Individuals pay half what a corporation pays. Beside that, if the applicant actually amends their claims to not infringe then they can get in and out in one paid cycle with no problems. The reason that RCEs are abused is because some companies think they can just exhaust the examiner. There is no advantage to it unless your goal is to irritate the examiner and not get a reasonable, non-infringing patent.
So, you think that because one bad patent goes through it will embolden the bad patent filers who will also get through? The patent office does not exist to rubber stamp applications. If they were doing that, they would not have a million cases that have not been touched yet.
The current patent term is 20 years from the filing date. As there is a 3 year backlog before most cases even get looked at these days they are not getting much more time than the 17 years they were granted previously. Also, the pace of technology is not constant in all industries. Drugs are expensive and and take years to develop. If they had to recoup all the costs and get profits in 5 years imagine how much a bottle of pills would cost.
The concept that people should not be able to seek patents while working on development is not really applicable as the USPTO does not require a working model anymore. If you show completeness of the concept and give strong evidence that it would work then you have done the job.
Applicants are required currently to pay for an RCE after every other rejection. The RCE is equivalent in cost to a full initial examination fee. They only get freebies if the examiner does not do a good job.
The USPTO does not get paid by the number of patents granted a year. The revenue is generated from examination fees, maintenance fees and other fees on applicants and patent holders. The money then goes to Congress who allocates the budget back to the PTO. Even if the PTO wanted to make money by just granting patents Congress would likely keep the excess anyway.
That said, just because something seems abstract does not mean that the claims were written in an abstract way. As long as the claims do something tangible they are eligible.
The changes would cut down on the amount of crap applicants can put in their applications helping to ensure that the actual ideas in the inventions might actually get looked at instead of useless filler. Also it would dramatically reduce applicants ability to keep a case inching along for years until the examiner gives up. There are other good things inside, but the two big changes are severe limits on numbers of claims and length of prosecution.
Aside from the fact that this is an APPLICATION and not a GRANTED Patent? What are you going to charge them with? Allowing someone to file a patent application? If it gets granted, then by all means go nuts on them, but if the reference is easy to find it will likely get rejected.
For $180 you can submit the reference to the USPTO to make sure they see it. I fully preemptively agree that paying sucks, but unfortunately it is your only course of action if you actually care about it.
The fee for a large entity to file a patent application is $790 with additional fees for claims in excess of 3 independent and 20 dependent. $790 is hardly breaking the bank for a multi-million dollar company. Take a look sometime at the published patent applications and see how many claims the applicants on average try to get versus what they ultimately get. They obviously have no problem paying the fee as the protection is worth millions to them. You are blaming the USPTO for industry trying to snowball the examiners by submitting excessively large applications that the examiners do not get any extra time to examine (usually). There is no limit currently on the size of an application to be filed. Examiners are beholden to the quotas set for them or they will lose their jobs. Do you think the situation will get better if the turnover problem there was even worse?
The registration system, akin to "rubber stamping", was tried in the past and found to be a massive failure. http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH40/walter4 0.html Section IV on down describes the transition from the original patent system to the registration system. If you think the patent suits now are bad, imagine what it would be like with no oversight at all.
The USPTO is not tax funded. All the income is generated by fees on applicants and patent holders. In fact they make more money then Congress budgets for them so they also pay for part of DHS.
No. Co-ops share the profits with the members in the form of reduced payments or credits, but they are not non-profit in the traditional sense. I'm not positive about Municipal utility companies, but any corporate generator is definitely for profit. They do have to prove to the Public Service Commission that any rate hikes are warranted, but they are allowed a profit margin.
The patent office does not sell patents. I know it is posh to dump on the PTO but you obviously have no idea how it works. The PTO is held by the laws and regulations written by congress and does not have the latitude to adjust the amount of time given to examine any particular case. If you want more time spent on a case, ask congress to give them more time. The USPTO would love to have time to exhaustively search each and every application, but with fewer than 8,000 employees and more than 500,000 new applications a year as well as just under 1 million already in the system that is not exactly fair to applicants that have been waiting up to three years for someone to take a first look at their application. Even with the current problems and limitations that they operate under, they still have a less than 5% rate of allowing "bad" claims to go to the pre-allowance stage where they are caught and re-examined.
This is untrue from the USPTO side of things. While the patent office does make money, they do not keep what they take in. Congress takes the fees collected and allocates less than that back to the agency. They are trying hard to remedy the back log and address the quality issues that have stemmed from the onslaught of 600,000 patent applications a year. The patent office does not have any vested interest in granting applications and would be better off if applicants were forced to actually give up on bad applications. As the system currently works however, once an application starts in the system it can stay there almost indefinitely as long as the prosecution makes lip service to advancing.
If you want to actually help remedy the situation you could contact your representatives as they are the ones that control the rules that patent examination follows. The current rules change proposed http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/pre sentation/focuspp.html would go a long way toward speeding up the system and cutting down on the "bad" patents that make it through the system. The reduction in claims and limits to the number of appeals alone would free up examiners to spend more time looking at the actual merits of a case. Obviously, the rules changes will be fought by the lawyers and agents as they are paid by the hour and long examinations benefit them directly, so some voice in support of the changes outside of the USPTO would be beneficial.
The whole system is fairly transparent and the new proposed peer review system would be a great opportunity for you to provide all this prior art that you claim exsists so the the examiners can have access to it. They get a limited amount of time to try to find something and if they can't find anything there are limits as to the legal definition of obviousness that can be applied to reject an application.
The article makes it sound like google wants to have a live backup of the entire internet. It sounds neat and all in theory, but how would one really justify the expense? Unless google is going to get into the co hosting business (they may be already I admit I don't know for sure) I don't see how this would makes sense to help with making money off of ads. Google is already pretty fast all the places I have tried to access it from. Maybe a few of these would make a difference to when added to what they already have, but I am not sure most would notice.
I understand that google is trying to expand into other areas of connectedness so maybe adding these as needed for that expansion of services would work for them. I am certain google has a better idea of what they are doing than myself or Mr. Cringly so they must have a better feel how buying all this stuff and giving away services for free is good business.
You do realize that your voice really only sounds different to you when you have a cold since the fluid in your sinuses changes how you "hear" your own voice. Ever notice that you sound different on tape than what you hear inside your own head? I am not a security expert, but the information I have seen on the serious voiceprint stuff uses aspects of your voiceprint that are not affected by tone since otherwise a mimic could break in much easier than other biometric methods. Not that voiceprint is really an ideal security method anyway.
The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time for the N64 had a horse that did the same thing with the dust trail. I did love the horse bits in that game. There was a mini game where you rode between two sets of targets and shot arrows at targets along the route. I had forgotten about the game until I got the ported version for the gamecube a while back. It was fun the second time as well as the first.
From what I recall you can get rooms on frieghters sometimes for a couple hundred bucks if you want to go the slow route. Not sure how much more room you would have compared to a blimp but the one I saw on tv at least you got your own cabin.
They buy it because it is RoundUp ready. RoundUp being one of the more popular herbicides it would makes sense to have your crop immune to its effects so that you can spray much more liberally, which is also good for Monsanto. You get higher yields with less careful work so in theory you (the farmer) make more money.
Basically they are doing it for consistency. The main issue they face is from suppliers cutting the seed with non GMed crops and passing it off as all GM and keeping the profits themselves. One of the people I work with is in negotiations with them to mark all their seeds in such that they can go and check every bag sold to make sure it is all theirs. They are not technically allowed to go on the farmers' land or at least that was how I took it since they wanted to have a way to id their seeds from the air as well. So the stories about the farmers are likely getting press time because sometimes the situation seems innocent enough, but that is not Monsanto's main enemy.
I would sincerely doubt that Apple will license at any point in the foreseeable future since part of what makes that seamless integration that people like is the control over the hardware. Microsoft bashing aside, even they would have an easier time with bugs if they had control over the hardware or at least a narrower field. It is all about the tradeoffs. Many producers means lower prices but a harder time for the support people. Fewer producers would mean less variables to test but higher prices from the reduced competition. Generally anyway, your milage may vary.
Does this mean they are selling it again? I am under the impression that it is hard to come by currently. Last I checked you can't even get it from Blizzard.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you think that because one bad patent goes through it will embolden the bad patent filers who will also get through? The patent office does not exist to rubber stamp applications. If they were doing that, they would not have a million cases that have not been touched yet.
The concept that people should not be able to seek patents while working on development is not really applicable as the USPTO does not require a working model anymore. If you show completeness of the concept and give strong evidence that it would work then you have done the job.
Applicants are required currently to pay for an RCE after every other rejection. The RCE is equivalent in cost to a full initial examination fee. They only get freebies if the examiner does not do a good job.
The USPTO does not get paid by the number of patents granted a year. The revenue is generated from examination fees, maintenance fees and other fees on applicants and patent holders. The money then goes to Congress who allocates the budget back to the PTO. Even if the PTO wanted to make money by just granting patents Congress would likely keep the excess anyway.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0700_706_03_a.htm#sect706.03a
That said, just because something seems abstract does not mean that the claims were written in an abstract way. As long as the claims do something tangible they are eligible.
The changes would cut down on the amount of crap applicants can put in their applications helping to ensure that the actual ideas in the inventions might actually get looked at instead of useless filler. Also it would dramatically reduce applicants ability to keep a case inching along for years until the examiner gives up. There are other good things inside, but the two big changes are severe limits on numbers of claims and length of prosecution.
http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/index.php
Because the publication of patent applications takes up to 18 months or never depending on what the applicant desires.
Aside from the fact that this is an APPLICATION and not a GRANTED Patent? What are you going to charge them with? Allowing someone to file a patent application? If it gets granted, then by all means go nuts on them, but if the reference is easy to find it will likely get rejected.
How-to submit the reference: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documen
The registration system, akin to "rubber stamping", was tried in the past and found to be a massive failure. http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH40/walter
The USPTO is not tax funded. All the income is generated by fees on applicants and patent holders. In fact they make more money then Congress budgets for them so they also pay for part of DHS.
No. Co-ops share the profits with the members in the form of reduced payments or credits, but they are not non-profit in the traditional sense. I'm not positive about Municipal utility companies, but any corporate generator is definitely for profit. They do have to prove to the Public Service Commission that any rate hikes are warranted, but they are allowed a profit margin.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/pre sentation/chicagoslidestext.html
If you want to actually help remedy the situation you could contact your representatives as they are the ones that control the rules that patent examination follows. The current rules change proposed http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/pr
It is possible to revoke patents. It happens regularly, along with re-examinations prompted by either patent holder or a third party.t s/1300_1308_01.htm#sect1308.01
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documen
The whole system is fairly transparent and the new proposed peer review system would be a great opportunity for you to provide all this prior art that you claim exsists so the the examiners can have access to it. They get a limited amount of time to try to find something and if they can't find anything there are limits as to the legal definition of obviousness that can be applied to reject an application.
The article makes it sound like google wants to have a live backup of the entire internet. It sounds neat and all in theory, but how would one really justify the expense? Unless google is going to get into the co hosting business (they may be already I admit I don't know for sure) I don't see how this would makes sense to help with making money off of ads. Google is already pretty fast all the places I have tried to access it from. Maybe a few of these would make a difference to when added to what they already have, but I am not sure most would notice. I understand that google is trying to expand into other areas of connectedness so maybe adding these as needed for that expansion of services would work for them. I am certain google has a better idea of what they are doing than myself or Mr. Cringly so they must have a better feel how buying all this stuff and giving away services for free is good business.
The kid was dumb not a killer. So it would be The suicidal little bastard's parents.
You do realize that your voice really only sounds different to you when you have a cold since the fluid in your sinuses changes how you "hear" your own voice. Ever notice that you sound different on tape than what you hear inside your own head? I am not a security expert, but the information I have seen on the serious voiceprint stuff uses aspects of your voiceprint that are not affected by tone since otherwise a mimic could break in much easier than other biometric methods. Not that voiceprint is really an ideal security method anyway.
The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time for the N64 had a horse that did the same thing with the dust trail. I did love the horse bits in that game. There was a mini game where you rode between two sets of targets and shot arrows at targets along the route. I had forgotten about the game until I got the ported version for the gamecube a while back. It was fun the second time as well as the first.
Or maybe they want to sell a phone to people who don't like headphone cords. Not everything is about taking away your rights.
From what I recall you can get rooms on frieghters sometimes for a couple hundred bucks if you want to go the slow route. Not sure how much more room you would have compared to a blimp but the one I saw on tv at least you got your own cabin.
They buy it because it is RoundUp ready. RoundUp being one of the more popular herbicides it would makes sense to have your crop immune to its effects so that you can spray much more liberally, which is also good for Monsanto. You get higher yields with less careful work so in theory you (the farmer) make more money.
Basically they are doing it for consistency. The main issue they face is from suppliers cutting the seed with non GMed crops and passing it off as all GM and keeping the profits themselves. One of the people I work with is in negotiations with them to mark all their seeds in such that they can go and check every bag sold to make sure it is all theirs. They are not technically allowed to go on the farmers' land or at least that was how I took it since they wanted to have a way to id their seeds from the air as well. So the stories about the farmers are likely getting press time because sometimes the situation seems innocent enough, but that is not Monsanto's main enemy.
I would sincerely doubt that Apple will license at any point in the foreseeable future since part of what makes that seamless integration that people like is the control over the hardware. Microsoft bashing aside, even they would have an easier time with bugs if they had control over the hardware or at least a narrower field. It is all about the tradeoffs. Many producers means lower prices but a harder time for the support people. Fewer producers would mean less variables to test but higher prices from the reduced competition. Generally anyway, your milage may vary.
Does this mean they are selling it again? I am under the impression that it is hard to come by currently. Last I checked you can't even get it from Blizzard.
Diamonds, she'll pretty much have to.