Now I think you're just trolling. Section 6 of the AIA actually establishes a process for ANYone to challenge the validity of the patent right immediately after it is awarded and for MORE reasons than currently exist for filing a reexamination.
 

That was just two sections of the 30+ sections in the bill, many of which have nothing to do with either of these. Please don't pretend like you know what the purpose of the bill is when you don't even know what it contains.

God, your comment is so misinformed I want to explode.

1. First-to-file actually doesn't go into effect until March 2013 so you are wrong on that front.
2. This patent was filed in 2008, well before the AIA was signed into law, so even if the first-to-file aspect of AIA had gone into effect on Sept. 16, 2011, it would be irrelevant anyway to this patent
3. Your comment - I assume - is some form of dig that first-to-file means companies have carte blanche to file patents on obvious ideas just because somebody doesn't already have a patent on it, which seems to be a viral misunderstanding of the law here on slashdot. First-to-file itself has nothing to do with determining patentability. The AIA - if anything - made it harder to get a patent because it increased what things could be considered when determining novelty of a claim, i.e., under the old laws, some invalidating product could be on sale in another country more than a year ago and it wouldn't be considered, whereas now it will be.

FFS, please STFU until you educate yourself on what you are commenting about.

Thank you, Theaetetus. I've enjoyed reading your responses over the last week. Slashdot has beaten me down to point where I don't have the energy to try and correct people, so I appreciate you saying all the things I'm too tired to say myself.

That sounds like a pain in the ass. I agree: Solving that problem 12 years does sound like innovation. Oh, I see. You're the type that thinks innovation has to be lightbulb-level innovation. Well, agree to disagree.

Could you be a little more specific? Is there a place you can buy them and get them for free, but to get them for free you have to watch an ad first?

The patent is directed to a website that sells things.

And the patent goes back to 2000.

No, that is not what the patent is about.

It's about offering the content for sale AND offering it for free, but you only get it for free if you watch an ad first.

Did YOU actually read the letter? The whole letter and not just the excerpt that you linked to? Here's the whole letter.

http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html

Maybe you should do a little more digging before you grab your pitchfork.

First, even in the excerpt you cited, Jefferson acknowledges that progress can be made towards forming a general set of rules. He's not saying there shouldn't be anything such as IP (which is what you and every other knee jerk engineer seems to quote this for).

Second, he actually requests that the very letter you're excerpting not be used to misrepresent what he's saying:

"I have thus, Sir, at your request, given you the facts and ideas which occur to me on this subject. I have done it without reserve, although I have not the pleasure of knowing you personally. In thus frankly committing myself to you, I trust you will feel it as a point of honor and candor, to make no use of my letter which might bring disquietude on myself."

Long story short, you do much disservice to your point when chastising me for cherry picking points but then rely on them yourself as your sole support for your main argument.

And I'M the troll.

And yet Jefferson was the first Commisioner of the Patent Office. Kinda undermines his repeatedly copypasted quotes.

Based on what? Processes are absolutely meant to be patentable. 35 USC 101 says:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

It says processes are patentable right there in the statute and has for 50+ years.

By the way, you claim that Edison patented "his lightbulb." You assume he only had an appatatus claim. Just out of curiosity, would you change your opinion if one of the claims of his patent said "a method of producing light..." Choose your answer carefully.

I'm actually not being facetious. So did Edison discover that running a current through a filament when encased in glass makes it glow or did he invent it? Seriously.

I disagree that it's disconnected from reality and common sense. It's the same invention, we're just looking at it from different angles. You claim to want to protect inventions, but are drawing a very narrow definition of what is an invention (apparatus) and what is not (process).

And I'm sorry it's so confusing for you. Legally, there is no difference.

No, same invention, different way of casting it. I've cast it as a method, you've cast it as an apparatus. It's the same invention though.

And "copying" has nothing to do with patent infringement. If someone came up with the light bulb independently, they'd still infringe.

By that argument, anything ever made was "discovered." I discovered that when I ran electricity through a filament, it lights up. And I discovered that I can encase it in glass.

Agree to disagree.