The published application was filed December 22, 2005, but it claims priority to a provisional application filed Dec. 23, 2004. So, this application will be treated as if it was filed on December 23, 2004, just over 18 months ago. (U.S. patent applications typically publish 18-months after the filing of the earliest application to which they claim - 35 U.S.C. 122)
It costs a lot of money to file a patent application, which is the only real disincentive not to file tons of applications.
If you file for a patent, knowing its invalid, and your patent issues, your patent can be invalidated for inequitable conduct.
Also, if you know your patent is invalid, and try to assert it (i.e. sue someone for patent infringement), you could commit patent misuse (rendering your patent unenforceable) or violate various antitrust (Sherman Act section 1) and unfair competition laws.
All of these issues are litigated in most patent infringement suits, and patent owners often lose as a result.
Filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy will absolve your debt relating to most court judgments and debt, except those relating to student loans, certain taxes, child support/alimony, and drunk driving. So if you were found liable for copyright infringement, declaring bankruptcy would limit your creditors to whatever non-exempt property you have (which in many cases, is nothing).
If you make a decent salary, you may be forced to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy, which forces you to pay back a portion of your debt over several years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy#Bankruptcy _in_the_United_States
(this is not legal advice).
Fact is, whether or not $THING is art is wholly subjective, depending on the person making the determination
Courts typically determine if something is "art" based on its cost. If $thing costs more than its utilitarian value, then its art. For instance, if $thing = Wal-mart chair, and if someone will pay me substantially more for the Wal-mart chair then it sells for at Wal-mart, $thing is art and I'm an artist.
The best real-world example I have found is a woman in NYC who has sex with men on videotape for money. She charges > $20,000 for this and her tapes are displayed at respected art studios. Various legal minds think she could not be convicted of prostitution, because she charges 5x the market rate for her performances, so they must be art. AFAIK, she has never been arrested despite being well known.
They don't HAVE to sell their products to blind people if they don't want to...
How is refusing to serve blind people any different than refusing to serve black people? Should you be allowed to have a "whites only" diner? The ADA prevents companies from discriminating against people because of a disability, just like the Civil Rights Act prevents people from discriminating against people because of race. Target, or any other store, cant refuse to sell to customers based on their race or disability.
The issue in this case isn't whether stores can refuse to sell to blind people(they can't), its whether companies have to make their web sites accessible to the blind (according to this one federal judge, they must).
Consumers win, consumers lose... all of this is irrelevant, the truth is that we have a sh*tty patent system that's vague enough to have two judges give 2 different verdicts on the same case
Two judges didn't give "2 different verdicts on the same case." A federal district court in Texas granted an injunction and Echostar appealed for immediate relief to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- the court which oversees all patent appeals. The Federal Court temporarily block the injunction granted by the Texas court (as commonly happens in all cases where injunctions are granted).
This has nothing to do with the patent system, but rather the basics of our federal judicial system where parties have a right to appeal the rulings of lower courts to higher courts. I think this is normally covered in 8th grade, but here is a link for those who missed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal _courts
Yes, you are. First, your first statement is only partially true. An invention only has guaranteed protection once a patent has issued. However, once the application is submitted, the contents are retroactively protected if the application succeeds.
All patent applications in the US are kept secret until 18 months after they are filed -- see 35 U.S.C. 122. After 18 months, the application is published and is viewable to all [unless the applicant pays a fee and promises not to file foreign applications, then the application can remain secret]. If a patent should issue from a published application, the patentee is not entitled to retroactive damages back to filing. Instead, if the claims of the published application are the same as the claims of the patent, the patentee can seek damages going back to publication - not filing. Note: no patentee has ever recovered in the U.S. for pre-issuance damages because the bar is set so high.
Polygraphs aren't admissible in U.S. courts because they aren't considered reliable evidence of anything and not for any reasons related to privacy. As others have pointed out, there are many ways to game polygraph machines to achieve any desired result. Based on this fact, polygraphs fail the Frye and Daubert tests normally employed by courts to determine if scientific evidence can be admitted.
Regarding your second point, the government doesn't need any legal precedent to require you to take a polygraph before boarding an airline. Job applicants at the FBI and CIA are all forced to take polygraphs as part of the application process, even though polygraphs are junk science. As we have no right to travel by air, the government can impossible any conditions it wishes on air travel provided the restrictions are rationally related to safety.
If citizen wants to sue a corporation, they simply form their own corporation and capitalise it with sufficient funds to litigate.
So if I purchase a defective product from a corporation, and the defective product kills me, my estate's only recourse is to raise money, form a corporation, and file suit on behalf of the corporation? Sounds like a great plan -- if you want to ensure that corporations are immune from civil liability and free from accountability of any sort.
Patent examiners are paid and evaluated on a quota (count) system where the easiest way for them to accumulate quota points (counts) is to issue multiple final rejections - an examiner only receives one point for allowing an application but receives a point each time he or she issues a final rejection. It is quite common to see 2 or 3 final rejections in any patent application.
Due to this quota system, most examiners can only spend about 5 or 10 hours reading a patent application and searching for prior art - compared to the 30 or 40 hours a patent attorney might spend researching and preparing the patent application.
The solution to the current patent problem is to hire competent and English-speaking examiners and give examiners more time to examine applications. All of the bad patents typically identified by slashdotters are the result of examiners not understanding the technology and not the result of regulatory/agency capture.
The suit, like almost all recent patent suits, was filed in the E.D. of Texas because the district is a "rocket docket" - i.e. cases are quickly tried there. The E.D. Texas also has tremendous patent experience, as their judges have presided over several patent cases (which is rare in most other districts). The juries also tend to me more educated (and pro-patent/inventor) than in most other areas.
In a logical world, you'd expect the lawsuit to be filed where one or the other of the companies has its HQ.
This has never been the rule or law in the U.S. - a federal suit can be filed anywhere where there is personal jurisdiction and venue. As the allegedly infringing products are probably offered for sale or sold in the E.D. of Texas, the requirements for jurisdiction and venue are likely easily met.
Suits are rarely brought where the defendant has a large presence because juries and judges always favor the hometown team (imagine Toyota suing Ford in Michigan).
Are they not doing the research? I'm fairly certain any due diligence by the judge would be carried out by the clerks on these matters.
With the exception of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which hears patent appeals), most federal clerks are political science or English majors who have no background for understanding technology (other than perhaps being p2p users themselves). The fact is, and has always been, that in any legal dispute, there will be Ph.D experts from MIT or Stanford (depending on the location of the suit) paid by both sides to reach opposite conclusions (X = Y and X != Y). The judge or jury, ignorant of technology and science, are left to pick the most credible expert (but both experts are credible based on their background and education).
Netfilx recently settled a class action lawsuit out in California regarding the throttling issue. The settlement called for Netflix to give one-free month to anyone who was harmed by the illegal practice and for Netflix to pay tens of millions of dollars in attorneys fees. AFAIK, the fact that netflix throttles is now expressly listed in the terms of service, where in the past Netflix's activities were illegal because they denied that they were throttling customers.
1. Go back to old way patents were done - which includes working implementation upon application. Thus ideas become unpatentable. Same with business methods. It will also render 90% all the unreadable legalese to obscure what you are patenting obsolete.
A working model (actual reduction to practice) hasn't been required in the US since the 1836 patent act -- the U.S. patent system before 1836 was an absolute mess, 1/3 of all issued patents were tied up in court. A working model system also hurts small companies and independent inventors, who may not have the money to travel to DC to exhibit their invention (which was the reason the requirement was dropped for inventions other than heavier-than-air flying machines and other inventions of "incredible" utility).
2. Punish non-English application. No, I don't mean application in a foreign language, just the ones that read like they are. Plain english is a must. Jail time in Gitmo otherwise.
Slashdot covered this issue a few days ago: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/06/163121 1 , with the general consensus being that people should use formal English and not common or phonetic English. Perhaps we should just put all educated people in Gitmo -- that way no problems with patents or excess vocabulary.
3. Raise price to apply for patent to $5,000-50,000 depending on whether it is an individual, small company or large corporation (refundable only on receiving a patent) - while it may seem to screw the "little guy" it actually will kill corporations trying to patent every little thing. Even a little operation will be able to afford to patent 1 WORTHWHILE application, but will corporate America still be able to afford to apply for 10's of thousands of trivial patents?
The current average cost of paying an attorney to prosecute an application to issuance is in excess of $15,000. A few extra dollars wont deter IBM from filing 1000 applications / week.
4. Part of application fee (say 1/2) will go as a bounty to anybody who can disprove it - in other words show prior art, etcetera. This could be anybody - college students, professors, employees of another company. This will also lower amount of patents applied and speed up patenting time.
If there is no fee for a third party to challenge a patent/application, then the USPTO will spend all its time hearing challenges --- people will simply challenge every patent ever granted and let the USPTO sort things out. There are current and effective methods of challenging granted patents -- reexaminations --, which are used effectively by many and due to a nominal fee (less than a thousand dollars), people don't abuse the process.
Well put, the Q1 retails for around $1,100, which is more than most entry level Dell notebooks. If one is looking for a light and portable Wi-Fi equipped device, the Palm TX retails for around $300. Its never been clear to me what market MS was targeting, as for 99% of users, it would be cheaper to buy a standard laptop or palm.
"Why should USERS pay to upgrade to a new version?"
35 USC 271: "...whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
If the users don't upgrade, they also infringe the patent and can be sued individually for patent infringement. Microsoft has no legal obligation to indemnify its customers (unless they entered into some sort of special agreement to do so).
Just about everything in your post is already implemented by US law:
Priority is from the date of first application. NOT the claimed date of invention (submarine patents anyone)
In 1995, the US congress "fixed" this problem. For applications filed after June 1, 1995, the term of a patent issuing therefrom is 20 years from filing.
Once a patent is applied for, the applicant has a cooling off period in which to decide whether to go through the whole process or to talk to other people about licensing (this helps small inventors)
The average pendency for US patent applications is 3-5 years. For most software patent applications, the USPTO is currently estimating a 7-10 year delay before the application is ever examined. This gives a lengthy period before any enforceable right is granted.
The holder of a patent MUST either manufacture themselves or license manufacturing rights to any second parties on the same terms. The penalties for patent infringement shall be limited to legal costs plus the average current licensing rate for the goods sold to date
While the current standard is not a "MUST", the Supreme Court recently took away near-automatic injunctions in patent cases. See the z4 v. Microsoft case from Texas for a good example where just yesterday z4 was denied an injunction to prevent XP from being sold.
It shall not be possible to patent any business process simply because it is carried on in a different medium (e.g. one click is basically walking into shop, handing over money, receiving goods in exchange, and should not be patentable simply because it is computer implemented.)
Filing complaints with the ITC (or US customs) is a common litigation trick in patent disputes. The purpose of filing with the ITC or US customs to to circumvent the legal boundaries you describe (a showing of irreparable harm, etc) to get the ITC or US customs (now part of the DHS) to issue a "de facto" injunction without the same type of adversarial situation you find in court. For example, sometimes its possible to get customs to seize imported goods even when patent infringement is doubtful.
Dr. Hawking further elaborated on his suggestion that the space colonies include 10 women for every man:
"Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature."
The patent is way more limited that discussed in the summary or the linked article. The scope of a patent is determined by its claims and the broadest claim of the issued patent is directed at an IM system that allows users to check on the game status of their buddies through an IM client:
1. A messaging system comprising: a web server computer; and a video game system for executing a video game program for a video game, the video game program being embodied on a storage device replaceably connectable by a user to the video game system and comprising program instructions for both the video game and for a messaging service client, whereby the messaging service client is activated by connecting the storage device to the video game system and executing the video game program embodied thereon, the activated messaging service client establishing a connection between the video game system and said web server computer via the Internet and sending status data from the video game system to said web server computer that is indicative of the video game program being executed by the video game system, wherein said web server computer generates a session file when the video game system connects thereto, the session file comprising the status data sent from the video game system and status data indicative of video game programs being executed by video game systems of each of one or more buddies identified on a buddy list previously defined by the user, wherein the status data of the one or more buddies on the buddy list is accessible to the user even if the video game system of the user and the video game systems of the one or more buddies are executing video game programs for playing different games.
Well said, although it was a court (and not the USPTO) that invalidiated the jelly sandwitch patent. I suspect Creatives patents will not survive this legal action either, but it is unfortunate that the USPTO lacks an effective post-grant opposition procedure to handle situations where a patent examiner goofs.
Under current USPTO reexamination procedures, it takes many years to invalidate even the most ridiculous patents, so it is often quciker and cheaper for companies (like Apple) to duke it out in court.
There is actually a interesting history behind that patent. It was subject to a "director" ordered reexamination, which means that the USPTO itself thought the patent was so bad that it had to be withdrawn and prosecuted again. Director ordered reexaminations are incredibly rare, particularly when there isn't a lot of money at stake.
As the patented swinging method had been long known in the art, the USPTO invalidated all claims of the patent (as it should have the first time around), rendering it unenforceable. Because a patent with no claims is worthless, its owner allowed it to expire on 5/10/2006 by nonpayment of issue fees.
To be fair, this type of thing (mass government surveillance, suppression of dissidents, censorship of speech) happens in most countries on a routine basis. The only reason this is news is that this is happening in the USA, where we used to have some civil rights. Perhaps 50 years from now my descendants will be amazed that in the waning years of the 20th century I was able to write, say, or think whatever I wanted. I imagine such a concept will be entirely foreign to them (regardless of their nationality or location).
Slashdot Mirror
The published application was filed December 22, 2005, but it claims priority to a provisional application filed Dec. 23, 2004. So, this application will be treated as if it was filed on December 23, 2004, just over 18 months ago. (U.S. patent applications typically publish 18-months after the filing of the earliest application to which they claim - 35 U.S.C. 122)
It costs a lot of money to file a patent application, which is the only real disincentive not to file tons of applications.
If you file for a patent, knowing its invalid, and your patent issues, your patent can be invalidated for inequitable conduct.
Also, if you know your patent is invalid, and try to assert it (i.e. sue someone for patent infringement), you could commit patent misuse (rendering your patent unenforceable) or violate various antitrust (Sherman Act section 1) and unfair competition laws.All of these issues are litigated in most patent infringement suits, and patent owners often lose as a result.
Filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy will absolve your debt relating to most court judgments and debt, except those relating to student loans, certain taxes, child support/alimony, and drunk driving. So if you were found liable for copyright infringement, declaring bankruptcy would limit your creditors to whatever non-exempt property you have (which in many cases, is nothing). If you make a decent salary, you may be forced to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy, which forces you to pay back a portion of your debt over several years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy#Bankruptcy _in_the_United_States
(this is not legal advice).
Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If you don't own a home, multiple cars, or have tons of money, you wont actually lose that much (except your credit rating).
Courts typically determine if something is "art" based on its cost. If $thing costs more than its utilitarian value, then its art. For instance, if $thing = Wal-mart chair, and if someone will pay me substantially more for the Wal-mart chair then it sells for at Wal-mart, $thing is art and I'm an artist.
The best real-world example I have found is a woman in NYC who has sex with men on videotape for money. She charges > $20,000 for this and her tapes are displayed at respected art studios. Various legal minds think she could not be convicted of prostitution, because she charges 5x the market rate for her performances, so they must be art. AFAIK, she has never been arrested despite being well known.
How is refusing to serve blind people any different than refusing to serve black people? Should you be allowed to have a "whites only" diner? The ADA prevents companies from discriminating against people because of a disability, just like the Civil Rights Act prevents people from discriminating against people because of race. Target, or any other store, cant refuse to sell to customers based on their race or disability.
The issue in this case isn't whether stores can refuse to sell to blind people(they can't), its whether companies have to make their web sites accessible to the blind (according to this one federal judge, they must).
Two judges didn't give "2 different verdicts on the same case." A federal district court in Texas granted an injunction and Echostar appealed for immediate relief to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- the court which oversees all patent appeals. The Federal Court temporarily block the injunction granted by the Texas court (as commonly happens in all cases where injunctions are granted).
This has nothing to do with the patent system, but rather the basics of our federal judicial system where parties have a right to appeal the rulings of lower courts to higher courts. I think this is normally covered in 8th grade, but here is a link for those who missed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal _courts
All patent applications in the US are kept secret until 18 months after they are filed -- see 35 U.S.C. 122. After 18 months, the application is published and is viewable to all [unless the applicant pays a fee and promises not to file foreign applications, then the application can remain secret]. If a patent should issue from a published application, the patentee is not entitled to retroactive damages back to filing. Instead, if the claims of the published application are the same as the claims of the patent, the patentee can seek damages going back to publication - not filing. Note: no patentee has ever recovered in the U.S. for pre-issuance damages because the bar is set so high.
Polygraphs aren't admissible in U.S. courts because they aren't considered reliable evidence of anything and not for any reasons related to privacy. As others have pointed out, there are many ways to game polygraph machines to achieve any desired result. Based on this fact, polygraphs fail the Frye and Daubert tests normally employed by courts to determine if scientific evidence can be admitted.
Regarding your second point, the government doesn't need any legal precedent to require you to take a polygraph before boarding an airline. Job applicants at the FBI and CIA are all forced to take polygraphs as part of the application process, even though polygraphs are junk science. As we have no right to travel by air, the government can impossible any conditions it wishes on air travel provided the restrictions are rationally related to safety.
Patent examiners are paid and evaluated on a quota (count) system where the easiest way for them to accumulate quota points (counts) is to issue multiple final rejections - an examiner only receives one point for allowing an application but receives a point each time he or she issues a final rejection. It is quite common to see 2 or 3 final rejections in any patent application.
Due to this quota system, most examiners can only spend about 5 or 10 hours reading a patent application and searching for prior art - compared to the 30 or 40 hours a patent attorney might spend researching and preparing the patent application.
The solution to the current patent problem is to hire competent and English-speaking examiners and give examiners more time to examine applications. All of the bad patents typically identified by slashdotters are the result of examiners not understanding the technology and not the result of regulatory/agency capture.
The suit, like almost all recent patent suits, was filed in the E.D. of Texas because the district is a "rocket docket" - i.e. cases are quickly tried there. The E.D. Texas also has tremendous patent experience, as their judges have presided over several patent cases (which is rare in most other districts). The juries also tend to me more educated (and pro-patent/inventor) than in most other areas.
This has never been the rule or law in the U.S. - a federal suit can be filed anywhere where there is personal jurisdiction and venue. As the allegedly infringing products are probably offered for sale or sold in the E.D. of Texas, the requirements for jurisdiction and venue are likely easily met.
Suits are rarely brought where the defendant has a large presence because juries and judges always favor the hometown team (imagine Toyota suing Ford in Michigan).
Netfilx recently settled a class action lawsuit out in California regarding the throttling issue. The settlement called for Netflix to give one-free month to anyone who was harmed by the illegal practice and for Netflix to pay tens of millions of dollars in attorneys fees. AFAIK, the fact that netflix throttles is now expressly listed in the terms of service, where in the past Netflix's activities were illegal because they denied that they were throttling customers.
A working model (actual reduction to practice) hasn't been required in the US since the 1836 patent act -- the U.S. patent system before 1836 was an absolute mess, 1/3 of all issued patents were tied up in court. A working model system also hurts small companies and independent inventors, who may not have the money to travel to DC to exhibit their invention (which was the reason the requirement was dropped for inventions other than heavier-than-air flying machines and other inventions of "incredible" utility).
Slashdot covered this issue a few days ago: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/06/163121 1 , with the general consensus being that people should use formal English and not common or phonetic English. Perhaps we should just put all educated people in Gitmo -- that way no problems with patents or excess vocabulary.
3. Raise price to apply for patent to $5,000-50,000 depending on whether it is an individual, small company or large corporation (refundable only on receiving a patent) - while it may seem to screw the "little guy" it actually will kill corporations trying to patent every little thing. Even a little operation will be able to afford to patent 1 WORTHWHILE application, but will corporate America still be able to afford to apply for 10's of thousands of trivial patents?
The current average cost of paying an attorney to prosecute an application to issuance is in excess of $15,000. A few extra dollars wont deter IBM from filing 1000 applications / week.
If there is no fee for a third party to challenge a patent/application, then the USPTO will spend all its time hearing challenges --- people will simply challenge every patent ever granted and let the USPTO sort things out. There are current and effective methods of challenging granted patents -- reexaminations --, which are used effectively by many and due to a nominal fee (less than a thousand dollars), people don't abuse the process.
Yes (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F A0715FB395B0C768EDDAD0894DE404482)
Well put, the Q1 retails for around $1,100, which is more than most entry level Dell notebooks. If one is looking for a light and portable Wi-Fi equipped device, the Palm TX retails for around $300. Its never been clear to me what market MS was targeting, as for 99% of users, it would be cheaper to buy a standard laptop or palm.
35 USC 271: "...whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
If the users don't upgrade, they also infringe the patent and can be sued individually for patent infringement. Microsoft has no legal obligation to indemnify its customers (unless they entered into some sort of special agreement to do so).
Just about everything in your post is already implemented by US law:
In 1995, the US congress "fixed" this problem. For applications filed after June 1, 1995, the term of a patent issuing therefrom is 20 years from filing.
The average pendency for US patent applications is 3-5 years. For most software patent applications, the USPTO is currently estimating a 7-10 year delay before the application is ever examined. This gives a lengthy period before any enforceable right is granted.
While the current standard is not a "MUST", the Supreme Court recently took away near-automatic injunctions in patent cases. See the z4 v. Microsoft case from Texas for a good example where just yesterday z4 was denied an injunction to prevent XP from being sold.
The USPTO is currently revising its rules for examining method patents: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/pre ognotice/guidelines101_20051026.pdf , you'll see that the test has never been merely performing a method in a new medium.
Filing complaints with the ITC (or US customs) is a common litigation trick in patent disputes. The purpose of filing with the ITC or US customs to to circumvent the legal boundaries you describe (a showing of irreparable harm, etc) to get the ITC or US customs (now part of the DHS) to issue a "de facto" injunction without the same type of adversarial situation you find in court. For example, sometimes its possible to get customs to seize imported goods even when patent infringement is doubtful.
Dr. Hawking further elaborated on his suggestion that the space colonies include 10 women for every man:
"Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature."
The patent is way more limited that discussed in the summary or the linked article. The scope of a patent is determined by its claims and the broadest claim of the issued patent is directed at an IM system that allows users to check on the game status of their buddies through an IM client:
1. A messaging system comprising: a web server computer; and a video game system for executing a video game program for a video game, the video game program being embodied on a storage device replaceably connectable by a user to the video game system and comprising program instructions for both the video game and for a messaging service client, whereby the messaging service client is activated by connecting the storage device to the video game system and executing the video game program embodied thereon, the activated messaging service client establishing a connection between the video game system and said web server computer via the Internet and sending status data from the video game system to said web server computer that is indicative of the video game program being executed by the video game system, wherein said web server computer generates a session file when the video game system connects thereto, the session file comprising the status data sent from the video game system and status data indicative of video game programs being executed by video game systems of each of one or more buddies identified on a buddy list previously defined by the user, wherein the status data of the one or more buddies on the buddy list is accessible to the user even if the video game system of the user and the video game systems of the one or more buddies are executing video game programs for playing different games.
Well said, although it was a court (and not the USPTO) that invalidiated the jelly sandwitch patent. I suspect Creatives patents will not survive this legal action either, but it is unfortunate that the USPTO lacks an effective post-grant opposition procedure to handle situations where a patent examiner goofs.
Under current USPTO reexamination procedures, it takes many years to invalidate even the most ridiculous patents, so it is often quciker and cheaper for companies (like Apple) to duke it out in court.
There is actually a interesting history behind that patent. It was subject to a "director" ordered reexamination, which means that the USPTO itself thought the patent was so bad that it had to be withdrawn and prosecuted again. Director ordered reexaminations are incredibly rare, particularly when there isn't a lot of money at stake.
As the patented swinging method had been long known in the art, the USPTO invalidated all claims of the patent (as it should have the first time around), rendering it unenforceable. Because a patent with no claims is worthless, its owner allowed it to expire on 5/10/2006 by nonpayment of issue fees.
To be fair, this type of thing (mass government surveillance, suppression of dissidents, censorship of speech) happens in most countries on a routine basis. The only reason this is news is that this is happening in the USA, where we used to have some civil rights. Perhaps 50 years from now my descendants will be amazed that in the waning years of the 20th century I was able to write, say, or think whatever I wanted. I imagine such a concept will be entirely foreign to them (regardless of their nationality or location).