame for that truly lies.
Note that 35 USC 102 is novel inventions, 103 is non-obvious inventions, 104 is foreign inventions, and 105 is inventions in outer space. It's no more than 2 statutes away from the critically misunderstood non-obvious inventions statute.
I apologize for sounding like I'm ranting on you. It's not you, it's just that it's really hard to have a positive, upbeat attitude when disseminating information about the US Patent system around Slashdot. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who IS informed about how the patent system actually works and I hope you'll understand.
Then stop. I don't think too many people treat Slashdot as a source for informed legal opinion (and those who do are fools), but rather, one can get a sense of what people (specifically the geeks who read/.) think about an issue. -David
What they think about an issue is essentially based in fantasy, rooted in media misinformation, and basically devoid of any factual understanding. My disclaimer should have indicated that I was offering my opinion for the benefits of discussion rather than to reprimand you.
Lotus CC:Mail in the late 90's did this, as did all of the early mail apps which had to contend with Internet vs. FIDOnet vs. etc... networks. -David Barak
Then why didn't you submit this under 37 CFR 1.99?
I haven't read the prosecution history for that patent, have you? Just an observation. Neither of us know of Lotus was used (and defeated) as prior art. Just an observation.
I don't know if you're trained to perform a legal analysis of prior art, or if you have even a passing knowledge of 35 USC 102 or 103 and the volumes of case law surrounding those statutes. It does require at least a basic knowledge of these things to make even an initial judgement of what is anticipatory or teaching prior art.
I'm not deliberately trying to be an ass, but there is such a cataclysmic misunderstanding of US patent statutes and case law around Slashdot that I really wish they'd quit carrying the stories - As an IP professional, I hereby certify that Slashdot is a more reputable forum for prenatal medicine than the US patent system. (Hell, there are even people who believe that the "obvious" doctrine of 35 USC 103 is not completely and wholly based on the existence of prior art. See for yourselves MPEP 2143, the manual for proving something is obvious. "References" refers to prior art.) I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but instead trying to balance the offering of Lotus as prior art with the thought that maybe, just maybe, the existence of Lotus is not a valid point of criticism of this patent unless we have seen the prosecution record.
It's a little sad that most people still don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration. When I first read about the Scientific Revolution as a kid, the writer spent a lot of time sneering at medieval scholars who stubornly stuck to Aristotle's physics despite all the experimental evidence showing that it was wrong. But as far as most people are concerned (including the script writers on Star Trek) Aristotle has never been debunked.
Ha, that's easy for a level 7 magic user to say! Some people simply don't have the high INT scores to understand the difference between speed and acceleration. That's why they're so BAD at using a bow and arrow, or even a sling (even level 1 wizards can use a sling hahaa). Anyway, after slaying this sweet dragon last week, I found like a million +2 INT hats. Maybe I should sell them and get rich then everyone would know the difference between acceleration and speed and you wouldn't have a reason to be so sad.
Btw, that was a hilarious email forward you sent me about "10 ways warriors are dumb". You should add a new one to the list 11) Warriors can't even name five flaws in Aristotle's physics!! haha So is your mom still mad or can we play at your house again on Tuesday?
Most of what you'd want to protect is covered by copyright. If it can't be covered by copyright, well, then it's something so basic (like "the dog is big") that it's almost impossible to express something without doing it that way.
I'm sorry, but this is not insightful, it is entirely separated from reality. The "derivative works" protection by copyright is wholly inadequate when considering software. The Obfuscated C contests are an hyperbolic, yet poignant example of this. I'm not entirely happy with software patents myself, however to claim that copyright adequately protects software is completely removed from reality.
This is Slashdot. Here, "unpopular with the square community" is equivalent to "thoughtful, interesting, and founded on bedrock of pure virtue". This has two results. First, tossing the word "pseudo-intellectual" into a Slashdot thread is like tossing several pounds of potassium into a small pond. Secondly, although Slashdot (as a community) couldn't spot "communism" unless a naked Karl Marx with the words "CLASS STRUGGLE" painted on his hairy corpse rose from the dead and began to breakdance, Slashdot (as a community) has figured out that "communism" is unpopular and therefore "thoughtful, interesting, and founded on bedrock of pure virtue".
Therefore, while it is probabally inaccurate to say that Slashdot likes communism, it's right on the money to say that Slashdot likes "communism".
Me? I read only for the highly informative content. No doubt some very clever individual will pedantically remark about the various virtues of Marxism, such as mandatory public education, and how communism in practice differs from Marxism. What an interesting horse that hasn't been entirely beaten to death!
PS - Moderators are pseudo-intellectuals. No need to thank me, that one was free.;)
What about your moral obligation to your fellow man? Doesn't that extend to workers outside of the USA?
That's so thoughtful that I can't even tell if you're being ironic. If you're seriously asking that question, be advised that a person with a passing knowledge of history and economics, such as myself, cannot ascertain whether you are being ironic. The question is exactly that interesting.
You for got to clearly mark your post with "To be read in the voice of the comic book store guy from the Simpson's."
For crying out loud, could anything be more pedestrian and uninteresting than a discussion of the distinguishing features of "laptops" and "notebooks"?
Well, if everybody owned a factory, what would the price of your bland manufactured good be?
Not very much.
When everybody has a compiler, what is your bland piece of software worth?
Not very much.
Without entering into whether or not it's right, the GPL definitely raises the bar on what makes a marketable piece of software. I think the everybody-owns-the-factory analogy is pretty appropriate.
Once upon a time, people made a living by delivering ice to your home. Now we have freezers and make our own ice. What kind of money can you make delivering ice?
Not very much.
Does that mean you should attack the freezer manufacturers or does it mean you should find a better way of doing business?
Apparently, the answer to that question will be decided in a court of law rather than the court of common sense.
You know, I have watched hundreds of mevies wherein I *knew* a couple had sex, but it was not depicted explicity, yet this did not detract one bit from the movie's entertainment value.
I agree.
So, if these scenes were edited out of a movie before I saw it, I would not miss them.
Fantastic for you.
If the movie is well made with an entertaining story line, the gratuitous scenes are not necessary.
I'm not running to a dictionary at the moment, but I believe the meaning of "gratuitous" pretty much implies that it is unnecessary.
Further, all the hand-wringing over the artist's "rights" is a crock. Untalented "artists" try to compensate for lack of talent with sensational special effects, gore, sex, etc. Most of them should study the classics (Citizen Caine, Casablanca, The Magnificant Seven, et al) and get a clue about what real artists do.
This is farsical. For example, the blood in the suicide scene of Full Metal Jacket is a critical component to the impact of the entire movie. It is a mature movie with mature themes and presents an extremely intimate study of human life and death. Private Pyle didn't just flip out; he didn't just shoot himself; Private Pyle was dehumanized beyond what he could handle and blew his skull out against a tiled bathroom wall. It is a mature theme wherein a critically flawed and completely human character reaches the end of his story with an utterly broken and fractured finality that can only be done justice by bearing witness to his final moment.
And someone somewhere would call that scene gratuitous and suggest that nothing would be lost by editing out the blood. In my opinion, doing so would rob that character of his human tragedy and piss upon his dignity. The man was demolished; the least we can do is not hide ourselves from the gruesomeness of his death.
And even if you agree about Full Metal Jacket, what about other Kubrick films like A Clockwork Orange, which was a study in gratuitous violence? It's my opinion that A Clockwork Orange is one of the only true looks at how the depravity of self-righteous government and respectable people outpaces the depravity of a vicious criminal. That movie was protested and pulled from theaters, but in my mind the message that sadism is both more pervasive and wickedly subtle than mere graphic violence completely outweighs the awkwardness or discomfort some people had at seeing naked girls or "gratuitous violence".
Artist's rights are a crock? Spare me. Do me a favor and don't watch. I'd prefer to allow my sensibility and intellect be challenged by what an artist has created than to be comforted knowing that someone has turned the artist's message into something that conforms with what they say I should watch. What kind of creepy world is that where an adversary to an artist controls what I see? Which scenario is the greater evil, gratuitous violence or filtered art? If that's not an obscenely obvious answer, maybe it's time to watch A Clockwork Orange again.
Make an edited version of a film if you like but clearly label it so that my worldview isn't damaged by the dangerous subversiveness of covert censorship. I'd never go so far as to deny another man his poison, but let's keep it clearly labeled for the safety of everyone. I'd only expect the same of those who disagree with me.
You might find it worth your time to consult your company's lawyer and direct them to 37 CFR 1.99
Patent examiners are generally given about 10 hours to conduct a prior art search. If they find it, they find it. If they don't, they go home to their families and private lives at the end of the day like anyone else. If you have a financial interest in the prior art, make a simple submission under 37 CFR 1.99. If you have non-secret information, like publicly available product manuals, blue prints, or other extremely detailed documentation, you can probably skip the legal fees and submit the references yourself.
Either way, spending $10-$500 now to make sure that the examiner definitely sees your references is money well spent if the application reads directly on your business interests.
Surely the requirement for inventions not to be obvious would prevent this patent from being granted.
I've said this countless times and my goal is to be eventually moderated Redundant instead of alternating between Troll and Informative.
[Crash course]"Obvious" as regards a US patent means that you can produce multiple pieces of prior that can be combined to produce the claimed invention, AND you have documented motivation in the prior art (very preferably in one of those references).[/Crash course]
Many people seem to think that "obviousness" as regards patents has to do with "how hard it was to come up with", "how stupid the idea is", or "how trivial the invention is". This is complete fantasy.
"Obviousness", as regards the US patent system, merely means that no single piece of prior art teaches the entire invention (that would be an issue of novelty). In this case, you would need to find prior art references that teach something along the lines of illuminating a toilet as well as WHY ON EARTH someone would want to illuminate a toilet. That hurdle crossed, illuminating with LEDs would be the easy part, as there are numerous sources documenting the advantages of LEDs over other light sources.
I'm not trying to rant on you, but I've posted this little (extremely well) known secret about the US patent system at least 25 times in the last 5 months. It's not you, it's me;)
And I'm not saying that this won't be rejected under 35 USC 103 (obvious), but I'm definitely not an expert in the shit-bowl illumination technology. Actually, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if somebody from Japan invented this exact same thing 10 years ago. Something about this idea strikes me as distinctly Japanese, no offense intended to our robot-dog-making schoolgirl-anime-loving generally-culturally-insane Japanese friends.
I like the recursive nature of this item though, maybe the guy is a GNU fan.
That's a trivial issue under 35 USC 112, second or fourth paragraph (depending on how the examiner chooses to deal with it) for an improper dependent claim. If he can figure out what it's supposed to depend upon, he'll probably use fourth paragraph and require correction. If he can't figure out what it's supposed to depend upon, he'll probably use second paragraph to basically say, "I cannot figure out WTF you are trying to claim, correction is respectfully required."
See, the patent system is so easy to understand, everybody CAN be an expert.
Because he invented something, and the one right granted by the original Constitution was his right to seek patent protection for disclosing it.
Is it to extort money from others that come up with the same idea independently, simply because you patented it first?
It sounds like you would deny this man his Consitutional right to a patent. There is a word for trampling the rights of an individual for the sake of the masses, of course.
If you file a patent, and then worry about others potentially using it without your permission 19 years later... well, I simply disagree that this is the 'limited monopoly' that the founders envisioned.
And if that's what you say, then I simply disagree that you understand how and why the patent system was designed. Of course, I'm only speaking as a person who has read the majority of the manual of patent examining procedure, has read thousands of patents, has performed hundreds of legally justified prior art searches, and is paid to write patentability opinions. You have a much lower UID than I; you're clearly the expert among us.
It sounds more like a lottery ticket, which this suit reeks of.
I agree. Sometimes it sucks, but that's how the system has always been designed. Suppose you invent something that's 15 years ahead of its time. Nobody even wants to use it for 15 years. As you have explained, a patriot like yourself would deny that inventor his Constitutional rights to a patent as punishment for inventing something 15 years ahead of its time. Ya know, some governments have shot people for wearing glasses - it was a sign that they were educated and a potential threat to the ruling class. They also trampled the rights of a few for the sake of the masses.
Suppose you patent something, meaning it has been published and publicly disclosed. Maybe you're licensing it to CorpA for 15 years, or maybe you're not licensing it to anybody because you don't want to or you didn't know anybody was using it. Again, a fine patriot such as yourself would deny the inventor his Constitutional right to benefit from his intellectual endeavor and contribution to US technology. Bravo! Definitely forward thinking on your part.
Thanks for the insight. Wow, I'm really convinced that you're the reasonable person and my way of thinking was WAY out of line. Oops - I wouldn't want to admit to any thoughtcrime, would I? I'll just keep my head down and pray to Leader that I don't accidentially invent anything that's 15 years ahead of its time.
And remember kids, books are bad. If you read a book like the MPEP then you would unlearn all the dogma spouted by people who are not experts in patent law, and then you'd switch to the evil side, the side with facts and understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
I've posted about this numerous times.
The first hurdle "we" face is that as a group defined by our membership or fandom of Slashdot, "we" don't know the first thing about how the patent system works. There are still people who do not understand that "obviousness", as regards patents, is based entirely upon evidence found in prior art, not some intangible concept of being "trivial" or "simple".
Add to that the deliberate ignorance of the patent system that is praised as though it were a virtue (just skim the responses to my posts about the patent system, and kindly overlook the occasions where I fly into a rage ;) and you'll immediately understand why "we" are still merely talking about it.
Slashdot talking about the patent system is like Grandma and her friends talking about how AOL improved the internet.
In some cultures of human beings, it's considered indecent if one is not pierced. -OMFG +1 INTERESTING
But not THIS CULTURE.
OMFG +5 INSIGHTFUL!!!111ONEONeone
Everytime something like this happens there are unusual dead people discovered later on in the evening, and then people scream bloody murder that it is murder and demand immediate and overwhelming regulations be put in place right now.
An overly broad claim is easy to reject. Think about it for a second. It's easy to find prior art for "an airplane". It's difficult to find prior art for a specific airplane feature. This does not require examiners to enter additional rejections, and that suggestion is, at best, bizarre. Figure out who is making those proposals and whose interests they're protecting. A claim requires 1 rejection. A broad claims requires 1 rejection. Their argument is absurd. Broad claims are merely easier to reject.
Moreover, if the examiner did a poor job and did not notice that the claim was overbroad, a patent could mistakenly issue with very broad claims, to the detriment of the public.
Oh so true. (Sidebar: there is no such thing as an "overbroad patent". The whole notion is silly. You're trying to refer to a patent claim for which prior art exists however a rejection was not made.) Think really hard about a patent claim for which prior art is readily available. Duh. DUR DUR DUH. That patent is worthless because it is trivial to invalidate. You show up in court, you present this readily available prior art, and you go home.
So, about these patent examiners screwing up all the time... How many patents do you hear about being invalidated because prior art was readily available? Present your answer as a percentage of the roughly 70,000 patents issued annually.
I take it, either you are not a patent examiner, or you are a patent examiner who does a poor job..
If I were you, I would start posting anonymously and tossing insults too, because you are clearly out of your element and, like I said 3 posts ago, know next to nothing about how the patent system works. I thought I was pretty polite the first time, but now you're asking to be slapped around a little. Take a hint. I'm more than happy to be informative but belligerent ignorance fails to inspire my helpful side.
What do you know about patents? From what you've already demonstrated, the answer is "next to nothing".
Please cite ANY legal basis for rejecting an "overbroad software patent". There is no such legal basis. That you believe such a concept might exists is evidence that you don't know much of anything about how the US patent system works.
That was my original point. Your response to my point provided evidence substantiating my point. Respond however you like, but I consider my point thoroughly proven and the discussion complete.
Novel and non-obvious is a pretty succinct way of describing a bad idea. People rarely publish their stupid ideas; it reflects badly on the inventor. In fact, the best rule-of-thumb for patentability is how stupid an idea is. The worse the idea, the less likely it is that a patent examiner can prove it has been done before.
As some of the more astute posters have replied, there is ample motivation to produce an invention like this from, if nothing else, piles of science fiction novels. While that doesn't prove it can be done, there can be no argument that it would be obvious to try to make the invention, at least taken as a whole.
Since it is obviously a great idea for an invention (even a typical Slashdot reader can recognize that) the patent application must be given the highest scrutiny possible. If it were a stupid idea, the resulting patent would be merely ornamental, and subsequently easier to secure.
In summary, when I compare what I read on Slashdot about the patent system to facts, I find it quite humorous. There is no comparison. I respectfully urge interested Slashdot readers to skim the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, particularly chapter 2100 (more specifically, 2141, 2143, 2144, 2164 to get started).
I fully expect to be flamed for this post, as is customary when someone with actual experience or expertise posts about the patent system. I clearly don't care about that or I would have quit long posting about patents long abo. My point is this: Nobody with any knowledge of the patent system will ever listen to anything coming from Slashdot until it exhibits a basic understanding of the system it criticizes. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to educate yourselves. More to the point at hand, there is absolutely no legal requirement that a patent should be denied to a simple or stupid invention. If you think that "obviousness" refutes that, please read MPEP 2143 and 2144 to understand why that is incorrect.
The only way I could escape that was jumping off of cliffs or off the top of the Dark Elf cave. They have a huge skull shaped mountain entrance, and there is (or was) a way to climb up to the very top of it and jump off the front.
That was about the funniest and most amusing thing you could do in Everquest on the PS2. I am deadly serious. That game disables large portions of your brain.
So?
Yeah, they don't...
Please look up "coherent" and "argument". Try www.onelook.com.
The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.
You do not understand what a persuasive argument is. Neither 35 USC nor 37 CFR mention a "cotton gin", "cathode ray tube", "teflon", or "rocket ship". You have successfully demonstrated that you do not have a functional understanding of the difference between the intentionally broad "statutory basis" of 35 USC and the very specific guidance of case law. You have clearly persuaded me that you can cite numerous references, without adequate understanding of the topic, and then expect me to be so dazzled by copious amounts of dull information that I won't detect that you're argument is complete bullshit puked forth from your equally impressive brain.
See how easy that is? If you don't want to talk about the facts, I won't talk about the facts.
They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.
You can't even write a coherent argument about the bad law. No, I'm not going to read through your references and find that argument for you. You don't understand what makes an effective argument, therefore you provide a pile of references and hope that something in there might support your opinion. Bzzt. You lose. You have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate this idea about the USPTO supporting bad laws.
The most miserable thing is that it's not even an opinion with which I completely disagree, but I'm foremost appalled at what you present as an argument.
Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.
You misspelled "baffle-with-facts". In response, I have my own responsibilities. If other people are not smart enough to keep up with the topic, it's not my responsibility when they look like morons for opening their mouths. If you're baffled by the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 35 USC, or 37 CFR, you probably should have shut up a few posts ago.
As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them.
That's funny. The "field" is patent law. The "experts" are software engineers. We could make a Sesame Street skit out of this. Hey kids, does "patent law" equal "software engineering"? Get some colorful puppets to sing a little song about how cats and dogs are different, boats and cars are different, apples and oranges are different and so on. Oh yeah, but seriously, with all due respect, you make a compelling point that I haven't laughed at previously on several occasions. Keep up the insightful diatribe!
It doesn't matter where they came from, it's the result that matter and the results are TRASH with companies wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on bogus patent claims.
Well, in fairness, a 3rd grade social studies textbook probably wouldn't fill you in on the complex mechanics of case law. You'd probably need at least a middle school social studies text book. You've heard of things like "Brown v. Board of Education", which was a court decision that changed how law in the US functions.
I know I've been an ass, but now I'm being informative. Listen closely.
35 USC works just fine for basically every technology under the sun except for softwa
If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded. Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability. The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government.
If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.
But seriously, I'd love it if you showed me that you know what you're talking about by discussing one of those patents you linked. Of course, I'm clearly baiting you into looking like a dumbass, but you'll have to ask yourself with whom the blame for that truly lies.
35 USC 105
Note that 35 USC 102 is novel inventions, 103 is non-obvious inventions, 104 is foreign inventions, and 105 is inventions in outer space. It's no more than 2 statutes away from the critically misunderstood non-obvious inventions statute.
I apologize for sounding like I'm ranting on you. It's not you, it's just that it's really hard to have a positive, upbeat attitude when disseminating information about the US Patent system around Slashdot. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who IS informed about how the patent system actually works and I hope you'll understand.
Have a great weekend.
What they think about an issue is essentially based in fantasy, rooted in media misinformation, and basically devoid of any factual understanding. My disclaimer should have indicated that I was offering my opinion for the benefits of discussion rather than to reprimand you.
Then why didn't you submit this under 37 CFR 1.99?
I haven't read the prosecution history for that patent, have you? Just an observation. Neither of us know of Lotus was used (and defeated) as prior art. Just an observation.
I don't know if you're trained to perform a legal analysis of prior art, or if you have even a passing knowledge of 35 USC 102 or 103 and the volumes of case law surrounding those statutes. It does require at least a basic knowledge of these things to make even an initial judgement of what is anticipatory or teaching prior art.
I'm not deliberately trying to be an ass, but there is such a cataclysmic misunderstanding of US patent statutes and case law around Slashdot that I really wish they'd quit carrying the stories - As an IP professional, I hereby certify that Slashdot is a more reputable forum for prenatal medicine than the US patent system. (Hell, there are even people who believe that the "obvious" doctrine of 35 USC 103 is not completely and wholly based on the existence of prior art. See for yourselves MPEP 2143, the manual for proving something is obvious. "References" refers to prior art.) I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but instead trying to balance the offering of Lotus as prior art with the thought that maybe, just maybe, the existence of Lotus is not a valid point of criticism of this patent unless we have seen the prosecution record.
Ha, that's easy for a level 7 magic user to say! Some people simply don't have the high INT scores to understand the difference between speed and acceleration. That's why they're so BAD at using a bow and arrow, or even a sling (even level 1 wizards can use a sling hahaa). Anyway, after slaying this sweet dragon last week, I found like a million +2 INT hats. Maybe I should sell them and get rich then everyone would know the difference between acceleration and speed and you wouldn't have a reason to be so sad.
Btw, that was a hilarious email forward you sent me about "10 ways warriors are dumb". You should add a new one to the list 11) Warriors can't even name five flaws in Aristotle's physics!! haha So is your mom still mad or can we play at your house again on Tuesday?
I'm sorry, but this is not insightful, it is entirely separated from reality. The "derivative works" protection by copyright is wholly inadequate when considering software. The Obfuscated C contests are an hyperbolic, yet poignant example of this. I'm not entirely happy with software patents myself, however to claim that copyright adequately protects software is completely removed from reality.
No offense intended, and have a great weekend.
Dear sir,
This is Slashdot. Here, "unpopular with the square community" is equivalent to "thoughtful, interesting, and founded on bedrock of pure virtue". This has two results. First, tossing the word "pseudo-intellectual" into a Slashdot thread is like tossing several pounds of potassium into a small pond. Secondly, although Slashdot (as a community) couldn't spot "communism" unless a naked Karl Marx with the words "CLASS STRUGGLE" painted on his hairy corpse rose from the dead and began to breakdance, Slashdot (as a community) has figured out that "communism" is unpopular and therefore "thoughtful, interesting, and founded on bedrock of pure virtue".
Therefore, while it is probabally inaccurate to say that Slashdot likes communism, it's right on the money to say that Slashdot likes "communism".
Me? I read only for the highly informative content. No doubt some very clever individual will pedantically remark about the various virtues of Marxism, such as mandatory public education, and how communism in practice differs from Marxism. What an interesting horse that hasn't been entirely beaten to death!
PS - Moderators are pseudo-intellectuals. No need to thank me, that one was free. ;)
That's so thoughtful that I can't even tell if you're being ironic. If you're seriously asking that question, be advised that a person with a passing knowledge of history and economics, such as myself, cannot ascertain whether you are being ironic. The question is exactly that interesting.
For crying out loud, could anything be more pedestrian and uninteresting than a discussion of the distinguishing features of "laptops" and "notebooks"?
Oh my god, what a compelling argument! QUICK +5 INFORMATIVE! wHAT'S an appropriate reply? You aren't the boss of me! This is a free coutnry!
Caps lock and spelling errors are both the result of alcohol and intentional.
Not very much.
When everybody has a compiler, what is your bland piece of software worth?
Not very much.
Without entering into whether or not it's right, the GPL definitely raises the bar on what makes a marketable piece of software. I think the everybody-owns-the-factory analogy is pretty appropriate.
Once upon a time, people made a living by delivering ice to your home. Now we have freezers and make our own ice. What kind of money can you make delivering ice?
Not very much.
Does that mean you should attack the freezer manufacturers or does it mean you should find a better way of doing business?
Apparently, the answer to that question will be decided in a court of law rather than the court of common sense.
You do not appear to fully understand the ramifications of censorship.
I agree.
So, if these scenes were edited out of a movie before I saw it, I would not miss them.
Fantastic for you.
If the movie is well made with an entertaining story line, the gratuitous scenes are not necessary.
I'm not running to a dictionary at the moment, but I believe the meaning of "gratuitous" pretty much implies that it is unnecessary.
Further, all the hand-wringing over the artist's "rights" is a crock. Untalented "artists" try to compensate for lack of talent with sensational special effects, gore, sex, etc. Most of them should study the classics (Citizen Caine, Casablanca, The Magnificant Seven, et al) and get a clue about what real artists do.
This is farsical. For example, the blood in the suicide scene of Full Metal Jacket is a critical component to the impact of the entire movie. It is a mature movie with mature themes and presents an extremely intimate study of human life and death. Private Pyle didn't just flip out; he didn't just shoot himself; Private Pyle was dehumanized beyond what he could handle and blew his skull out against a tiled bathroom wall. It is a mature theme wherein a critically flawed and completely human character reaches the end of his story with an utterly broken and fractured finality that can only be done justice by bearing witness to his final moment.
And someone somewhere would call that scene gratuitous and suggest that nothing would be lost by editing out the blood. In my opinion, doing so would rob that character of his human tragedy and piss upon his dignity. The man was demolished; the least we can do is not hide ourselves from the gruesomeness of his death.
And even if you agree about Full Metal Jacket, what about other Kubrick films like A Clockwork Orange, which was a study in gratuitous violence? It's my opinion that A Clockwork Orange is one of the only true looks at how the depravity of self-righteous government and respectable people outpaces the depravity of a vicious criminal. That movie was protested and pulled from theaters, but in my mind the message that sadism is both more pervasive and wickedly subtle than mere graphic violence completely outweighs the awkwardness or discomfort some people had at seeing naked girls or "gratuitous violence".
Artist's rights are a crock? Spare me. Do me a favor and don't watch. I'd prefer to allow my sensibility and intellect be challenged by what an artist has created than to be comforted knowing that someone has turned the artist's message into something that conforms with what they say I should watch. What kind of creepy world is that where an adversary to an artist controls what I see? Which scenario is the greater evil, gratuitous violence or filtered art? If that's not an obscenely obvious answer, maybe it's time to watch A Clockwork Orange again.
Make an edited version of a film if you like but clearly label it so that my worldview isn't damaged by the dangerous subversiveness of covert censorship. I'd never go so far as to deny another man his poison, but let's keep it clearly labeled for the safety of everyone. I'd only expect the same of those who disagree with me.
All that and more. The game is named for a felony.
Patent examiners are generally given about 10 hours to conduct a prior art search. If they find it, they find it. If they don't, they go home to their families and private lives at the end of the day like anyone else. If you have a financial interest in the prior art, make a simple submission under 37 CFR 1.99. If you have non-secret information, like publicly available product manuals, blue prints, or other extremely detailed documentation, you can probably skip the legal fees and submit the references yourself.
Either way, spending $10-$500 now to make sure that the examiner definitely sees your references is money well spent if the application reads directly on your business interests.
I've said this countless times and my goal is to be eventually moderated Redundant instead of alternating between Troll and Informative.
[Crash course]"Obvious" as regards a US patent means that you can produce multiple pieces of prior that can be combined to produce the claimed invention, AND you have documented motivation in the prior art (very preferably in one of those references).[/Crash course]
See for yourself: MPEP 2143
Many people seem to think that "obviousness" as regards patents has to do with "how hard it was to come up with", "how stupid the idea is", or "how trivial the invention is". This is complete fantasy.
"Obviousness", as regards the US patent system, merely means that no single piece of prior art teaches the entire invention (that would be an issue of novelty). In this case, you would need to find prior art references that teach something along the lines of illuminating a toilet as well as WHY ON EARTH someone would want to illuminate a toilet. That hurdle crossed, illuminating with LEDs would be the easy part, as there are numerous sources documenting the advantages of LEDs over other light sources.
I'm not trying to rant on you, but I've posted this little (extremely well) known secret about the US patent system at least 25 times in the last 5 months. It's not you, it's me ;)
And I'm not saying that this won't be rejected under 35 USC 103 (obvious), but I'm definitely not an expert in the shit-bowl illumination technology. Actually, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if somebody from Japan invented this exact same thing 10 years ago. Something about this idea strikes me as distinctly Japanese, no offense intended to our robot-dog-making schoolgirl-anime-loving generally-culturally-insane Japanese friends.
I like the recursive nature of this item though, maybe the guy is a GNU fan.
That's a trivial issue under 35 USC 112, second or fourth paragraph (depending on how the examiner chooses to deal with it) for an improper dependent claim. If he can figure out what it's supposed to depend upon, he'll probably use fourth paragraph and require correction. If he can't figure out what it's supposed to depend upon, he'll probably use second paragraph to basically say, "I cannot figure out WTF you are trying to claim, correction is respectfully required."
See, the patent system is so easy to understand, everybody CAN be an expert.
Why do you have the patent?
Because he invented something, and the one right granted by the original Constitution was his right to seek patent protection for disclosing it.
Is it to extort money from others that come up with the same idea independently, simply because you patented it first?
It sounds like you would deny this man his Consitutional right to a patent. There is a word for trampling the rights of an individual for the sake of the masses, of course.
If you file a patent, and then worry about others potentially using it without your permission 19 years later... well, I simply disagree that this is the 'limited monopoly' that the founders envisioned.
And if that's what you say, then I simply disagree that you understand how and why the patent system was designed. Of course, I'm only speaking as a person who has read the majority of the manual of patent examining procedure, has read thousands of patents, has performed hundreds of legally justified prior art searches, and is paid to write patentability opinions. You have a much lower UID than I; you're clearly the expert among us.
It sounds more like a lottery ticket, which this suit reeks of.
I agree. Sometimes it sucks, but that's how the system has always been designed. Suppose you invent something that's 15 years ahead of its time. Nobody even wants to use it for 15 years. As you have explained, a patriot like yourself would deny that inventor his Constitutional rights to a patent as punishment for inventing something 15 years ahead of its time. Ya know, some governments have shot people for wearing glasses - it was a sign that they were educated and a potential threat to the ruling class. They also trampled the rights of a few for the sake of the masses.
Suppose you patent something, meaning it has been published and publicly disclosed. Maybe you're licensing it to CorpA for 15 years, or maybe you're not licensing it to anybody because you don't want to or you didn't know anybody was using it. Again, a fine patriot such as yourself would deny the inventor his Constitutional right to benefit from his intellectual endeavor and contribution to US technology. Bravo! Definitely forward thinking on your part.
Thanks for the insight. Wow, I'm really convinced that you're the reasonable person and my way of thinking was WAY out of line. Oops - I wouldn't want to admit to any thoughtcrime, would I? I'll just keep my head down and pray to Leader that I don't accidentially invent anything that's 15 years ahead of its time.
And remember kids, books are bad. If you read a book like the MPEP then you would unlearn all the dogma spouted by people who are not experts in patent law, and then you'd switch to the evil side, the side with facts and understanding.
Seriously, I linked to the MPEP for a reason.