Are you against patents entirely? If you are then your position makes a lot of sense, a lot of people feel the patent system just doesn't provide enough incentive. But if you are just against a certain type of patent, like the business method patent of netflix can you explain why?
Noone is ever able to explain to me why an imporvement patent on a widget is any different from a business method patent. If its new, useful, and nonobvious why not allow the patent? What makes the business method patent field so different?
Here is one of the indepedent claims:
1. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total current number of items provided to the customer does not exceed the specified number.
The bolded part seems novel to me as of April 2000 the filing date of the application. Why did you focus on the 2003 date?
Part of the novelty comes form the item selection criteria, previously I was forced to select the movies when I wanted to rent them as opposed to being able to time shift that process as the claim allows.
Another part of the novelty is just in the exchange of rented items. Can you rent a toaster from Rent-a-Lot then take your toaster back a week later and exchange it for a george forman grill? I had never heard of anything like this before I heard of netflix.
The patent system cannot rely entirely on common sense. It would be too subjective. There is some common sense built into the patent system with standards like "person of ordinary skill in the art" or "general knowledge of the field". But at the end of the day if your going to grant patents you have to be capable of having an objective standard and to do that you need references, otherwise what is patentable would vary from one examiner to the next. Perhaps a problem with these internet/business method related patents is that there is not enough prior art that the examiner can get his hands on.
A simple, hand-waving reference to what one of skill in the art would find obvious, alone, cannot possibly be sufficient. To me the Netflix business method is a perfect example of a business method that should be patentable. How is this method any different than a method of making some widget? Previously, nothing similar to netflix's service was available.
Just because the idea is simple doesn't mean it shouldn't be deserving of a patent. If netflix was such an obvious idea why had it not been previously successful? While "long felt need" and "commercial sucess" aren't the test for obviousness, they are secondary factors worth considering.
The real culprit is lack of prior art and overworked, sometimes inexperienced examiners. The patent office is hiring 1000 new examiners a year. It would be interesting to see what the examiner did say in the file history for this case. If any analogies to simple things like shopping were drawn in this case.
I know many people on slashdot think that taking something you can do already and doing it online should not be patentable. But usually there are obstacles to overcome, and I think it is good to provide an incentive to overcome those obstacles.
The internet is a funny thing in the patent world because once the internet was invented was it obvious to do all these things? I really don't think it was. Search deep and ask yourself if you think someone instantly envisioned blogging, reverse-lookup auctions, netflix, itunes, netmeeting etc. Then, even if you think those things instantly became common-sense common knowledge, was the idea of them common knowledge or the actual implementation? Saying you can build a beter mousetrap is very different from describing and/or building a better mouse trap. The first doesn't render it obvious, the second does.
First, I am a proponent of patent rights generally, not just in this instance. I would be making the same arguments if this was a Microsoft patent.
Second, while it is true this looks like a submarine patent on its face, without seeing the file history we don't know the reasons for the long chain of patent filings. Further, the submarine patent issue has been fixed as of 95 since our patent term in the U.S. now runs from the filing date not the issue date. Unforutnatley though we pay the price until the system catches up.
I have no idea what a video toaster is, and honestly I have very little to desire to get into a debate on the merit of the patent. It is absolutely undisputed that some patents get issued that should not. If the patent was filed in 91, it is feasible the inventor conceived the idea before the "video toaster" that came out in 90. It would also be interesting to know if the "video toaster" was considered in any of those applications. If it wasn't considered then maybe there is a strong argument for the patent to be invalid. The patent office can't reject something based on art that is not before it.
I'm no expert on Tivo or TV Tuner technology. When were TV Tuner cards invented?
Have you looked at the file history of this patent? Do you know when this patent was filed? From what I can tell this patent claims priority to an application filed all the way back in 1991. See U.S. Patent No. 6,285,746. I graduated highschool in 1997 and I certainly don't remember TV tuner technology existing too far before then.
Also, do you really know what this patent covers? Have you poured over the claims? Far too often people make sweeping generalizations about what is or isn't covered by a patent without even looking at or understanding the claims of the patent. While I believe the claims of this patent are fairly broad, they aren't ridiculously so, especially for 1991. FYI please read up on continuation patent practice in the US if you don't understand why 1991 is a relevant date to these discussions.
Design patents have existed a long time and do cover the physical arrangement...
Also, process patents have existed for a long time as well. Further, business method patents make more sense than "a microprocessor programmed to do X" Which is how software is basically patented in foreign countries that don't allow business method patents. Obviously I am over simplifying, but I'm just trying to point out that a method of using the lightbulb would have been patentable when the lightbulb was invented. In other words, we have already been down this road, and the sky did not fall.
FYI you still cannot patent "an idea" its clearly stated in the rules and caselaw that patenting an idea or something purely in the abstract is unpatentable subject matter (see 35 usc 101). What is patentable is a method that produces a useful, concrete, tangible result. I may be butchering the language a bit there, but there are constraints on what processes are patentable. For instance, you coudln't patent a mathematical formula, but you may be able to patent a new, useful, and nonobvious method of using that mathematical forumula as long as that use resulted in a useful, concrete, tangible result.
I just think your post is rather misguided, copyrights protect very different subject matter than patents. And the bar for getting a patent is much much higher than the modicrum of originality needed to obtain a copyright. The real issue likely is that most computer scientists scoff at the thought of being restricted from doing something in code. It seems odd that it could literally be infringing to type up a piece of code, compile it, and execute it. But honestly, if you dig deep enough its really no different than scrounging around for spare parts and building something. Your parts are bits of memory whereas a tangible infringers parts are on a much larger scale.
Its worth noting that merely being unique is not enough for something to be patentable. It must be new, useful, and nonobvious.
I realize this is a joke, but it hits at a core issue with every patent story posted on slashdot.
Noone reads the f' patent.
While its true a general summary of the patent would be a "buy it now" feature. The metes and bounds actually covered by the patent is VERY particular. People really should check out the claims of the buy it now patent before passing judgment on the entire patent system (U.S. Pat. No. 5,845,265). I think it would be difficult to produce art which has every element in those claims.
Slashdot sure is anti business method patent. I just don't get it.
If you don't agree with giving inventors a monopoly in exchange for disclosing their ideas, I understand. I just don't see why a distinction is drawn between the tangible and the intangible.
Attacking the system because they let something through that you think is obvious, I can understand. But attacking an entire class of patents seems ridiculous. Many things that have no tangible component seem patentble to me. For example, slashdot's moderation system seems to meet the necessary requirements to get a patent (at least back when it was first invented, unless theres prior art im not aware of). To me it seems part of the problem is that the prior art in the business method group just isn't as easy to produce at the time these patents are prosecuted, but its easier to find at litigation where parties are more willing to spend money to find it.
Also, a technical degree is a requirement to be a patent attorney. There is a very good chance someone with an EE/CS degree is involved in this case.
Maybe you're right that "buy it now" is obvious, but instead of just shouting from the rooftop that it is, proove it. Point to some piece of physical evidence. Patent examiners cannot just rely on their own subjective feeling about whether something is obvious or not.
Please do some basic reaseach about business method patents. "do a good service for your customers" would not be patentable in the current regime becuase it does not achieve a Useful, Concrete, and Tangible Result as required by the case law on business method patents.
Do you think all methods should be unpatentable or just business methods?
I'm an attoney who works anwhere from 40 to 70 hours a week. Even if i sleep 8 hours a day thats at least 40 hours left of free time. If you assume another 10 of those are taken up eating and another 10-20 doing activities other than playing warcraft, that still leaves me with a minimum of 10 hours to blow playing warcraft.
Spending 8-10 hours on something every week is NOT a big time committment, even for people in the real world. Now, I can understand some people, even people who play warcraft, would rather spend there free time doing things other things. However, those people almost certainly have enough free time to make the conscious choice of what to do with it.
People have a completely unfounded view of world of warcraft. It does not take that much time to play. You can easily play 2-3 hours 2-4 days a week and be advancing your character in end game material.
I play about that much and my guild has already gotten to C'Thun. People just grossly overexagerate the time sinks in world of warcraft.
This is not a patent, it is a published patent application. Applications in the U.S. are published 18 months after they are filed. The patent application has not even been examined yet. Feel free to look up the application in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair bleat .
Slashdot Mirror
Are you against patents entirely? If you are then your position makes a lot of sense, a lot of people feel the patent system just doesn't provide enough incentive. But if you are just against a certain type of patent, like the business method patent of netflix can you explain why?
Noone is ever able to explain to me why an imporvement patent on a widget is any different from a business method patent. If its new, useful, and nonobvious why not allow the patent? What makes the business method patent field so different?
Here is one of the indepedent claims: 1. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of: receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent; providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total current number of items provided to the customer does not exceed the specified number. The bolded part seems novel to me as of April 2000 the filing date of the application. Why did you focus on the 2003 date? Part of the novelty comes form the item selection criteria, previously I was forced to select the movies when I wanted to rent them as opposed to being able to time shift that process as the claim allows. Another part of the novelty is just in the exchange of rented items. Can you rent a toaster from Rent-a-Lot then take your toaster back a week later and exchange it for a george forman grill? I had never heard of anything like this before I heard of netflix.
The patent system cannot rely entirely on common sense. It would be too subjective. There is some common sense built into the patent system with standards like "person of ordinary skill in the art" or "general knowledge of the field". But at the end of the day if your going to grant patents you have to be capable of having an objective standard and to do that you need references, otherwise what is patentable would vary from one examiner to the next. Perhaps a problem with these internet/business method related patents is that there is not enough prior art that the examiner can get his hands on.
A simple, hand-waving reference to what one of skill in the art would find obvious, alone, cannot possibly be sufficient. To me the Netflix business method is a perfect example of a business method that should be patentable. How is this method any different than a method of making some widget? Previously, nothing similar to netflix's service was available.
Just because the idea is simple doesn't mean it shouldn't be deserving of a patent. If netflix was such an obvious idea why had it not been previously successful? While "long felt need" and "commercial sucess" aren't the test for obviousness, they are secondary factors worth considering.
The real culprit is lack of prior art and overworked, sometimes inexperienced examiners. The patent office is hiring 1000 new examiners a year. It would be interesting to see what the examiner did say in the file history for this case. If any analogies to simple things like shopping were drawn in this case.
I know many people on slashdot think that taking something you can do already and doing it online should not be patentable. But usually there are obstacles to overcome, and I think it is good to provide an incentive to overcome those obstacles.
The internet is a funny thing in the patent world because once the internet was invented was it obvious to do all these things? I really don't think it was. Search deep and ask yourself if you think someone instantly envisioned blogging, reverse-lookup auctions, netflix, itunes, netmeeting etc. Then, even if you think those things instantly became common-sense common knowledge, was the idea of them common knowledge or the actual implementation? Saying you can build a beter mousetrap is very different from describing and/or building a better mouse trap. The first doesn't render it obvious, the second does.
First, I am a proponent of patent rights generally, not just in this instance. I would be making the same arguments if this was a Microsoft patent. Second, while it is true this looks like a submarine patent on its face, without seeing the file history we don't know the reasons for the long chain of patent filings. Further, the submarine patent issue has been fixed as of 95 since our patent term in the U.S. now runs from the filing date not the issue date. Unforutnatley though we pay the price until the system catches up. I have no idea what a video toaster is, and honestly I have very little to desire to get into a debate on the merit of the patent. It is absolutely undisputed that some patents get issued that should not. If the patent was filed in 91, it is feasible the inventor conceived the idea before the "video toaster" that came out in 90. It would also be interesting to know if the "video toaster" was considered in any of those applications. If it wasn't considered then maybe there is a strong argument for the patent to be invalid. The patent office can't reject something based on art that is not before it.
I'm no expert on Tivo or TV Tuner technology. When were TV Tuner cards invented? Have you looked at the file history of this patent? Do you know when this patent was filed? From what I can tell this patent claims priority to an application filed all the way back in 1991. See U.S. Patent No. 6,285,746. I graduated highschool in 1997 and I certainly don't remember TV tuner technology existing too far before then. Also, do you really know what this patent covers? Have you poured over the claims? Far too often people make sweeping generalizations about what is or isn't covered by a patent without even looking at or understanding the claims of the patent. While I believe the claims of this patent are fairly broad, they aren't ridiculously so, especially for 1991. FYI please read up on continuation patent practice in the US if you don't understand why 1991 is a relevant date to these discussions.
Design patents have existed a long time and do cover the physical arrangement... Also, process patents have existed for a long time as well. Further, business method patents make more sense than "a microprocessor programmed to do X" Which is how software is basically patented in foreign countries that don't allow business method patents. Obviously I am over simplifying, but I'm just trying to point out that a method of using the lightbulb would have been patentable when the lightbulb was invented. In other words, we have already been down this road, and the sky did not fall. FYI you still cannot patent "an idea" its clearly stated in the rules and caselaw that patenting an idea or something purely in the abstract is unpatentable subject matter (see 35 usc 101). What is patentable is a method that produces a useful, concrete, tangible result. I may be butchering the language a bit there, but there are constraints on what processes are patentable. For instance, you coudln't patent a mathematical formula, but you may be able to patent a new, useful, and nonobvious method of using that mathematical forumula as long as that use resulted in a useful, concrete, tangible result. I just think your post is rather misguided, copyrights protect very different subject matter than patents. And the bar for getting a patent is much much higher than the modicrum of originality needed to obtain a copyright. The real issue likely is that most computer scientists scoff at the thought of being restricted from doing something in code. It seems odd that it could literally be infringing to type up a piece of code, compile it, and execute it. But honestly, if you dig deep enough its really no different than scrounging around for spare parts and building something. Your parts are bits of memory whereas a tangible infringers parts are on a much larger scale. Its worth noting that merely being unique is not enough for something to be patentable. It must be new, useful, and nonobvious.
I realize this is a joke, but it hits at a core issue with every patent story posted on slashdot. Noone reads the f' patent. While its true a general summary of the patent would be a "buy it now" feature. The metes and bounds actually covered by the patent is VERY particular. People really should check out the claims of the buy it now patent before passing judgment on the entire patent system (U.S. Pat. No. 5,845,265). I think it would be difficult to produce art which has every element in those claims.
Slashdot sure is anti business method patent. I just don't get it. If you don't agree with giving inventors a monopoly in exchange for disclosing their ideas, I understand. I just don't see why a distinction is drawn between the tangible and the intangible. Attacking the system because they let something through that you think is obvious, I can understand. But attacking an entire class of patents seems ridiculous. Many things that have no tangible component seem patentble to me. For example, slashdot's moderation system seems to meet the necessary requirements to get a patent (at least back when it was first invented, unless theres prior art im not aware of). To me it seems part of the problem is that the prior art in the business method group just isn't as easy to produce at the time these patents are prosecuted, but its easier to find at litigation where parties are more willing to spend money to find it. Also, a technical degree is a requirement to be a patent attorney. There is a very good chance someone with an EE/CS degree is involved in this case.
Maybe you're right that "buy it now" is obvious, but instead of just shouting from the rooftop that it is, proove it. Point to some piece of physical evidence. Patent examiners cannot just rely on their own subjective feeling about whether something is obvious or not.
Please do some basic reaseach about business method patents. "do a good service for your customers" would not be patentable in the current regime becuase it does not achieve a Useful, Concrete, and Tangible Result as required by the case law on business method patents.
Do you think all methods should be unpatentable or just business methods?
I'm an attoney who works anwhere from 40 to 70 hours a week. Even if i sleep 8 hours a day thats at least 40 hours left of free time. If you assume another 10 of those are taken up eating and another 10-20 doing activities other than playing warcraft, that still leaves me with a minimum of 10 hours to blow playing warcraft. Spending 8-10 hours on something every week is NOT a big time committment, even for people in the real world. Now, I can understand some people, even people who play warcraft, would rather spend there free time doing things other things. However, those people almost certainly have enough free time to make the conscious choice of what to do with it.
People have a completely unfounded view of world of warcraft. It does not take that much time to play. You can easily play 2-3 hours 2-4 days a week and be advancing your character in end game material. I play about that much and my guild has already gotten to C'Thun. People just grossly overexagerate the time sinks in world of warcraft.
This is not a patent, it is a published patent application. Applications in the U.S. are published 18 months after they are filed. The patent application has not even been examined yet. Feel free to look up the application in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair bleat .