IBM Files the Patent Troll Patent 109
An anonymous reader writes "It's all or nothing over at IBM as the company goes for the gold and files the patent troll patent. Forget the Hyperlink patent or the POS shutdown patent, IBM wants the patent patent. Its idea is centered around an approach to managing patents from inventor training to filing and protection strategies, including competitive monitoring. At least in theory, IBM could get approval to own the idea of how to manage patents and make a business out of IP. The next time you file a patent, you may want to contact them as you may need a license to file for filing."
Fixing this mess (Score:5, Informative)
More important than yet-another-silly-patent, this year there will be opportunities to fix this mess somewhat. In the USA, the Supreme Court is to hear the i4i v. Microsoft case, and in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal will decide if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.
Background info:
Direct Link to Patent Application (Score:5, Informative)
Enjoy
Awful article, legitimate patent (Score:5, Informative)
After reading TFA and finding effectively nothing about the patent itself, other than typical "oh-no-patents-are-bad" scaremongering, I finally found one single link to the patent in question [uspto.gov]. The title (conveniently not mentioned in TFA) is "Intellectual Property Component Business Model for Client Services". From that alone, it appears the patent covers only a particular method for managing IP. It doesn't directly relate to actually filing patents at all.
Looking at the abstract and claims, it describes a "computer system" (probably implemented as an application like any other) with a large number of modular parts that manages each step of IP creation, organization, administration, and enforcement.
It includes a module to keep track of what is or is not a current patent, and where.
It includes a module to keep track of who's licensing what, and with what conditions.
It includes a module to take a business plan and figure out what IP will be necessary to enact that plan.
Skimming through the other claims, it appears to be pretty benign: It's an application to sort out the mess of IP every big company has. Heck, as a final product, it might even cut down the number of patent trolls, because companies can more easily show all the IP that a particular product uses, and know that what the troll is claiming is not in the product.
has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (Score:5, Informative)
1 is below
It is a bit hard to follow, but claim language is the precise definition of what the patent covers; if you have something that omits only one of the items below, then you are not infringing Given the many, many steps in the claim 1, I don't see it having much value - for instance, the claim language says that there will be guidelines for IP counsel; if you did everything exactly as the IBM patent said, but omitted this step, you would not be infringing. 1. A computerized system for an intellectual property (IP) framework, including:a strategic planning computer module for formulating business strategies for creating and managing inventions and IP rights, said strategic planning module including at least one electronic database having data for formulating said business strategies;an invent computer module for managing creation of said inventions based on said business strategies;an IP creation computer module for determining value of said inventions and creating an IP portfolio, said creating of said IP portfolio including creating said IP rights based on said determining of said value and said business strategies;an IP administration computer module for managing said IP rights based on said business strategies including extension, maintenance and retirement of said IP rights, measuring performance of said business strategies, creating and modifying budgets, and setting guidelines for IP counsel;a defend computer module for defending against infringements and invalidations of said IP rights based on said business strategies and monitoring market and competitor actions to develop risk management plans;an influence computer module including a standards influencing unit, a legal and regulatory influencing unit, and a policy influencing unit; anda capitalize computer module for identifying potential licensees and potential assignees of said IP rights, and managing licensing negotiations, cross-licensing negotiations, and assignment negotiations based on said business strategies,said business strategies provided by said strategic planning computer module being input into at least one of said invent computer module, said IP creation computer module, said IP administration computer module, said defend computer module, said influence computer module, and said capitalize computer module,said inventions provided by said invent computer module being input into said IP creation computer module, andsaid IP rights provided by said IP creation computer module being input into at least one of said IP administration computer module, said defend computer module, said influence computer module, and said capitalize computer module.
Re:Metapatent? (Score:5, Informative)
So basically this is a "metapatent." Someone should patent the idea of doing metapatents! And someone else should patent the idea of the idea of doing metapatents!
No its not.
Its a patent for a software system. Period. End of Story.
The Summary above is almost pure hype, based on an article that itself was mostly hype, leading to a perfect storm of hype.
(Maybe Hype Squared should be patented, at least we could go after these hypesters that post stories on Slashdot to troll anything relating to patents.)
You can''t release a piece of software that mimics ALL of IBMs claim, but that has nothing to do with patenting anything.
Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (Score:4, Informative)
This led to my revised idea:
1. File a business method patent on patent trolling.
I thought I was joking. The thing is, if I blogged about it (and I may have), I wonder if it's prior art?
Was that before April 2007? If not, Halliburton beat you to it:
Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party [uspto.gov]