There are millions of people (including myself) who think coding is fun and interesting but I dont know a single person who thinks reviewing another person's patent application is fun or interesting.
The problem with your idea is that it is impossible in court to determine if an applicant could have "reasonably discovered" prior art. There are 7 million issued patents and a few million published applications in the US alone, and probably around 50 million patent documents worldwide, in addition to 500 million journal, newspaper, and magazine articles.
How many of these 1 billion references do I have to look at to satisfy your test? If I look at 1,000 "relevant" references (resulting from a google or key word search, etc) and what I invented was shown in the 1,001th reference, have I committed fraud?
Of course, the real problem with your idea is that small companies and solo inventors would not have the money to search thousands of references before filing an application, so they wouldn't seek patents. The only people who would file patent applications would be large companies (IBM, MS, etc), who would then use their patents to prevent small companies from competing (which they do anyway, but at least the small companies can fight back with their own patents under the current system).
I think the program is a great idea, but it is ***optional*** even if it loses its pilot status and becomes a permanent program. I dont think you will see many patentees rushing to sign their applications up for the program, unless the patent applications are likely to cover valuable inventions (having peer review allows the best references to be considered by the USPTO, thereby strengthening any patent that issues).
Even if the peer review program became mandatory for all applications, who in the public is going to take the time to review 1,000 patent applications a week, search for prior art, and send the relevant art to the USPTO? Patent examiners are paid to perform this task (read patent applications and search for prior art), and their work product is usually half-assed (which results in bad patents being issued).
A better solution would be to allow more effective post-grant oppositions (as in Europe) and to allow the public to submit relevant art to the patent office at any time regarding any patent application (current rules only allow the public to submit prior art regarding pending applications during certain limited periods).
I agree its ridiculous that the article makes it seem that Intellectual Ventures is some sort of saint because "the company will not seek royalties until the patent is granted."
The author is clearly a bumbling idiot who didn't even bother to research the basics of patent law, as a patent application does not provide its owner with any enforceable rights, so patent applications are never licensed (licensing a patent application doesn't provide a licensee with any rights - there is no such thing as infringement of a patent application). Sometimes applications are sold, but that is clearly not IV's business model.
Its a good thing that the current pendency time at the USPTO for an application is 5-7 years, which should at least temporarily delay IV's trolling.
"If it was not criminal, why is the law involved? That's my basic problem with this whole thing."
A basic tenant of all legal systems (western and eastern) is the separate existence of "civil" wrongs (torts, contracts, etc) and "criminal" wrongs (murder, robbery, etc). For nearly 1,000 years western civilization (English common law at least) has recognized the right of an individual to bring suit against another individual even if no criminal law was violated. Most people are exposed to this concept in high school, I'm surprised it wasnt on the CHSPE.
The star wars kid sued under tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress (among other claims). This cause of action has been recognized in some form for hundreds of years and suing people for tortious actions is nothing new.
Your photocopied patent diatribe is wrong in this case for many reasons:
(1) Echostar hasn't innovated anything, they copied Tivo's product after it was shown to them, Echostar's DVR isn't different than Tivo's product in any meaningful way; (2) Echostar and Tivo aren't in direct competition, Echostar is in a better position than Tivo to provide DVRs to its customers because you need its dish to use its system - i.e. Echostar's customers don't get to easily pick between Echostar and Tivo products. (3) because of (1) and (2), Tivo isn't in any position to compete with Echostar because Tivo doesn't have access to Echostar's market.
As Tivo cannot out-innovate Echostar as you seem to imply, they have no means of inhibiting Echostar's free-riding. If they cant out-innovate Echostar and cant sue them, what do you suggest Tivo do? Build a satellite network better than Echostar's?
The only issue before the Supreme Court is when should a patent holder be entitled to an injunction against an infringer. Courts have already determined (several times) that MercExchange's patent is valid and that eBay infringed the patent. Validity (i.e. is MercExchange's "invention" actually an invention?) will not and cannot be considered by the Supreme Court because it is not the issue being appealed.
Instead, the Court will determine if an injunction should automatically issue once infringement is found. Injunctions have been the standard remedy for patent infringement in the US since before the ratification of the Constitution, but to due patent trolling some (eBay) have suggested that injunctions should not be so easy to get, particularly in the software arts.
35 USC 271 enables a patent holder to sue people who "use" a patented product, in addition to people to make and sell it. So, MS could sue both the makers and distributors of Linux (who have no money), or big companies who use linux (who have lots of money). As stated in other comments, this is a FUD attack by MS to scare big companies from using linux and being subjected to patent infringement suits.
I dont think Newton had a video game system or a force-feedback controller. The scope of a patent is determined by its claims, not based on what a slashdot summary says. The claims of this patent are limited to a force-feedback controller
Sony could have licensed this patent for a few dollars several years ago (like everyone else did), but instead they relied on a frivolous legal theory (inequitable conduct) to invalidate the patent. Despite attempts by numerous big companies to invalidate this patent based on prior art, no one has ever located any meaningful prior art. The only issue in Sony's case was inequitable conduct (lying to the patent office), and the only evidence Sony presented was testimony from an "expert" they paid.
You are confusing antitrust law with patent misuse/laches. International shoe's problem was that they required consumers to purchase unpatented products with patent products, thereby unlawfully extending their monopoly (in violation of Sherman section 1). Such "tying" agreements have long been prohibited. NTP is not engaging in unlawful "tying" because they dont sell anything period.
The doctrine you are thinking of is "patent misuse" or "laches", which is entirely unrelated to antitrust law. Federal courts have already considered both of these issues (several times) and come out on NTP's side each time.
As I didnt see them posted elsewhere, the claims of a patent, and not its title or description, determine its scope (ability to exclude). Claim 1 (the broadest) of this ridiculous patent is as follows:
1. A method for users to create and maintain a rich-media application on said host website via the Internet comprising:
creating a user account; accessing a user account; and viewing available options for creating rich-media applications,
wherein said accessing a user account comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; creating a new rich-media application;
modifying an existing rich-media application; and accessing statistics from an existing rich-media application;
wherein accessing a user account comprises modifying an existing rich-media application and wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; accessing rich-media application information; accessing rich-media application specification information; saving said rich-media application; closing said rich-media application; deleting said rich-media application; publishing said rich-media application; previewing said rich-media application; accessing components used in the construction of said rich-media application; accessing component-editing graphical user interfaces; and accessing a scene of said rich-media application; and
wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises publishing said rich-media application and wherein said publishing said rich-media application comprises downloading said rich-media application from said host computer to the user's remote computer system.
If even one element of the above claim is not found in a program, the program does not infringe the patent. That being said, this claim does indeed appear to cover any web-based program that creates a "rich-media application", which, of course is ridiculous.
I really sometimes wonder what kind of approval course a patent has to go before becoming patent. Does anyone who has a clue take a look at all?
Patent examiners, the individuals who at least initially determine if a patent should be granted from an application, have at least a B.S. in an appropriate field. Many (perhaps 1/4) have advanced degrees (including PhDs), as the USPTO pays for examiner tuition and gives pay grade raises to those with advanced degrees. Examiners also take continuing education classes (also paid for by the USPTO) and classes and seminars regarding patent law and legal writing.
Note also that you cannot consent to assault, and just because you said it was OK the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.
Your high school business law teacher who told you that didn't know what he was talking about. You can consent to a battery (unlawful touching) or an assault (reasonable apprehension of a battery). How do you think boxing, hockey, or football work? Each participant consents to being battered and assaulted (within the rules of the game) by other participants.
Any patents registered by a company (or individual) that goes Chapter 11 or all the way to bankruptcy should automatically become public domain. If the inventor isn't good enough to make money out of it then it should be open for all.
"If people that knew what they were talking about technically (and preferably legally too) were involved in deciding if a patent was valid or not, we wouldnt see so many crappy patents."
I totally agree, this is the function the USPTO is intended to perform. Unfortunately, as technology as increased the ability of patent examiners to have comprehensive knowledge of the art has decreased, which results in crappy patents. The solution is obviously to allow the USPTO to keep more of the revenue it generates and hire experts, which is always resisted by Congress.
Also, introduce a clause in the rules that says that if a patent is found invalid (either in the initial investigation or later on by a court), the patent holder has to pay up to the PTO.
This would only be equitable if a person had to pay because they deceived the USPTO. Patents are often found invalid based on prior art documents that no one in the US has ever had knowledge of. For instance, I once worked on a case where a patent to a U.S solo inventor was invalidated on the basis of an obscure Japanese magazine article. The inventor had never been to japan and didnt know how to read Japanese. Why would it be fair to punish him for not having a photographic recollection of everything ever written in the world?
I think the basic premise that you cant apply for a patent unless your invention is within the marketplace is sound. However, it is contrary to international law and the Paris convention. The vast majority of nations require an inventor to file for a patent *before* placing his invention in the marketplace. Anyone who files for one of these "petit" patents would waive patent protection in most foreign countries due to Paris convention requirements. Thus, no one with a valuable invention would ever apply for these petit patents and the petit patents would only be used for inventions without any value (and novelty).
So basically what the IEEE is proposing is that the USPTO issue millions (billions?) of cheap patents on worthless inventions, which is the last thing anyone needs. I cant image what the patent trolls would do if they could get a hold of a million patents each month.
For a FISA "warrant" you need to identify an entity and establish a "reasonable" nexus between the entity and foreign intelligence. Basically, as long as you can identify an entity and point to some foreign connection, FISA will grant a warrant.
It is speculated that the current administration elected to forgo the FISA court because the NSA was/is not listening to any specific entity which could be identified as required by FISA. For example, the NSA is listening to all of us at the same time, so there isnt anyone to identify in a FISA warrant request.
The term of a US patent is 20 years from filing or 17 years from issuance, depending on when the patent was filed. The patent referenced in the article is subject to the "greater" of 20 years from filing or 17 years from issuance, so its valid at least until 2009. These patent terms are generally consistent with all other countries (developed and undeveloped), no nation has a 5 year patent term (England's term was traditionally 14 years from issue, I don't know what it is now).
The MS FAT patents weren't originally "rejected" by the USPTO. They were examined, allowed, and issued. The patents were placed into ex parte reexamination after issuance (by the USPTO at the request of PubPat) due to various prior art that the USPTO didn't consider. During the reexamination, the USPTO issued an initial rejection (as is always the case) which Microsoft was able to overcome. The FAT patents were never invalidated or rendered unenforceable. The patents at issue were filed in 1995 and issued in 1996, so your argument that these patents were somehow hidden or unenforceable during that time is entirely baseless.
"I mean, since when has there been an "Open submission" for prior art in any of the USPTOs area of authority"
Since 1790. The current "proposal" is nothing new, its just a more effective way of submitting third party prior art. The current and long standing USPTO rules for public submissions of prior art can be found here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1100_1134_01.htm
Also, the current proposal does not allow third parties (the public) to submit comments after an application publishes (which of course would be most helpful) due to the confidentiality required by federal law (35 USC 122: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1100_1120.htm). So if you see an application publish that you know is anticipated by prior art there isn't anything you can do about it until the application issues into a patent (in which case you can pay 10k-100k for a reexamination).
To be fair, the judge (in his 123 page opinion) didn't rule that "intelligent design cant be taught in Dover" as stated in the summary. Instead, the judge ruled that the school board had no non-religious reason for requiring the teaching of intelligent design, and thus the school board was effectively forcing Dover students to be taught religion (as intelligent design has no non-religious purpose).
Although this is all semantics, the judge didn't ban intelligent design, and I'm sure teachers could still discuss intelligent design should they be so included. All the judge did was state that the school board (which was voted out of office) had violated the 1st amendment in requiring public schools to teach intelligent design.
Well put. Your analysis of the claims is slightly off however. The critical limitation that is included in all claims (which define the scope of the patent) is:
"using a collaborative filtering process to automatically generate personalized recommendations for the first customer of other items."
The "collaborative filtering process" is what likely rendered these claims patentable, and not the generic review method that comprises the rest of the claims.
So, the title of the article should be "Amazon gets patent for review-based collaborative filtering process" instead of fretting about the general language used to title the patent (patent attorneys always title their applications broadly as (1) the title doesn't affect the scope of a patent and (2) idiots and slashdot readers assume the title equates to the scope of protection)
The answer is simple, criminal penalties against the people who orchestrated the price fixing. The settlement only "settles" Samsung's corporate liability, but the government has said they are likely to pursue criminal charges against 7 Samsung executives for Sherman act violations. So, i agree that $300 million isnt a financial deterrent to high-powered executives, but taking it up the ass in Leavenworth is.
As someone who has been involved in the patent litigation process for several years, I can tell you the last thing *anyone* needs is lay people reviewing patent applications and deciding if something is novel is non-obvious.
The vast majority (95% plus probably) of juries I have seen in patent cases find infringement regardless of evidence or common sense. Juries will always grant money when given the chance and they would always grant a patent application.
Also, juries have a hard time determining if shit stinks, let alone trying to determine if widget x is the same as widget y without knowing what a widget is.
The easiest solution to this mess is to move to a registration system, where patent applications arent examined, and just allow everyone to fight it out in court (which is what happens anyway, but this would be without the presumption that patents are valid).
You're entirely correct. The scope of a patent is determined by its claims. Claim 1 of the nintendo patent is incredibly broad:
1. A method of operating a video game including a game character controlled by a player, the method comprising:
(a) setting a sanity level of the game character;
(b) modifying the sanity level of the game, character during game play according to occurrences in the game, wherein a modifying amount of is determined based on a charater reaction and an amount of character preparation; and
(c) controlling game play according to the sanity level of the game character, game play being controlled at least by varying game effects according to the game charater sanity level.
IMHO, tons of video games anticipate this claim, including the original quest for glory (getting drunk) at least one of the Ultimas (eating mushrooms), and any of the grand theft autos.
Even more interesting, is that the USPTO was only able to cite one reference during examination, thereby explaining this broad claim.
Slashdot Mirror
There are millions of people (including myself) who think coding is fun and interesting but I dont know a single person who thinks reviewing another person's patent application is fun or interesting.
The problem with your idea is that it is impossible in court to determine if an applicant could have "reasonably discovered" prior art. There are 7 million issued patents and a few million published applications in the US alone, and probably around 50 million patent documents worldwide, in addition to 500 million journal, newspaper, and magazine articles.
How many of these 1 billion references do I have to look at to satisfy your test? If I look at 1,000 "relevant" references (resulting from a google or key word search, etc) and what I invented was shown in the 1,001th reference, have I committed fraud?
Of course, the real problem with your idea is that small companies and solo inventors would not have the money to search thousands of references before filing an application, so they wouldn't seek patents. The only people who would file patent applications would be large companies (IBM, MS, etc), who would then use their patents to prevent small companies from competing (which they do anyway, but at least the small companies can fight back with their own patents under the current system).
I think the program is a great idea, but it is ***optional*** even if it loses its pilot status and becomes a permanent program. I dont think you will see many patentees rushing to sign their applications up for the program, unless the patent applications are likely to cover valuable inventions (having peer review allows the best references to be considered by the USPTO, thereby strengthening any patent that issues).
Even if the peer review program became mandatory for all applications, who in the public is going to take the time to review 1,000 patent applications a week, search for prior art, and send the relevant art to the USPTO? Patent examiners are paid to perform this task (read patent applications and search for prior art), and their work product is usually half-assed (which results in bad patents being issued).
A better solution would be to allow more effective post-grant oppositions (as in Europe) and to allow the public to submit relevant art to the patent office at any time regarding any patent application (current rules only allow the public to submit prior art regarding pending applications during certain limited periods).
I agree its ridiculous that the article makes it seem that Intellectual Ventures is some sort of saint because "the company will not seek royalties until the patent is granted."
The author is clearly a bumbling idiot who didn't even bother to research the basics of patent law, as a patent application does not provide its owner with any enforceable rights, so patent applications are never licensed (licensing a patent application doesn't provide a licensee with any rights - there is no such thing as infringement of a patent application). Sometimes applications are sold, but that is clearly not IV's business model.
Its a good thing that the current pendency time at the USPTO for an application is 5-7 years, which should at least temporarily delay IV's trolling.
"If it was not criminal, why is the law involved? That's my basic problem with this whole thing."
A basic tenant of all legal systems (western and eastern) is the separate existence of "civil" wrongs (torts, contracts, etc) and "criminal" wrongs (murder, robbery, etc). For nearly 1,000 years western civilization (English common law at least) has recognized the right of an individual to bring suit against another individual even if no criminal law was violated. Most people are exposed to this concept in high school, I'm surprised it wasnt on the CHSPE.
The star wars kid sued under tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress (among other claims). This cause of action has been recognized in some form for hundreds of years and suing people for tortious actions is nothing new.
Your photocopied patent diatribe is wrong in this case for many reasons:
(1) Echostar hasn't innovated anything, they copied Tivo's product after it was shown to them, Echostar's DVR isn't different than Tivo's product in any meaningful way;
(2) Echostar and Tivo aren't in direct competition, Echostar is in a better position than Tivo to provide DVRs to its customers because you need its dish to use its system - i.e. Echostar's customers don't get to easily pick between Echostar and Tivo products.
(3) because of (1) and (2), Tivo isn't in any position to compete with Echostar because Tivo doesn't have access to Echostar's market.
As Tivo cannot out-innovate Echostar as you seem to imply, they have no means of inhibiting Echostar's free-riding. If they cant out-innovate Echostar and cant sue them, what do you suggest Tivo do? Build a satellite network better than Echostar's?
The only issue before the Supreme Court is when should a patent holder be entitled to an injunction against an infringer. Courts have already determined (several times) that MercExchange's patent is valid and that eBay infringed the patent. Validity (i.e. is MercExchange's "invention" actually an invention?) will not and cannot be considered by the Supreme Court because it is not the issue being appealed.
Instead, the Court will determine if an injunction should automatically issue once infringement is found. Injunctions have been the standard remedy for patent infringement in the US since before the ratification of the Constitution, but to due patent trolling some (eBay) have suggested that injunctions should not be so easy to get, particularly in the software arts.
35 USC 271 enables a patent holder to sue people who "use" a patented product, in addition to people to make and sell it. So, MS could sue both the makers and distributors of Linux (who have no money), or big companies who use linux (who have lots of money). As stated in other comments, this is a FUD attack by MS to scare big companies from using linux and being subjected to patent infringement suits.
I dont think Newton had a video game system or a force-feedback controller. The scope of a patent is determined by its claims, not based on what a slashdot summary says. The claims of this patent are limited to a force-feedback controller
Sony could have licensed this patent for a few dollars several years ago (like everyone else did), but instead they relied on a frivolous legal theory (inequitable conduct) to invalidate the patent. Despite attempts by numerous big companies to invalidate this patent based on prior art, no one has ever located any meaningful prior art. The only issue in Sony's case was inequitable conduct (lying to the patent office), and the only evidence Sony presented was testimony from an "expert" they paid.
You are confusing antitrust law with patent misuse/laches. International shoe's problem was that they required consumers to purchase unpatented products with patent products, thereby unlawfully extending their monopoly (in violation of Sherman section 1). Such "tying" agreements have long been prohibited. NTP is not engaging in unlawful "tying" because they dont sell anything period.
The doctrine you are thinking of is "patent misuse" or "laches", which is entirely unrelated to antitrust law. Federal courts have already considered both of these issues (several times) and come out on NTP's side each time.
.As I didnt see them posted elsewhere, the claims of a patent, and not its title or description, determine its scope (ability to exclude). Claim 1 (the broadest) of this ridiculous patent is as follows:
1. A method for users to create and maintain a rich-media application on said host website via the Internet comprising:
creating a user account; accessing a user account; and viewing available options for creating rich-media applications,
wherein said accessing a user account comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; creating a new rich-media application;
modifying an existing rich-media application; and accessing statistics from an existing rich-media application;
wherein accessing a user account comprises modifying an existing rich-media application and wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises one or more of the following: accessing account information; accessing rich-media application information; accessing rich-media application specification information; saving said rich-media application; closing said rich-media application; deleting said rich-media application; publishing said rich-media application; previewing said rich-media application; accessing components used in the construction of said rich-media application; accessing component-editing graphical user interfaces; and accessing a scene of said rich-media application; and
wherein said modifying an existing rich-media application comprises publishing said rich-media application and wherein said publishing said rich-media application comprises downloading said rich-media application from said host computer to the user's remote computer system.
If even one element of the above claim is not found in a program, the program does not infringe the patent. That being said, this claim does indeed appear to cover any web-based program that creates a "rich-media application", which, of course is ridiculous.
I really sometimes wonder what kind of approval course a patent has to go before becoming patent. Does anyone who has a clue take a look at all?
Patent examiners, the individuals who at least initially determine if a patent should be granted from an application, have at least a B.S. in an appropriate field. Many (perhaps 1/4) have advanced degrees (including PhDs), as the USPTO pays for examiner tuition and gives pay grade raises to those with advanced degrees. Examiners also take continuing education classes (also paid for by the USPTO) and classes and seminars regarding patent law and legal writing.
Note also that you cannot consent to assault, and just because you said it was OK the perpetrator can still be prosecuted.
Your high school business law teacher who told you that didn't know what he was talking about. You can consent to a battery (unlawful touching) or an assault (reasonable apprehension of a battery). How do you think boxing, hockey, or football work? Each participant consents to being battered and assaulted (within the rules of the game) by other participants.
Any patents registered by a company (or individual) that goes Chapter 11 or all the way to bankruptcy should automatically become public domain. If the inventor isn't good enough to make money out of it then it should be open for all.
Oops, there goes the Wright Brothers patent for a "flying machine" (http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights /WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html). They must have been patent trolls, and not inventors, because they didnt make a lot of money!
"If people that knew what they were talking about technically (and preferably legally too) were involved in deciding if a patent was valid or not, we wouldnt see so many crappy patents."
I totally agree, this is the function the USPTO is intended to perform. Unfortunately, as technology as increased the ability of patent examiners to have comprehensive knowledge of the art has decreased, which results in crappy patents. The solution is obviously to allow the USPTO to keep more of the revenue it generates and hire experts, which is always resisted by Congress.
Also, introduce a clause in the rules that says that if a patent is found invalid (either in the initial investigation or later on by a court), the patent holder has to pay up to the PTO.
This would only be equitable if a person had to pay because they deceived the USPTO. Patents are often found invalid based on prior art documents that no one in the US has ever had knowledge of. For instance, I once worked on a case where a patent to a U.S solo inventor was invalidated on the basis of an obscure Japanese magazine article. The inventor had never been to japan and didnt know how to read Japanese. Why would it be fair to punish him for not having a photographic recollection of everything ever written in the world?
I think the basic premise that you cant apply for a patent unless your invention is within the marketplace is sound. However, it is contrary to international law and the Paris convention. The vast majority of nations require an inventor to file for a patent *before* placing his invention in the marketplace. Anyone who files for one of these "petit" patents would waive patent protection in most foreign countries due to Paris convention requirements. Thus, no one with a valuable invention would ever apply for these petit patents and the petit patents would only be used for inventions without any value (and novelty).
So basically what the IEEE is proposing is that the USPTO issue millions (billions?) of cheap patents on worthless inventions, which is the last thing anyone needs. I cant image what the patent trolls would do if they could get a hold of a million patents each month.
For a FISA "warrant" you need to identify an entity and establish a "reasonable" nexus between the entity and foreign intelligence. Basically, as long as you can identify an entity and point to some foreign connection, FISA will grant a warrant. It is speculated that the current administration elected to forgo the FISA court because the NSA was/is not listening to any specific entity which could be identified as required by FISA. For example, the NSA is listening to all of us at the same time, so there isnt anyone to identify in a FISA warrant request.
The term of a US patent is 20 years from filing or 17 years from issuance, depending on when the patent was filed. The patent referenced in the article is subject to the "greater" of 20 years from filing or 17 years from issuance, so its valid at least until 2009. These patent terms are generally consistent with all other countries (developed and undeveloped), no nation has a 5 year patent term (England's term was traditionally 14 years from issue, I don't know what it is now).
The MS FAT patents weren't originally "rejected" by the USPTO. They were examined, allowed, and issued. The patents were placed into ex parte reexamination after issuance (by the USPTO at the request of PubPat) due to various prior art that the USPTO didn't consider. During the reexamination, the USPTO issued an initial rejection (as is always the case) which Microsoft was able to overcome. The FAT patents were never invalidated or rendered unenforceable. The patents at issue were filed in 1995 and issued in 1996, so your argument that these patents were somehow hidden or unenforceable during that time is entirely baseless.
"I mean, since when has there been an "Open submission" for prior art in any of the USPTOs area of authority"
Since 1790. The current "proposal" is nothing new, its just a more effective way of submitting third party prior art. The current and long standing USPTO rules for public submissions of prior art can be found here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1100_1134_01.htm
Also, the current proposal does not allow third parties (the public) to submit comments after an application publishes (which of course would be most helpful) due to the confidentiality required by federal law (35 USC 122: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documen
So if you see an application publish that you know is anticipated by prior art there isn't anything you can do about it until the application issues into a patent (in which case you can pay 10k-100k for a reexamination).
To be fair, the judge (in his 123 page opinion) didn't rule that "intelligent design cant be taught in Dover" as stated in the summary. Instead, the judge ruled that the school board had no non-religious reason for requiring the teaching of intelligent design, and thus the school board was effectively forcing Dover students to be taught religion (as intelligent design has no non-religious purpose). Although this is all semantics, the judge didn't ban intelligent design, and I'm sure teachers could still discuss intelligent design should they be so included. All the judge did was state that the school board (which was voted out of office) had violated the 1st amendment in requiring public schools to teach intelligent design.
Well put. Your analysis of the claims is slightly off however. The critical limitation that is included in all claims (which define the scope of the patent) is:
"using a collaborative filtering process to automatically generate personalized recommendations for the first customer of other items."
The "collaborative filtering process" is what likely rendered these claims patentable, and not the generic review method that comprises the rest of the claims.
So, the title of the article should be "Amazon gets patent for review-based collaborative filtering process" instead of fretting about the general language used to title the patent (patent attorneys always title their applications broadly as (1) the title doesn't affect the scope of a patent and (2) idiots and slashdot readers assume the title equates to the scope of protection)
So,
The answer is simple, criminal penalties against the people who orchestrated the price fixing. The settlement only "settles" Samsung's corporate liability, but the government has said they are likely to pursue criminal charges against 7 Samsung executives for Sherman act violations. So, i agree that $300 million isnt a financial deterrent to high-powered executives, but taking it up the ass in Leavenworth is.
As someone who has been involved in the patent litigation process for several years, I can tell you the last thing *anyone* needs is lay people reviewing patent applications and deciding if something is novel is non-obvious.
The vast majority (95% plus probably) of juries I have seen in patent cases find infringement regardless of evidence or common sense. Juries will always grant money when given the chance and they would always grant a patent application.
Also, juries have a hard time determining if shit stinks, let alone trying to determine if widget x is the same as widget y without knowing what a widget is.
The easiest solution to this mess is to move to a registration system, where patent applications arent examined, and just allow everyone to fight it out in court (which is what happens anyway, but this would be without the presumption that patents are valid).
You're entirely correct. The scope of a patent is determined by its claims. Claim 1 of the nintendo patent is incredibly broad:
1. A method of operating a video game including a game character controlled by a player, the method comprising:
(a) setting a sanity level of the game character;
(b) modifying the sanity level of the game, character during game play according to occurrences in the game, wherein a modifying amount of is determined based on a charater reaction and an amount of character preparation; and
(c) controlling game play according to the sanity level of the game character, game play being controlled at least by varying game effects according to the game charater sanity level.
IMHO, tons of video games anticipate this claim, including the original quest for glory (getting drunk) at least one of the Ultimas (eating mushrooms), and any of the grand theft autos.
Even more interesting, is that the USPTO was only able to cite one reference during examination, thereby explaining this broad claim.