Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Extremely scary (Score 1) 211

You said that USC 135 cannot be used to delay a patent in a manner that counts toward it being extended.

1. Have you ever filed a petition to institute a derivation proceeding?

Almost no one has. First, under the pre-AIA rules, they were called interferences; derivations have only existed for a year. Second, there were 20 interferences per year, on average. Out of half a million patent applications. They're horribly expensive, and have little point. The fact that you reference that statute really indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.

As for 35 USC 156, do I need to handhold you through the million ways they can make a product subject to regulatory review? One way is to say is that it's going to be in a medical device or a medical device is going to use it.

Yes, and then you can't sell it in the meantime, nor can anyone else. Congratulations, the "40 year monopoly" you were ranting about just disappeared, since there's no mono.

And again, I should point out that (i) you failed to use the 'quote parent' button or otherwise quote me; (ii) failed to answer any questions from me to you; and (iii) changed the topic yet again, once I pointed out you were wrong. This is just pathetic.

Comment Re:Extremely scary (Score 1) 211

AFTER I said "the patent issuance delays are not random .. anyone skilled in the art knows how to manipulate it." You said

"There are reasons we manipulate delays - for example, where the patent owner is unsure whether to proceed with the application or not, and wants to stall while they release their product or talk to investors - but to get increased patent term extension is not one of them. "

So you admit that the delays can be manipulated, yet patent term extensions aren't a reason. This strongly implies that an applicant has no interest in having a delayed issue date.

It only strongly implies it if you don't bother reading the quote, considering the quote explicitly lists times when the application may have an interest. Try again.

1. A greatly delayed issue date can result in a term extension.

... if the delay was by the USPTO, rather than the applicant.

2. You state that applicants/their lawyer have ways to cause patent issuance delays.

... such delays being by the applicant, rather than the USPTO.

3. You say that applicants have no interest in a term extension.

I say that #2 is not done for the purpose of patent term extension, since the applicant doesn't get one, under #1. This is not complicated.

Also, your reasoning that applicants merely want to stall while they talk to investors or decide whether to proceed makes no sense. They've already paid the fees, why would they need to stall or not proceed with an application?

Cost to respond to an office action may be $4-6k. Cost to get an extension is $180 for the first month. They can spend $180 to take an extra month to decide whether to spend $4-6k.

Unless we are talking about a situation where they are concerned about trade secrets, there is no reason for someone to not want a patent.

Unless patents aren't free. Hint: they aren't.

Comment Re:Extremely scary (Score 0) 211

OK, so now you admit that deliberately causing delays are possible and that you know of ways to do it.

And I also explained why they don't give you extra patent term. So, are you going to admit you were wrong earlier, or are you just going to keep changing topics every time you get called out? Frankly, that's more than a bit disingenuous, and makes me not want to waste any more time trying to educate you.

Since you seem to think that forcing patents into the RCE backlog doesn't help the application get delayed...

As I said, the RCE backlog doesn't help the application term get extended. It delays the application, but not in a way that benefits the patent owner.

... and that USC 135 & 156 are useless...

I never said they were useless. I said they do different things than what you claimed they did. If you say a car is edible, and I say, "no, you idiot, it's a transport vehicle, not a food," that doesn't mean I'm saying that cars are useless.
Honest question - is English not your first language?

.. why don't you tell us some of the ways you do use?

To delay an application? Sure. You can take monthly extensions of time. Up to 3 months on an office action, and up to 5 months on a notice to file missing parts. You have to pay fees that increase significantly for each month, and you lose patent term. So, while it can be done for various reasons, it doesn't help the patent owner, and contrary to your thread title, there's nothing "extremely scary" about it.

Also, you claim that a patent applicant has no gain or financial interest in a delayed patent issuance date

[Citation needed]. I'll wait for either you to cut and paste those words from my post, or an apology. I assume that you're not a liar and will therefore provide such a citation or apology in your next post.

Comment Re:Extremely scary (Score 1) 211

Also, there is no why the law has to say that the USPTO must grant extended time. Let's say the patent office issues in 2015 a patent filed in 2000. The applicant can still sue infringers for back royalties. In fact this "sue for back royalties" has been the trend among patent trolls. The USPTO "realized it" (ie, got called on it) relatively recently and therefore started publishing most pending applications after 18 months so that people can at least check if they might get sued at a later date for using a patent pending idea.

They started publishing applications at 18 months as a result of Congress amending 35 USC 122 to require publication, rather than secrecy. They didn't get "called on it" - they were following the law as Congress wrote it, and then changed when Congress changed the law.

Anyway the fact that a patent owner can sue people for back royalties means that with delays patent owners can have monopolies on technology for extended periods of time far beyond 20 years. For example if you get your patent delayed 30 years (not unreasonable when you consider some HDTV patents from the 1990s have yet to issue) then you basically get to earn royalties on for 50 years. Furthermore you can demand huge sums in back royalties for the delay periods. How is that fair?

You can get "back royalties", in your phrasing, when the patent that's granted is identical to the application that was published. And that's fair when the patent owner files their application, the USPTO publishes it, and then sits on it for years while all of the competitors read the application and implement the invention. Why should the owner be required to publish their idea and tell everyone how the invention is made, but not get any royalties?

And those HDTV patents you mention are in the 20 years from filing regime... They won't get another 20 years of term, and they aren't identical to what was published, so they won't get "back royalties" under provisional rights, either.

Comment Re:Extremely scary (Score 1) 211

Yes they can. They can word their applications in such a manner that increases the delay likelihood substantially and whether it triggers RCEs etc. What can I say, you don't know the basics of getting the USPTO to delay while technically making it fall under the statutes I mentioned you obviously know absolutely nothing.

Actually, I'm a US patent attorney. I'm simply correcting your incorrect reference to 35 USC 135 and 35 USC 156 - a reference that you've completely backed away from, I notice. Again, RCEs have nothing do with either of those statutes.

Until I proved it, you didn't even know that some patents issue quickly whereas there are still patents in the queue from the 1990s and even the 80s (in fact, know of one from the 70s that is not yet acted on but the reason for that particular one is not the applicant's fault).

Of course I know that. I've had patents issued within a year of filing, and other patents take as much as 8 or 9 years. But what you apparently don't know is that Applicants' RCEs count against us for patent term extension calculations. If we stall and delay and push for multiple rounds of prosecution via RCEs, we lose patent term. It's only delay by the USPTO that results in increased term.

Anyway, the patent issuance delays are not random .. anyone skilled in the art knows how to manipulate it.

There are reasons we manipulate delays - for example, where the patent owner is unsure whether to proceed with the application or not, and wants to stall while they release their product or talk to investors - but to get increased patent term extension is not one of them. And, as I said above, this has nothing to do with 35 USC 135 or 35 USC 156, as you originally insisted. You're like the Jon Snow of Slashdot - you know nothing.

Comment Re:Extremely scary (Score 1) 211

BS.

There are many many patents with extensions ... for example .. just randomly typing patent numbers you can find many .. for example US patent# 7349837. It's patent term was extended by 715 days. Just look up that patent in the uspto website and then click on images to see the pages .. you will see halfway down that it says "Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 715 days."

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D...

Before you accuse me of cherry picking .. try typing searching random patent numbers on the USPTO website above 7,000,000 and below i guess 8,500,000. It wont take you long to find ones that have had their patent terms arbitrarily extended. Especially ones for stuff like communications, images, video etc.

Yes, they have, but (i) that's not arbitrary, and (ii) has nothing to do with either 35 USC 135 or 35 USC 156. Patent term extension under 35 USC 154 is extensions due to the applicant due to delay by the patent office - when the US changed from 17 years from issue to 20 years from filing, it was with the understanding that it takes about 3 years to get a patent, so the term was roughly the same. When the backlog at the patent office increased, applications were sitting in the queue for years before being picked up, and it wasn't fair to an inventor to have the patent office sit around for five or six years before finally getting around to examining and allowing the application, and then say "gosh, sorry, you only get 14 or 15 years, because we were slow. That's bureaucracy for you, eh?"

Those delays are specifically due to patent office delay. No one can "push for delays" like you said. And those other statutes simply don't apply to patent term extension.

Comment Re:Extremely scary (Score 1) 211

Dude, my point is that there is no fixed 20 year time period, you can keep extending the patent issuance for as long as you like by using 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a). If you managed to delay it more than 3 years (very easy btw) then the clock of those 20 years starts after the issue date. SO for example, you if you filed a patent in 2000, you keep pushing for delays under 35 USC 135 (c) so that the patent gets issued in 2020 .. then you have a monopoly on the invention until 2040. You can sue any infringers for back royalties on your invention if someone else built it (knowingly or unknowingly).

Wat?

35 USC 135(c) Deferral of Decision.— The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding until the expiration of the 3-month period beginning on the date on which the Director issues a patent that includes the claimed invention that is the subject of the petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board also may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding, or stay the proceeding after it has been instituted, until the termination of a proceeding under chapter 30, 31, or 32 involving the patent of the earlier applicant.

That simply doesn't say what you think it says. Even if you go back to the pre-AIA 135(c), it says:

(c) Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the agreement or understanding. If any party filing the same so requests, the copy shall be kept separate from the file of the interference, and made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause. Failure to file the copy of such agreement or understanding shall render permanently unenforceable such agreement or understanding and any patent of such parties involved in the interference or any patent subsequently issued on any application of such parties so involved. The Director may, however, on a showing of good cause for failure to file within the time prescribed, permit the filing of the agreement or understanding during the six-month period subsequent to the termination of the interference as between the parties to the agreement or understanding. The Director shall give notice to the parties or their attorneys of record, a reasonable time prior to said termination, of the filing requirement of this section. If the Director gives such notice at a later time, irrespective of the right to file such agreement or understanding within the six-month period on a showing of good cause, the parties may file such agreement or understanding within sixty days of the receipt of such notice. Any discretionary action of the Director under this subsection shall be reviewable under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Interferences and derivation proceedings have nothing to do with submarine patents. And 35 USC 156 is patent term extension for regulatory proceedings - you get extra time for the period during which the FDA held up your new drug.

Neither of those sections say what you think they do, and submarine patents are a thing of the past, because of the change to 20 years from the date of filing rather than 17 years from issue.

Comment Not a black and white issue (Score 1) 211

From the article:

The move is likely to anger patent reform advocates given Johnson’s past efforts to block legislation aimed at reining in patent trolls, and in light of his positions that appear to contradict the White House’s professed goal of fixing the patent system...
In December, Johnson testified before the Senate on behalf of the 21st Century Patent Coalition, a group of companies who opposed a bill that would have made it easier for defendants to challenge low-quality patents, and to recover legal costs in the face of frivolous patent lawsuits. (Johnson’s group ultimately prevailed last month when Senate Democrats killed the bill altogether.) Johnson has also opposed previous patent reform initiatives, describing them as “almost everything an infringer could ever want.”

"Patent reform" is not a single solution, with people lining up on opposites of a fence to either oppose or support it. There are many different issues, from patent trolls and shotgun litigation, to venue issues like the Eastern District of Texas, to the quality of examination at the USPTO, to patentability of software, to patentability of business methods (which is similar, but different), to patentability of medical diagnostic methods (also different), to issues of clarity and notice to potential infringers, to end user-targeted infringement lawsuits, to fee-shifting, etc., etc... Contrary to what the article believes, you can be in favor of some solutions while being opposed to others, and that doesn't make you a "patent reform opponent" or mean that your positions "contradict the goal of fixing the patent system." Rather, it means that you recognize that, like almost every other thing that reasonable people disagree about, there are shades of gray.

Comment Re:Diplomatic immunity? (Score 1) 173

by Theaetetus (#47351275) Attached to: Julian Assange Plans Modeling Debut At London Fashion Show

Not disagreeing with the other facts you stated, but the girls did not press charges, nor did the swedish gov't - the got an extradition warrant so that they could question him. The fact that the refuse to do this via webcam, phone, letter etc and that they are doing this even though the women don't want to press charges shows that the extradition is political.

See the post in the thread above - apparently, "charges" work differently in Sweden, and there are two levels, one of which only comes after the suspect is in custody. Assange has been charged as much as he can be at this stage.

Comment Re:It's not the infringement that's the issue (Score 1) 59

by Theaetetus (#47335387) Attached to: Intuit Beats SSL Patent Troll That Defeated Newegg

I'm fairly convinced that if I claim the moon is not made of cheese you will insist that it's hand waving unless I present you with a core sample and video to prove it was taken from the moon. If you want to go all starry eyed and say OOOOOOOOOOoohh every time someone describes common knowledge using the word plurality, beat my guest.

I think your guest is fine without my efforts, and if you're outraged by the use of 'plurality', then you've got bigger problems than I can help you with.

Comment Re:It's not the infringement that's the issue (Score 1) 59

by Theaetetus (#47334891) Attached to: Intuit Beats SSL Patent Troll That Defeated Newegg

Everybody poops. Most people don't feel a need to write a paper about it each time (not even the author of "Everybody Poops").

Why wouldn't resource cost (as determined by scarcity or, TADA how tight the quota is and how close to the limit you are) be considered when deciding how important something is. Ever notice how when people are moving they start out carefully wrapping and boxing everything but by the end when they are tired and the truck is full they become willing to just chuck it? Same idea. Did you consider that I skipped it because it was unremarkable? Good programmers know when NOT to get bogged down in the details too. If you had relevant expertise in the art, you might know that.

So, back to the hand-waving "I don't have any evidence, because my gut tells me this feature that I lack any evidence as having existed before is 'unremarkable'"?

On the one hand, you could be right and this patent merely claims a 40 year old, widely used technology, and everyone involved in it, from the inventor, to Google's internal counsel, to the patent attorney who prepared the application, to the multiple Examiners and supervisors at the USPTO were all incompetent... On the other hand, maybe the feature you admit you're ignoring as "unremarkable" may not actually be 40 years old and widely used. Sure, Occam's Razor would suggest the latter, but that doesn't really fit with your "I'm a super genius and everyone else is a moron and/or corrupt" narrative. I'm sure that will be equally persuasive to a court reviewing validity of the patent.

Comment Re:It's not the infringement that's the issue (Score 1) 59

by Theaetetus (#47334281) Attached to: Intuit Beats SSL Patent Troll That Defeated Newegg

Aggregates of pretty much anything have been dealt with that way for a very long time. It's not a 'gut' thing, it's based on work I have personally done in file systems.

Great, then you can probably provide some evidence of that, such as a published spec, that shows everything in the patent claim, right? Or is this more of an "out of my ass" feeling?

Again, I *DO* hope you're not a patent examiner. You seem to be impressed very easily.

I'm not. But incidentally, I notice you completely skipped over the part of the claim about the weighted TTL based on storage quotas. I hope you're not a programmer, since that requires at least a bit of attention to detail.

Comment Re:It's not the infringement that's the issue (Score 1) 59

by Theaetetus (#47334045) Attached to: Intuit Beats SSL Patent Troll That Defeated Newegg

Do you know what an aggregate file is? It's a file! Do you know what the modification time of an aggregate file is? The latest modification time of any chunk of the file. So, do we want the least or greatest credible TTL figure? Six of one, half dozen of the other, so which to pick.....OH OH Mr. Kotter! we can split the difference! Wow, nobody's ever thrown up their hands and split the difference before!

I'm not saying it wasn't good thinking, just that pretty much any competent team faced with the same problem would have come to a very similar solution. I *DO* hope you're not a patent examiner.

Do you know what hindsight is? It's when you say "pff, pretty much any competent team would have come to very similar solution, and I can prove it because... my gut says so." Legally, it's about as viable as saying, "that guy's totally guilty, and I can prove it because... my gut says so." 'Obvious' or 'guilty' are conclusions, which need to be supported by evidence, not feelings.

Comment Re:It's not the infringement that's the issue (Score 1) 59

by Theaetetus (#47332475) Attached to: Intuit Beats SSL Patent Troll That Defeated Newegg

No, it means if you make noise, your bogus patent gets the approval. Then a bunch of poor suckers get to spend everything they have in court reversing the bad decision.

That kinda goes against your whole "they rubber stamp patents blindly" rant earlier, then.

Keep in mind, the rejections include a big pile of some idiot patenting something that came and went before he was born but he's totally convinced nobody ever thought of it before because he packs the bearings with cat hair plus the ones that are just a vague thought with no reduction to practice at all. That and a pile of zero point energy anti-gravity whoosiewhatsises.

If not, how do you explain this?

I explain that as Slashdot's usual practice of paraphrasing an invention by describing it in known terms, forgetting that 10 seconds ago they just paraphrased the invention, and angrily complaining that the known terms are the invention and that therefore it's old. An article about a patent on the transmission of the Tesla Roadster would probably be "Inventor claims to have patented the Model T plus AA batteries! USPTO insane!"

In your example, the patent claim is:

1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
selecting a file having a path name in a distributed file system, wherein the file is divided into a plurality of chunks that are distributed among a plurality of servers, wherein each chunk has a modification time indicating when the chunk was last modified, and wherein at least two of the modification times are different;
identifying a user profile associated with the file;
determining a memory space storage quota usage for the user profile;
deriving a file time to live for the file from the path name;
determining a weighted file time to live for the file by reducing the file time to live by an offset, where the offset is determined by multiplying the file time to live by a percentage of memory space storage quota used by the user profile;
selecting a latest modification time from the modification times of the plurality of chunks;
determining that an elapsed time based on the latest modification time is equal to or exceeds the weighted file time to live; and
deleting all of the chunks of the file responsive to the determining.

Without needing to go into all of the ways it's different from a simple "expiration date" metadata field, we can simply look at the first step - the file is divided into a bunch of chunks, and they have different modification times. Under the old system, do you delete some of the chunks before deleting others, because they weren't modified? That's bad. There's also that whole weighted file time to live based on storage quotas. Expiration date metadata doesn't even touch that.

So, how do I explain it? Bad Slashdot article, and the patent is certainly valid over what the article thinks is anticipatory prior art. Maybe there's other art out there, but that one sure as shiat ain't it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close