What was the motivation for allowing business method patents?
Re$t a$$ured, $everal $tudie$ were a$$e$$ed, illu$trating the nece$$ity of $oftware and bu$ine$$-method patent$. The$e $tudie$ were $upported and/or $pon$ored by heavyweight$ in the indu$try. Re$ult$ conclu$ively $how that $aid patent$ boo$t innovation, not $tifle competition.
The only reason you can say that is because you aren't applying the legal definition of obviousness.
Fair enough, but...
However, if you decide just throw out 100s of years of established law, make up your own definition of obviuosness [sic] and run around complaining about how this patent is obvious by your definition then you really aren't doing anything worthwhile.
I wouldn't say it's completely non-productive. Clearly, this demonstrates the clash between the "common sense obviousness" inherent in most people in a particular field, and the "must provide documentation obviousness" specified by the USPTO. I imagine that I am not alone.
The clearest example I can think of is using FFTs for MP3s. Somehow, there's a patent on a using a mathematical operation for a specific function, because there was no prior art referring to its use for compressing music files. Clearly, FFTs operate on waveforms, and most music files are repesented as waveforms by design. Again, to me this would seem "obvious". As you point out, the USPTO takes a separate view, one that may fly in the face of deductive reasoning.
By illustrating this clash, it certainly illustrates the need to reassess the criteria for obviousness, as you suggest.
So, points taken. Amazed and disappointed, but grudgingly recognized.
Why is it obvious to have a menu with different languages on a website selling products internationally? Why not just have separate sites placed in each country with only their specific lanugage. Further, why have currency be a menu selectable item?
You're still stuck in the mind-set of "we did it one way before" -- in this case, making separate web pages -- "so anything different must be non-obvious". Why is it obvious to have a drop-down list with different languages? Because the specification of the patent describes "international sales". Different countries with different languages. Simply moving those languages from a static page to a drop-down list does not make this "innovation" non-obvious.
This is another example of patenting "a method of creating a shopping list using a green sparkly pen" simply because shopping lists have always been made with blue pens before.
However, this patent isn't that cut and try [sic]. The patent can be 95% old material and still be issued based on that new 5%.
And what 5% is that? The drop-down box mentioned above? Hardly patent-worthy. Common sense.
I'm also saying that something isn't legally obvious just because you say it is, you need to have proof that it is obvious.
No. A patent has to be "non-obvious to a person with average skill in the same field of technology". This doesn't mean that somebody has to magically make a notebook appear full of notes -- prior art, if you will -- that pre-dates the patent. It means exactly what it states: that the patent must be non-obvious. Any group of respected people within that field should be able to say "this was obvious at the time".
Lack of prior art does not imply patentability. Certain things are simply non-patentable, including basic transactions with the words "using a computer" appended. A computer is a tool. You would never issue a patent for "building a box with a flathead screwdriver" and then another for "building a box with a philips screwdriver".
And until I see some concrete proof that this existed prior to 1996 I'll consider its obviousness (before December 30, 1996) to be undecided.
That simply means that the technology is outside of your field and/or timeframe. It does not imply that, for some of us who remember the technology in 1996, this claim has no merit.
I suggest reading this short snippet about impermissible hindsight.
I read it, but it does not apply. Consider:
The point in time that is critical for an obviousness determination is at the time the invention.
I am saying that in 1996, the time of the patent's application, it was obvious. It's not an issue of hindsight.
You yourself might want to review the definition of non-obviousness at the USPTO's website, rather than the determination of non-obviousness on random websites.
...this time provide dated proof that these concepts were obvious before December 30, 1996.
You're missing the point that several posters are trying to convey: the patent is obvious, and therefore, would/should not have been patented.
Are you seriously suggesting that the concept of selling something overseas, and using a computer to keep track of prices and related information, was non-obvious in December of 1996?
Hormel, the company behind Spam (the meat product, not the unsolicited email), is launching an advertising campaign in Europe...
I can see the marketing discussion now:
Marketer 1: "We need to get the word out about Hormel." Marketer 2: "Hey, I know! Why don't we email millions of people and remind them about our product!" Marketer 1: "Great idea! I've got some email addresses right here on this CD..."
My P3/600, 128MB ram... takes over 3 minutes to boot Windows '98 into a viewable state
If that's the case, you've either seriously messed up your computer with spyware and viruses, tried loading a thousand programs at boot, or you've got a nasty hardware problem, like a failing drive or defective memory. Seriously, there's no reason why Win98 should be taking that long to boot up.
I just finished cleaning up my sister's Win98 machine, which is a P2-233 with 64MB of memory, and it boots up to a fully-functional GUI in just under a minute-and-a-half.
Having said that, my dual-boot P4 machine boots Linux/KDE in just a wee bit longer than it boots XP, which is perfectly acceptable to me.
Well, I know a number of people who use the same password for their email, eBay, Paypal, etc. accounts. I imagine that, if a phisher obtained their eBay info, (s)he could then purchase piles of merchandise and charge it to their PayPal account. Or, even better, since the PayPal account would be accessible, simply make a sizeable monetary transfer that was subsequently withdrawn in cash. A fairly trivial example.
Yet another reason to make hard-to-crack passwords that vary across services, even if only by a few letters/numbers.
While not 10MB, Damn Small Linux at 50MB would be doable overnight.
Alternatively, you could try ordering a full set of Fedora, Mandrake, etc. CDs for under $5US, which is pretty minimal. Certainly within a budget for trying out a new OS.
The uses of "President", "George" and "Bush" are used just as much as "Senator," "John," and "Kerry."
Well, one fairly obvious flaw is as simple as analysing the terms. "George Bush" or "President Bush", for starters, could refer to either of the presidents by that name. "Senator Kerry", I warrant, is more specific, unless I'm missing another senator by that name who's been widely reported on recently. Both "John" and "George" on their own are too vague to count on for accurate search results.
I have a problem with Google blaming the algorythm
But the algorithm itself is unbiased. It entirely avoids political/social context -- leaving it to the reader -- in favour of page/article context. It bases articles on word/phrase occurrences, article lengths, and whatnot. Once you start throwing other things into the mix, you're going to introduce more bias than when you started.
Perhaps there are too many "alternative news networks" spreading nothing but biased coverage (for either side of the campaign). Perhaps weblogs should be included?
Weblogs don't provide biased coverage? Please. They're the prime offenders. I can't count the number of blogs I've seen ranting and raving about how Bush or Kerry are personally responsible for terrorist actions, economic turmoil, late pizza delivery, spontaneous human combustion, etc.
You'd think that, but I generally find articles appear like this one. Only at the beginning do they toss the "President" moniker out there.
Or, in general:
Earlier today, President George W. Bush did X. When asked about this, Bush commented "Y". Opposing groups criticized Bush for his stance on Z. Bush's staff had no comment on these accusations.
"I think what you're seeing is an odd little linguistic artifact," said Zuckerman, former vice president of Tripod.com and now a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society who studies search engines. The chief culprit, he theorized, is that mainstream news publications refer to the senator on second reference as Kerry, while alternative news sites often use the phrase "John Kerry" multiple times, for effect or derision. To Google News' eye, that's a more exact search result.
Seems reasonable enough to me. Most of the major news I catch does indeed refer to Kerry without his first name. Likewise for Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
What was the motivation for allowing business method patents?
Re$t a$$ured, $everal $tudie$ were a$$e$$ed, illu$trating the nece$$ity of $oftware and bu$ine$$-method patent$. The$e $tudie$ were $upported and/or $pon$ored by heavyweight$ in the indu$try. Re$ult$ conclu$ively $how that $aid patent$ boo$t innovation, not $tifle competition.
Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?
Tell me about it. Just the other day, we had a major explosion at a propane plant just outside of Toronto. Scary stuff.
machine code
Slacker. REAL programmers wave magnets over the disk to code.
Zinf
One thing at a time, my friend.
Examples:etc.
I found the real explanation here, nestled between paragraphs...
"We know there are losses. We believe we're losing $3.5 billion yearly."
...
"My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000."
Hmmmm. Ever considered that part of that mysterious 3.5 billion dollars might have gone into making this stinker?
In any case, Mr. Glickman does a wonderful job of not answering the question at all, and by pulling a random number out of the air.
The only reason you can say that is because you aren't applying the legal definition of obviousness.
Fair enough, but...
However, if you decide just throw out 100s of years of established law, make up your own definition of obviuosness [sic] and run around complaining about how this patent is obvious by your definition then you really aren't doing anything worthwhile.
I wouldn't say it's completely non-productive. Clearly, this demonstrates the clash between the "common sense obviousness" inherent in most people in a particular field, and the "must provide documentation obviousness" specified by the USPTO. I imagine that I am not alone.
The clearest example I can think of is using FFTs for MP3s. Somehow, there's a patent on a using a mathematical operation for a specific function, because there was no prior art referring to its use for compressing music files. Clearly, FFTs operate on waveforms, and most music files are repesented as waveforms by design. Again, to me this would seem "obvious". As you point out, the USPTO takes a separate view, one that may fly in the face of deductive reasoning.
By illustrating this clash, it certainly illustrates the need to reassess the criteria for obviousness, as you suggest.
So, points taken. Amazed and disappointed, but grudgingly recognized.
You're still missing the point.
Why is it obvious to have a menu with different languages on a website selling products internationally? Why not just have separate sites placed in each country with only their specific lanugage. Further, why have currency be a menu selectable item?
You're still stuck in the mind-set of "we did it one way before" -- in this case, making separate web pages -- "so anything different must be non-obvious". Why is it obvious to have a drop-down list with different languages? Because the specification of the patent describes "international sales". Different countries with different languages. Simply moving those languages from a static page to a drop-down list does not make this "innovation" non-obvious.
This is another example of patenting "a method of creating a shopping list using a green sparkly pen" simply because shopping lists have always been made with blue pens before.
However, this patent isn't that cut and try [sic]. The patent can be 95% old material and still be issued based on that new 5%.
And what 5% is that? The drop-down box mentioned above? Hardly patent-worthy. Common sense.
I'm also saying that something isn't legally obvious just because you say it is, you need to have proof that it is obvious.
No. A patent has to be "non-obvious to a person with average skill in the same field of technology". This doesn't mean that somebody has to magically make a notebook appear full of notes -- prior art, if you will -- that pre-dates the patent. It means exactly what it states: that the patent must be non-obvious. Any group of respected people within that field should be able to say "this was obvious at the time".
Lack of prior art does not imply patentability. Certain things are simply non-patentable, including basic transactions with the words "using a computer" appended. A computer is a tool. You would never issue a patent for "building a box with a flathead screwdriver" and then another for "building a box with a philips screwdriver".
And until I see some concrete proof that this existed prior to 1996 I'll consider its obviousness (before December 30, 1996) to be undecided.
That simply means that the technology is outside of your field and/or timeframe. It does not imply that, for some of us who remember the technology in 1996, this claim has no merit.
I suggest reading this short snippet about impermissible hindsight.
I read it, but it does not apply. Consider:
The point in time that is critical for an obviousness determination is at the time the invention.
I am saying that in 1996, the time of the patent's application, it was obvious. It's not an issue of hindsight.
You yourself might want to review the definition of non-obviousness at the USPTO's website, rather than the determination of non-obviousness on random websites.
You're missing the point that several posters are trying to convey: the patent is obvious, and therefore, would/should not have been patented.
Are you seriously suggesting that the concept of selling something overseas, and using a computer to keep track of prices and related information, was non-obvious in December of 1996?
Hormel, the company behind Spam (the meat product, not the unsolicited email), is launching an advertising campaign in Europe...
I can see the marketing discussion now:
Marketer 1: "We need to get the word out about Hormel."
Marketer 2: "Hey, I know! Why don't we email millions of people and remind them about our product!"
Marketer 1: "Great idea! I've got some email addresses right here on this CD..."
Combining your messages:
My P3/600, 128MB ram ... takes over 3 minutes to boot Windows '98 into a viewable state
If that's the case, you've either seriously messed up your computer with spyware and viruses, tried loading a thousand programs at boot, or you've got a nasty hardware problem, like a failing drive or defective memory. Seriously, there's no reason why Win98 should be taking that long to boot up.
I just finished cleaning up my sister's Win98 machine, which is a P2-233 with 64MB of memory, and it boots up to a fully-functional GUI in just under a minute-and-a-half.
Having said that, my dual-boot P4 machine boots Linux/KDE in just a wee bit longer than it boots XP, which is perfectly acceptable to me.
It's there, only they use ".xxx"
Seriously though, lower vulnerabilities? Where the hell did that come from.
I've seen a number of studies that run something like this:
Windows
Linux
Not sure if this is the case here, but I suspect so.
They have a lot of work to do in order to recreate the atmosphere created in DOOM3.
But think of the money they'll save by not having to hire a lighting crew.
+ is .0002$ per use .0002$ per use .001$ per use
- is
* is
/ is 1.00$ per use
mod() is 10$ per use
$10 for mod? Bah!
Total cost = 1 division, 1 multiplication, 1 subtraction = $1.0012.
And we can show people's favorite porn pages! Without popups!
If a porn page doesn't produce "pop-ups", then it hasn't had its desired effect. ;)
What does a phisher do with Ebay info?
Well, I know a number of people who use the same password for their email, eBay, Paypal, etc. accounts. I imagine that, if a phisher obtained their eBay info, (s)he could then purchase piles of merchandise and charge it to their PayPal account. Or, even better, since the PayPal account would be accessible, simply make a sizeable monetary transfer that was subsequently withdrawn in cash. A fairly trivial example.
Yet another reason to make hard-to-crack passwords that vary across services, even if only by a few letters/numbers.
And you need the full version of Adobe Acrobat to get access to that add on.
Or you could get a free version here.
But yes, PDF Export is not native to MS Office.
While not 10MB, Damn Small Linux at 50MB would be doable overnight.
Alternatively, you could try ordering a full set of Fedora, Mandrake, etc. CDs for under $5US, which is pretty minimal. Certainly within a budget for trying out a new OS.
No animal on the cover?
Since the book deals with Mono, might I suggest a gourami?
It turned out his keyboard had a faulty K key, and the K was not appearing on his screen either.
And thus the GNOME project was born...
The uses of "President", "George" and "Bush" are used just as much as "Senator," "John," and "Kerry."
Well, one fairly obvious flaw is as simple as analysing the terms. "George Bush" or "President Bush", for starters, could refer to either of the presidents by that name. "Senator Kerry", I warrant, is more specific, unless I'm missing another senator by that name who's been widely reported on recently. Both "John" and "George" on their own are too vague to count on for accurate search results.
I have a problem with Google blaming the algorythm
But the algorithm itself is unbiased. It entirely avoids political/social context -- leaving it to the reader -- in favour of page/article context. It bases articles on word/phrase occurrences, article lengths, and whatnot. Once you start throwing other things into the mix, you're going to introduce more bias than when you started.
Perhaps there are too many "alternative news networks" spreading nothing but biased coverage (for either side of the campaign). Perhaps weblogs should be included?
Weblogs don't provide biased coverage? Please. They're the prime offenders. I can't count the number of blogs I've seen ranting and raving about how Bush or Kerry are personally responsible for terrorist actions, economic turmoil, late pizza delivery, spontaneous human combustion, etc.
You'd think that, but I generally find articles appear like this one. Only at the beginning do they toss the "President" moniker out there.
Or, in general:
Earlier today, President George W. Bush did X. When asked about this, Bush commented "Y". Opposing groups criticized Bush for his stance on Z. Bush's staff had no comment on these accusations.
"I think what you're seeing is an odd little linguistic artifact," said Zuckerman, former vice president of Tripod.com and now a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society who studies search engines. The chief culprit, he theorized, is that mainstream news publications refer to the senator on second reference as Kerry, while alternative news sites often use the phrase "John Kerry" multiple times, for effect or derision. To Google News' eye, that's a more exact search result.
Seems reasonable enough to me. Most of the major news I catch does indeed refer to Kerry without his first name. Likewise for Bush.
Hardly an intentional bias.