Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

New Patent Bill Introduced 173

Posted by Hemos from the COMMON-SENSE!-AMAZING! dept.
msassak writes: "Wired is carrying a short piece on a new patent bill introduced that hopes to cut down on "obvious" patents. It would also give the public the chance to challenge a patent before it was granted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Patent Bill Introduced More

New Patent Bill Introduced

Comments Filter:
  • Quite coincidental, although happily accepted, consider my recent post [slashdot.org] on the issue.

    Regards
  • Perhaps then instead of getting rid of the assignee system, only allow the individual to assign the patent to another individual (and not a large organization)?

    As far as patenting an invention multiple times, I would think in this day and age we should be able to have a database set up to allow key words or something entered so that one could take the application, and find out real quick if the invention has already been patented (BTW, isn't this what the patent office is supposed to do - make sure an invention can't be patented twice, either by the same individual, or another individual?). Some kind of safeguards and checks would have to be allowed so that the patent could still be extended with another patent (I am not sure I am putting this right - my friend's other two patents illustrate this, though - they both look very similar, but the second is an improvement on the first, in which he adds a remote/electric control feature to the idea of the first)...

    I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
  • Er ... not every patent is posted on Slashdot. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the number is below one in every thousand.

    Personally, I'd rather have the patent office decide than the Slashdot herd. At least there would remain some level of objectivity.

    --
    It's a .88 magnum -- it goes through schools.

  • That rules out my "locomotion by placing one foot in front of the other" patent request.

    Shit.

  • While this proposal would seem to help, will it really? After all the PO is passing patents in the face of existing laws (non-obvious, non-software, original, working models are all requirements in law which are a distant memory in fact).

    Either the patent system needs scrapped or the US is going to have to realise that one rouge/idiot judge making a decision to allow something is not on the same legal or moral footing as a law passed by Congress.

    When a Judge makes a decision on a case it should have no effect on other cases; this system means that all laws gradually degrade as a judge here or there makes an incorrect decision for one reason or another and those mistakes are carried into future cases.

    As I understand it, in the UK cases can be used as guidance but there is no binding requirement to follow another judge's decision in another case.

    TWW

  • "Why would they create a bill with such a narrow emphasis?"

    A bill with a narrow emphasis probably has a better chance of getting passed. If it does get passed, it may provide leverage for further reform. Sometimes it's better to attack something piecemeal than all at once.
  • Do you suggest that existing laws should not apply on the internet, just because they are difficult to enforce?

    Um.. no... I didn't say that at all, brainchild. I said that non-governmental solutions are more effective in this situation. Fight against it yourself -- don't enlist your nanny-state to fight it for you, because its NOT going to work (it hasn't in the past)

    Do you honestly mean that child porn is acceptable or should not be fought against just because it appears on the internet?

    Um.. no ... see above

    Then what about internet fraud or fraud done during internet commerce? Shouldn't we fight that too?

    Um..as I stated before, illegal activities are already prosecuted!! Perhaps if you had the mental capacity to understand my writing, you would have understood my explination.

    This is the problem with the authoritarian jerks in the US. IF you're against more government, then they try to make it look as if you support the problem.

  • (this has certainly ben posted in other words elsewhere in this thread, but bear with me OK?)
    1. If someone comes up with an innovative new idea, they should be rewarded for it, above and beyond what the free-market would give them.
    2. Some people won't even attempt to inovate unless they can be guranteed that no one will copy them, because if people copy them they won't be able to get enough back for their investment of effort into the invetion.

    What about "real" patents? The normal case is not the abusive "Hey I just got an idea, let's patent it" but "Hey, I have this problem that I've been working on for years, spending millions of dollars testing it. Now I finally have a solution and I think I'm entitled to earn those dollars back"

    Pharmaceuticals is the obvious example. You don't patent "A pill that cures disease X" but a well documented formula that can be used against the disease.

    Translated into the digital world, you can patent a compression algorithm, but not (in a perfect world) "the process of compacting sound files using a compression algorithm".

    Stop thinking of inventions as a momentary stroke of genius, and start appriciating the 99% of hard work. (1% inspiration and 99% transpiration, remember)

  • According to thomas.loc.gov [loc.gov], the bill in question is H.R. 5364, and the official title is "To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for improvements in the quality of patents on certain inventions".

    H.R. 5364 has been sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary [house.gov].

  • Boucher also, in a masterstroke of good timing, was the one who introduced the bill to authorize the commercial internet (at that time, the ARPAnet). This was in 1992, just as the Mosaic browser came out.

  • Pretty sweeping reform of IP law needed (Score:3)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @02:21AM (#733123) Homepage Journal
    While this sounds like it'd be a good start, some pretty sweeping reforms to IP law are going to be necessary before we can really start taking advantage of our early information age economy. Protections for both the artist and the consumer need to be enumerated and balanced. The law needs to be a little more explicit on what constitutes "Fair Use."

    I'd hope they'd do it right and protect my right to choose to exclusively use Linux if I want to, and keep it feasible for things like Linux to be created. If our current state of affairs had existed a decade ago, some company like Digial Convergence would have sued Linus for some imagined IP violation and that would have been the end of Linux.

    Contract law also needs to be taken down a notch. I'd like to see a "Portions of a contract which require you to surrender rights guaranteed by the constitution shall be unenforcable" rider quietly added to some bill or other. That'd at least eliminate some of the more blatant abuses of software licensing and would fix some annoying crap in the Real World as an added bonus.

    Still and all, it's a very good start.

  • We absolutely should prohibit anything like this suugestion that patent examiners should be able to confer with outsiders.

    There is a reason innovation happens in America far more than it happens in other countries (even those that are quite capable technologically) - the strength of the US patent system. Our strong patent system provides vital protections for small, innovative inventors and gives them a fighting chance against deep-pocketed competitors. The US Patent system succeeds in levelling the playing field like no other system in human history. This is one of the chief reasons for the exploding pace of patents and innovation in the US as opposed to other countries - the US is one of the few countries that protects the contents of the patent application until the patent is issued.

    It should be obvious that requiring disclosure of patent applications in any way (or even "allowing" the PTO to leak such information) will put the US in the same boat as other nations, where individual inventors (who have both the technological and economic motivation to innovate) will have their inventions stolen or their patents worked around before they ever issue.

    WARNING, FOLKS: Supporting this bill is literally supporting the likes of Microsoft, and their ability to be far more predatory than they are today. If you kill patents, all you do is ensure the domination of the huge corporations, which have little motivation to innovate, and everything to gain by stealing every invention they can. US PATENTS ARE A VERY GOOD THING!
  • That seems like an extremely harsh/strict test. Pretty much anything could be seen as analogous to something else. Inventing cookies, for example, is not just a trivial idea, the same as customer numbers; it's a whole set of techniques for making this work well online, and the person who invented cookies really did create something that didn't exist before. Cookies, ironically, would be a classic example of a good patent, if they had in fact been patented.

    Most of the problems with patents are about breadth, not obviousness. The trouble is that people who have come up with a genuinely new, patentable, innovative technique, are being given patents over excessively broad, non-patentable class of techniques which appear obvious.

    In general, when saying "anyone could have come up with this", you need to have a good explanation handy about why nobody in fact did come up with it.

  • But, lawyers have been messing with the meaning of expert in the field, so that now, a software developer isn't an expert, only a patent lawyer is an expert. [unnecessary expletive deleted]

    To put it bluntly, you're wrong: such an expert is clearly defined as one reasonably skilled in the art, and there is a great body of writings and case law defining exactly what that means. In no way does it make the patent lawyers the experts. In general, the test is that the solution being patented should not be obvious to someone trained and experienced in the area in question, but require some special insight. Sometimes, the simple fact that no one has done something before when the "pieces" to do so have existed for a while can buttress an applicant's claim for non-obviousness. (Would Amazon's one-click survive a challenge on those grounds? Good question.)

    If you wnat to cease to be patent challenged, I suggest Nolo Press' excellent book "Patent it Yourself". Even if you have no intent of patenting anything yourself, the book is a wealth of information about the patent system.

    Remember: Killing or weakening patents helps the Microsofts of the world more than it helps anyone else. The US patent system is the best in the world - don't let a few bad patents destroy the most powerful engine of innovation and creativity the world has ever seen.
  • Did you know Hemos patented implus buying on the Internet?
    And he also patented bad spelling... (I paid him a liccensing fee for my spelling.. really) and all kinds of stuff..
    But now if this passes I'm gona have all Hemoses patents challanged...

    Especally that bad spelling one... At least I don't have to pay per spelling error. I got the bulk rate..

  • members of congress approve new legislation for two reasons:

    1. The legislation is very favorable to the monetary/political interests of very large businesses and/or powerful lobbying groups

    2. The legislation will correct an issue over which there is a large public outrage, the details of which must have been supplied to the public via the mainstream media.

    If these two criterion are not satisfied, a member of congress will not approve the bill; for him/her, there is simply nothing to gain and everything to risk by doing so.

    In the case of patents, every kind of patent, even these ridculous ones, benefit monied interests greatly; amazon is doing great, apple is paying them, and lawyers galore for both amazon and B&N are doing gangbusters. Whats more, the chances of any new competition from below coming onto the scene is greatly reduced since smaller companies and individuals are immobilized by every possible tool already being someone's IP, which can then be denied to them, as they are potential competitors.

    As far as the public, nobody really knows or cares about this issue. Most people I talk to are completely unaware, and when I explain it to them (including my fellow technology coworkers), they say, "whats wrong with Amazon patenting something they invented? You're getting upset over nothing". Theres certainly almost no media coverage of the issue outside of trade publications, and the trade publications are mostly catering to large, monied interests anyway.

  • Finally, a congressman with a clue. This is the same guy who also introduced the "Music Owners Listening Rights" [house.gov] legislation, which would make services like my.mp3.com legal. I hope he succeeds in both cases.

    --

  • Uh, British Telcom dosent have to go through the Unites States Patent Office.

    Dumbass.

  • Yes but only when the inventors were motivated by profits. That's where a great deal of inventions came from: for profit inventors. Is this a bad thing? No. Would destroying IP and with it the credit-recognition system that goes with it be good? Hell no.
  • The law already says that obvious stuff is not patentable.

    That's right. The problem is that the law does not define what is obvious. A comment on slashdot saying "well duh! I could have thought of that" doesn't count!

  • Please.

    Of course, it could not pass.

    I used to be younger and more idealistic. I remember the year and a half leading up to CDA. I thought to myself, there is no way this could ever actually pass.

    I was very disillusioned when it passed and the president signed it.

    I then watched as the ACLU, EFF, and others filed suit. I already knew all about EFF. It was on that day that I decided that maybe the ACLU wasn't as evil as I had been brainwashed to believe.

    I also remember the beginnings of CALEA. About 10 years ago. Yes, it has been dragging on for that long.

    I don't know the quote, but haven't you heard the saying about no man or his property is safe while Congress is in session. And in some cases, (CALEA) it doesn't even have to involve Congress screwing the people. [Yeah, I'm cynical.]

  • "Chairman, this is the CEO of Finkelstien Widgets. I'd love to attend that $100,000 per plate fundraiser you're holding, but you see, I'm a bit concerned with that patent thing. It's only through Finkelstien Widgets' innovations that I am in the position to attend such a gala, you understand..."

  • \WhatHeSaid.

    Except, regarding the third paragraph, what we need instead of a new law is a new head for the patent office. Someone a little less beholden to the primary consumers of patents.

    --
  • If Amazon's patent gets repealed (can you do that?), Apple's gonna look really dumb.

    They won't look stupid. They are just following the law at the time. If the law gets changed, they will change their businees practices.
    No one seems to think that liquor makers who stopped making liquor during prohibition are stupid; they simply follow the legal requirements of the time. You would be stupid to base your businees practises more on your idealistic beliefs when they are in opposition to the legal practises of the time.

  • I'd sure like to see some sort of push to force the patent office to do what many of us here seem to be barking about -- do, at a minimum, at least a half-assed on-line search/examination of what's out there and being used today to discover potential prior art (which begs the question of its potential "obviousness" to those similarly knowledgeable and inclined).

    Case in point: the infamous "1-click" patent.

    Many (most?) software and business method patents would pass this minimalist scrutiny test -- and those that are valid clearly should and would. But remember that the point is not to prevent the granting of any patents, but rather to prevent the improper granting of them.


    Andy

    I'm not a patent lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
  • What's up with the self "pun"-ishment behavior people use when they use a pun? (Ok, I get it..)
  • I like the idea about the public challenging a patent before it's issued (I'm still trying to figure out how this will be implemented), but issuing patents for "common sense" stuff is ridiculous. If this passes, then things will really be a mess. I say someone give the President line item veto if he doesn't have that power yet.
  • Still, I wonder if there's more to this bill that Wired isn't telling us yet...
    Neither Congressman Berman [house.gov] nor Congressman Boucher [house.gov] have had press releases about this bill posted on their web sites yet, nor has it appeared on Thomas [loc.gov] (as of Oct 4 03:28:42 UTC, the latest bill listed was introduced Sep 29), but I'd expect at least one of them to have information by the end of the week.

  • Re:Why? (Score:1)

    by Baki ( 72515 )
    Drug development would be an area which would be hit hard by abolishing IP, I agree. This is because of the high costs and long development times in this field.

    OTOH, one might ask if drug development is not a public task, which should be taken over by governmental institutes such as the NIH and equivalent institutes in other countries. In Holland for example, a lot of charity is spent on institutes such as the cancer foundation, that do non-profit research for cures and drugs.

    I find it highly disturbing and immoral that some new drugs are available, but people in poorer countries are still dying of diseases that are curable since they cannot pay the drugs (of which the cost is not so much real production cost, but mainly IP-related costs).

    Yes, drug development in all might slow down somewhat. So be it, there are already way too many new (expensive) drugs on the market, and the idea is that everything which is possible should be available to all, driving the costs of health insurances way out of line in most developed countries.

    People make no good balance: If we don't take care, in some years time 50% of your income might be taken up by health insurance, massively lowering the overall quality of life (since no money is left for other nice things). What do you get in return? Some expensive drugs and treatments that, in most cases, extent a miserable live or sickbed for a few years (i.e. instead of dying quickly at 80, you die slowly between 80 and 85). Of course the commercial pharma companies don't want us to balance the benefits and disadvantages of all that new developments, they only want to increase their profits.
  • But I mean the case when they apply, the public knows the secret and they are not awarded the patent.

    As other posters have said, this could mean that the applicant shouldn't have even tried, but probably there could be a fine line of inventions that could be patented or not and are kept secret.
    __
  • Rubbish. If a big corporation is going to illegally copy a patent application which has been published but not yet granted, it will not shrink from illegally copying a patent once it has been granted.

    While the US patent system is fairly effective, it is not as fair and does not encourage innovation as well as the patent law in almost any other industrialised country. The most prominent difference between patent law in USA and in Europe, Australia, etc. is that outside the US, a patent must make something patent which is not already patent. If the idea has already been published, or used in public, it is unpatentable. In the USA it is possible to patent an invention which is already in common use, provided you can show you developed it first.

    The intent is presumably to allow new inventions to be brought to market faster, without waiting for the patent. (But everywhere, it is common for products to be marketed 'patent pending' or 'patent applied for'.) There are two main practical effects: firstly it is possible for an unscrupulous company (e.g. Amazon.com) to introduce a product and practice, wait for its competitors to follow suit, and then file a patent. This can cost the competitors enormous amounts of time and money, and does not in any way promote science or the useful arts. Secondly, huge companies with research departments can fill in detailed lab notebooks and have them signed and dated, proving when they did such and such. The lone inventor is unable to do this, and foreign companies often don't know they have to, so both are strongly discriminated against. This is why patents by private inventors are extremely scarce in the USA, compared to Europe.
  • This bill is just trying to quiet down the critism. Don't buy it. The rot is deeper than you think. We have to roll things back to a state better than it was before the USTPO decides to legalize the patenting of ideas.

    Refuse to support this. It's not good enough.
    --
  • Oh c'mon troll
    The choise is not between expensive patented or cheap open-source medication. The choise is between patented medication that is expensive until the patent runs out and no medication at all.

    Drug development cost billions and someone has to pay. Sorry, but thats the truth. Either we pay by tax money or grandma pays for herself.

    If you can show me one example to the contrary, please do. If not, shut up.

  • isn't this what the patent office is supposed to do - make sure an invention can't be patented twice, either by the same individual, or another individual

    not quite. technically, an inventor can get the same invention patented as many times as he wants, because we can't use the old patents against his new app. (since the art is too new). that's why we have the doctrine of double patenting, which says you can get as many patents as you want on your (by you i mean an assignee or an inventor) invention, but none of them can extend past the oldest one. so person A can get a patent on person B's already patented invention IF they are both assigned to a common assignee and the latter portion of the later invention is disclaimed.

    ---

  • "Boucher also said that the bill could amend application procedures by adding "new protections to the beginning and end of the current process," allowing the public to submit "evidence that the claimed invention is already in use."

    This just creates more great jobs for lawyers and raises the barrier for the (already pretty much extinct) lone inventor. Is Boucher a lawyer?

    Don't add new searches and procedures. Disallow the patenting of algorithms the way it was before.
    --
  • "The bill would also establish an "opposition procedure" at the conclusion of the process, "so that the public at large would have one additional opportunity to challenge the award of a business method patent short of having to file a lawsuit," said Boucher.

    It's a transparent attempt to legitimize the patenting of business procedures. Think about this: soon the USPTO will allow the patenting of movie plots. Yes they will. It's not good enough to improve this offensive procedure, it has to be killed.
    --
  • i would love it if all the drug companies didn't patent their inventions, and the new drugs were open to all to be made cheaply. problem is, tell that to the bank. no pharmaceutical company would invest in R&D if there wasn't a chance they'd get any return. you could give the government the responsibility, but that would open a brand new can o' worms... a lot of drugs would never be investigated due to things like precedence, lobbying efforts, etc. it would probably streamline the FDA system tho.

    ---

  • Why? (Score:3)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:09PM (#733150)
    Why do we need a new bill? The law already says that obvious stuff is not patentable.

    The bug is in the implementation, not in the specifications.

    --

  • discHead,

    Please tell me that's not a real patent request from IBM. I nearly died laughing when I read that article. I ain't payin royalties to IBM for exercising my cat, my mother's cat, or any cat on this planet. But I think that's one of the more insane patent requests... Thanks for the link *and* the laugh. I'm going to forward that to my friends.
  • Parhaps now Gore can get his patent for inventing the internet, and Lieberman can get his patent on the V-Chip! Hopefully this will clear up the red tape surrounding these obvious licensing issues.
  • Mark me down if you will,... but someone has to do it:

    I'm going to patent the idea of patenting obvious ideas. This way anyone trying to pass a ridiculous patent will have to pay me royalties. Sound good?

    -B

  • I was about to write back to you and tell you that IBM is simply custodian of the Intellectual Property Network Web site, and does not necessarily have any connection with all of the patents listed there.

    However, I see now that the Web site has just been spun off into a new entity called Delphion. [delphion.com] So I must say that neither IBM nor Delphion necessarily has any connection with all of the patents listed there.

    The patent holders, Kevin T. Amiss and Martin H. Abbott, appear to have registered for the patent independently of any corporation. Perhaps they planned on starting a company based on this patent. In any case, due to the completeness and the reputation of the Web site, I am sure the patent is real. But if you are in doubt, a quick check of the government records at your local public library ought to confirm it.

    Since the old link is now broken (geez, doesn't anyone know how to run a Web server anymore?), here is a new working link to U.S. Patent No. 5,443,036. [delphion.com]

  • Unfortunately, this bill was shown to infringe on Amazon's latest patent and was sent back to committee...

    [/sarcasm]

  • Re:Will it pass? (Score:3)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @03:48AM (#733158) Homepage
    Some things that are easy in real life are hard to do on the internet. Sometimes it takes some truly novel ideas to get them to work on the new medium. I can't think of a good example just now.

    In general, implementing things on the internet is easier since the restrictions on a VonNeumann machine are less than the restrictions of the real world. But problems come in when you try to make something work with existing software. For instance, being able to do PCAnywhere-like things within DHTML. I think that's pretty darn clever, and maybe almost patentable.

    Sometimes the implementation details for "X on the internet" is quite a bit harder than "X in the real world", and if the method in which it's implemented on the internet requires significant novel ideas, then I don't see why the implementation details can't be patented (if one believes that fairly novel ideas are patentable).
    --

  • I don't have to see the same comment/jokes on slashdot about "i own the patent on oxygen/water/air/eating/etc" every time there's a post about another stupid patent :)

  • Get a copy of the Bill HERE. (Score:3)

    by Taz1672 ( 69910 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @03:56AM (#733162) Homepage
    http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/bmpiapage.htm 'nuff said
  • The analog equivalent of a one-click purchase is having a tab at your favorite pub.

    When you come in, the waiter/waitress recognizes you. You say "I'll have a Guiness" and they say "Sure thing, Mr. Hoffman!". 10 seconds later it's in front of you. They have your credit card number on file, so they don't need to ask you for cash or other money. At the end of the week you settle accounts and pay your tab.

    This is "one-click" beer ordering. It's exactly like Amazon storing a cookie to recognize your browser and automatically charging your credit card.


    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

  • Some good points to this bill (Score:4)

    by Private Essayist ( 230922 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:14PM (#733165)
    Yes, they should be enforcing current laws, but they are not. So what's in this bill, if it were to become law, is good. Note these good points:

    • "Boucher said the bill would "create the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable."
    • "Boucher also said that the bill could amend application procedures by adding "new protections to the beginning and end of the current process," allowing the public to submit "evidence that the claimed invention is already in use."
    • "The bill would also establish an "opposition procedure" at the conclusion of the process, "so that the public at large would have one additional opportunity to challenge the award of a business method patent short of having to file a lawsuit," said Boucher.
    Common sense, all. But in government, common sense usually requires some laws being thrown around.
    ________________

  • Danger --- red flag (Score:3)

    by _LORAX_ ( 4790 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:40PM (#733168) Homepage
    Reading the article, I noticed some red flags to this bill. It's only reforming buisness practices, not inventions. Would this even apply to shopping carts and 1 click purchang? I think this need ALOT of clarification before we start cheering. They may be able to stop more priceline style patents, but without knowing more this could be a lot of election year hoopla.

    Remember that this year IS an election, these guys may just want to coast along on this proposition, then poof...
  • What really needs to be done is have a thorough review of the current patent system and have it reworked based on the new technologies that are entering our lives on a daily basis. And then someone has to act upon the results of this review.

    There has to be something we /.ers can do to try to influence a review of the patent system. Why not write your Senator or the President on this issue? Or maybe write to the man who may be our next president (the one who invented the Internet), as well as George W. Bush.

  • Summary and text of bill (Score:3)

    by jesser ( 77961 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:48PM (#733172) Homepage Journal
    Rep. Rick Boucher has a summary of the bill as well as the full text here [house.gov]. He was also on of the proposers of a recent bill [house.gov] that would make sites like my.mp3.com legal, and a few years ago he proposed [slashdot.org] giving tax credits to maintainers of widely used open-source programs. I wonder if he reads slashdot.

    --

  • As someone said, the original intent of patents is: the inventors uncover their trade secrets in exchange for a time-limited monopoly.

    If "The bill would also establish an "opposition procedure" at the conclusion of the process, "so that the public at large would have one additional opportunity to challenge the award of a business method patent short of having to file a lawsuit," said Boucher., wouldn't this mean that the inventors may be revealing their secrets, and maybe not getting a patent?
    __
  • I'm the guy who wrote the original post, and even I can't figure out how it got modded as funny. Sure wasn't my intent. I posted those excerpts to be helpful.

    I also enjoyed the redundant mod, as I happened upon this story early enough that mine was one of the very first messages posted on the topic. But hey, I guess I should have anticipated other people writing the same thing and not written my future-redudant message in the first place!

    /. moderation has some serious weaknesses.
    ________________

  • Obvious to a union employee at the patent office isn't the same as obvious to you. Patents have been granted on hyperlinking, education over the internet, and international commerce over the internet.

    According to G. Todd Dickenson, head of the USPTO, its only within the last year that they have started to have two people look at each patent to see if it is non-obvious. Further, according to current law, patent office employees can't talk to anyone outside to find out if the claims make sense. That's what this bill may make better.

  • What sucks are your comments about it.....

    One click purchacing and shopping carts are buisness method patents and would be covered.

    As for the fee to request an opposition to the patent, if you look at what the law would REQUIRE the USPTO to do, the cost in time alone will be far greater than $200. If you didn't charge a fee then the process would make for a good DoS attack on the patent office.

    The reason to make the exception for buisness method patents is that they are the ones giving the most grief these days.

    And just what is an internet patent anyway that you claim is not covered by this bill?
  • <i>wouldn't this mean that the inventors may be revealing their secrets, and maybe not getting a patent?</i>

    Well, look at it this way:

    If the method they were attempting to patent isn't worthy of being patented (ie, it's obvious or has prior art), it's not much of a secret they're revealing is it?

  • You're exactly right (Score:3)

    by Chagrin ( 128939 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:54PM (#733185) Homepage
    Exactly. The patent office has not been doing their job properly.

    If you look at this bill, you have to realize that it only covers business practices and not patents in general. Why would they create a bill with such a narrow emphasis? To me, it looks like a few business (without patents) got upset and decided to line the pockets of these congressmen to get this bill passed.

  • Here's an interesting set of webpages [uspto.gov] hosted by the USPTO that attempt to address "a marked increase in public attention to the operations of the United Sates Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and specifically, the workgroup responsible for examining patent applications in automated business data processing technologies [business methods]".

    (Mods: I am a lazy karma whore. I have not read the entire site that I linked to. Read enough of the link to decide whether it's interesting, and moderate accordingly.)

    --

  • It's nice to know that at least they're trying to improve things. This and the recent carnivore backlash has brightened my opinion of the U.S. Congress to the level of my glow in the dark remote control buttons. Now if they actually pass this, I'll definitely be impressed. It may not be perfect, but the entire system isn't going to be fixed with one big cluestick-beating.
  • Ok, the Amazon 1-Click. What is the "analog-world" equivalent of one click? Is there is one...

    Ever heard of a bar tab?

    How about Priceline? Is there an "analog-world" equivalent? Not really...

    All of those people in Middle Eastern countries and other places where haggling is a way of life will be suprised to hear this. Name your price is new?

    Me: Hey bud, I'll give you $1500 for that bass boat.
    Bud:Deal.

  • wouldn't this mean that the inventors may be revealing their secrets, and maybe not getting a patent?

    YES! So I guess it would be in the inventor's best interest to make really sure the idea is original and non-obvious before applying for a 20 year monopoly on the idea! It would certainly be in the public's best interest!

  • I don't see how it could possibly *not* pass.

    Bwhahahaha. You haven't been paying attention have you. It's nice that you could come visit us. Where is it you are from again?

    Seriously though, patents gives more power to a small group of people who already have a lot of power, and keeps lawyers busy. This bill will have a VERY hard time getting through. Remember, most politicians are lawyers. There's nothing like expanding the market to guarantee yourself a job.

  • Are you talking about HTTP cookies, or earlier ones?

    The idea of giving a token to transform a sessionless system into a sessioned one goes way back. In fact, I don't know of any packet switched network implementing sessions without them. TCP has sequence numbers, which do the same thing. HTTP cookies were just the same idea, except level 7.

  • Write your Congressman - very important! (Score:5)

    by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @07:25PM (#733199)
    Most of the stories posted on Slashdot are pretty useless, and some stories are so lame that everyone wonders what the Editors were thinking. But every now and then, a real gem appears. This story is one of those gems.

    Fellow Slashdotters, the time to act is now! This is no joke (please don't mod this post as funny). If you ever wanted to make a change in the world you live in, if you ever felt powerless that greedy corporations were stripping you of your rights, here is a golden opportunity for you to fix things.

    Why? Because this bill is very important. It needs to get passed. But it takes people like you and me to pass it. How? Like this:

    • First, read the bill. You'll make a fool out of yourself if you don't do this first. Unfortunately, as another posted noticed, it's not currently available on Thomas [loc.gov], so you'll have to find another source or wait.
    • Send a letter to Representatives Rick Boucher [house.gov] and Howard Berman [house.gov]. Tell them that you applaud them for submitting the Bill, and that you support it wholeheartedly. Tell them that you're going to write your local Representative (if neither Boucher nor Berman is your Representatives) and Senators, asking them to approve the Bill if it comes before them (or whatever the exact phrase is). It's late at night for me now, so I'll be posting my letter as a reply to this post, once I write it.
    • Write your Representative and Senators. You can find their web pages here [house.gov] and here [senate.gov].
    • If you want, post your letters as a reply to this post, for other people to use as a guide.
    • About 1-2 weeks after writing your Representative and/or Senators, call them. Ask them if they've gotten your letter and heard of the Bill. Make sure you've thoroughly read and understood the Bill yourself before you call!. Ask them what their position is. If you think they don't agree with it, try to change their minds. Tell them that this Bill is so important to you, that it is the first time you've written and/or called a Congressmen (if it's true).
    • Spread the word! Ask your geek neighbors to do the same as you have.

    If 10% of the people who read Slashdot were to follow this advice, that Bill will become Law.
    --

  • ...add a bill saying that patents can only be awarded to things that could have been kept as trade secrets, if the inventor had chose to not patent it.

    I disagree that this would be a good idea, at least in the universal sense. (I think it could be a good idea as part of the bill mentioned in the article.) The reason this would be bad is that there are lots of things that could not be kept trade secrets yet IMHO deserve patent protection. Things like the design of those speakers on your desk -- you couldn't sell them to people without revealing their design (similar to the problems DC is experiencing). Yet if they are a truly original idea, some invention for speakers that no one has thought of, why shouldn't it be granted patent protection? I'm not advocating the ability to patent speakers -- only the ability to patent a specific implementation of speakers. I think that is the problem with patents: things that are way too general in nature are getting patents and stamping out inventions that deal with specific subsets.

  • One-click:

    "Hey Joe, put this on my tab"

    Priceline:

    "Hey Mr. Dealer, I'll buy that blue chevy from you *right now* for $14,000. I have the check right here, all you have to do is say yes."
  • only the ability to patent a specific implementation of speakers

    That sounds more like copyright to me. I can't make a speaker the same as yours without copying the design.

  • I've got a better idea (Score:3)

    by Robert Link ( 42853 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @06:25AM (#733211) Homepage
    Instead of writing or calling your Congressperson, write or call your candidates for Congress (and for Senate, if you happen to have a Senate election this year). It's very unlikely that this bill will go anywhere this session; Congress is already having trouble getting through its current agenda before the close of the session. So, it's really the next Congress that will decide on this issue. Call your candidates' campaign office and tell them that you care about this issue and that it will be a factor when you vote next month. Ask them what their position is, and if possible pick someone who will vote the right way.


    -rpl

  • Read this bill, it SUCKS. (Score:4)

    by _LORAX_ ( 4790 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @07:35PM (#733217) Homepage

    This ONLY covers buisness models. One click purchacing and shopping carts are NOT COVERED AT ALL.

    To file a notice of prior art will cost you $200. You have to pay them to do thier job. To file an appeal not based on prior art will cost you $5,000 ouch.

    This is a lousy way to start reforming the patent system. All patents need a probationary period after granting to determin scope and possible prior art. After probation another review along with all documentation will be addressed and final pantent award made. It's that simple. Why try and make a special exception for buisness models? And the bill had no refrence specificly to internet patents.

    That really suck, and I thought we might be dealing with some intelligance here.

  • It's easier if you think about it this way (Score:5)

    by DragonMagic ( 170846 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @07:35PM (#733218) Homepage
    Instead of thinking of it as the analog-version of an internet technology, think of it, as the bill supposedly states, as the analog-version of the business method.

    So it's not one-click technology... Bezos' patent is instead one of using a way to keep track of a repeat customer using a database so that the person can just shop there again and again by just choosing what they want to buy and using that way of keeping track to supply the shipping and billing info. Bezos uses a cookie for the digital world. In the analog world, businesses use Customer Numbers or Account Numbers, and the databases are either real computer databases or folders with all that customer's info.

    A method to find the best price by comparison shopping online? I seem to remember that one can call AAA and get similar info for hotels.

    Again, don't think of it as "How is this computer technology similar to something in the analog world", but as "How is this online business method similar to something in the analog business world"? Then you'll easily see where we can pull prior art.

    Dragon Magic [dragonmagic.net]
  • How could you think the CDA wouldn't pass -- it's a law designed to protect innocent children from the horrors of online debauchery! There's nothing more pro-family that you could imagine.

    But the original poster is right, that there's little downside to saying obvious things shouldn't be patented. No one can hold that against you during a campaign, whereas it's quite valuable to say "he voted AGAINST the communications DECENCY act!"...

    I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
    Q.Tell me what the trail was.
  • We definitely need a bill like this to bring some common sense to the patenting business methods in the (please forgive me for using this term ;-) New Economy.

    Unfortunately, we all know how the legislative process works, and its probably not much better than the patent process. Lets hope Congress as a bit more common sense. Unfortunately this bill is being presented by two Democrats, who are in the minority in both houses this session. I don't think this bill is a partisan issue, but if Republicans are trying to push their own legislative agenda, they might block Democratic bills like this one in order to gain support for their own. That's the way the process works I'm afraid, it ain't pretty.

    Basically this bill has a ways to go before we see some useful action, and of course, it will likely not change the status of currently issued patents.

    Spyky
  • IIRC, Rep. Boucher represents Virginia's "Silicon Valley" region, in the northern end of VA. It's no surprise that he's coming up with stuff like the Online Music Owner's Listening Rights Act [house.gov], and this Business Method Patent Improvement act. [house.gov].

    I mean, just look at him... [house.gov] glasses, going bald... introducing good legislation... he's one of us!!!
  • You would be stupid to base your businees practises more on your idealistic beliefs when they are in opposition to the legal practises of the time.

    No, you'd have to be libertarian to believe that maximizing profit at the expense of morals is an absolute necessity of life. If it's legal , do it?

    Great, my project next year is to fuck over 20,000 employees who've given their lives to making money for my company, They'll get no retirement package, and I'll get a $12 million bonus for saving the company so much money. They should have demanded a contract with retirement benefits, the fucking morons. They deserve their fate...

    note: this message has been brought to you by SARCASM; if you don't like it, make a company to compete with it

    I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
    Q.Tell me what the trail was.

  • Analog equivilent of 1-click (Score:3)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @07:47PM (#733227)
    Drive-thru window, order a #1 combo. That's pretty close.

    Vending machine that only dispenses one product. (not so close).

    Gasoline - give the cashier money, pump gas, get back change. This seems closest, as you are following about the same process - give business access to funds, select product and boom! it's paid for.

    In fact "pay at the pump" is probably even closer.

    For Priceline, what about auto brokers? You go in and can say what you're willing to pay for a car. Then they go through many dealers, and find a car you'll like. They negotiate with the dealers, so it's a two way process just like Priceline is.

    Also, I'm no expert on auctions but I imagine there are already auctions that operate in a similar manner to Priceline - a price for some service is defined, then companies agree to provide that service for the given fee.
  • laws are like DRAM memory; they need refreshing every so often or they're forgotton.

    --
  • hi. earlier today, i moderated my primary account with points earned by my secondary account. i can now use those points to troll unabashedly.

    No, you can't. I have a patent on that -- a method for counterfeiting trust on a globally accessible message board through the use of multiple HTTP state maintenance tokens (cookies).

    Your use of Slashdot infringes on my intellectual property. Please cease and disist from this practice at once, or I will be forced to take legal action.
  • Actually, this is a very good idea. The patent office is really underfunded (don't remember stats or URL, but read it somewhere, just take my word for it) and there's no way any patent examiner can check the whole web (or even a representative chunk of it) for examples of the idea in use. This bill would allow anybody to do research on whether an idea is in use or obvious. To use the Amazon example, you find a site that used one-click before the patent was requested and then you email the URL to the PTO, they get enough emails and decide the patent is invalid before it even issued. Alternatively, you send them a database systems textbook and highlight the pages on querying a database....
  • If Amazon's patent gets repealed (can you do that?), Apple's gonna look really dumb.

    Well, I guess they already look pretty stupid for embracing the whole idea. But then again, they are a fruity company (sorry, evil, bad pun, gah, that was terrible).

    Mike

    "I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
  • Although this will be a wonderful reform that will help us all out, it, like all other good ideas, will eventually be choked to death with the Red Tape required to challenge a patent, etc... It's almost a waste of time to pass any logical laws in America anymore.

    Vote Nader!
  • It's times like this that make me glad I'm studying to become a patent attorney. It'll make my job MUCH harder to get through all the challenges proposed in the new bill, but that means that whatever company chooses to pay me for my services will have to pay that much more :) I agree that there are many stupid patents being granted today in the IT world, that's why I'm sticking with Mechanical Engineering as my background in becoming a Patent attorney. So, within some time, i'll be able to say IAAPL (I Am A Patent Lawyer) in my Slashdot sig. Joy :)
  • I disagree that this would be a good idea, at least in the universal sense. (I think it could be a good idea as part of the bill mentioned in the article.) The reason this would be bad is that there are lots of things that could not be kept trade secrets yet IMHO deserve patent protection.

    But what sorts of things should deserve patent protection? Why exepnd government resources (a.k.a. taxpayer's money), and restricts people's freedom? The original intent behind patents was to increase the amount of knowledge available to the general public (by encouraging people to share their trade secrets).

    What would be the reasons behind giving patents in other circumstances? I can only think of these:

    1. If someone comes up with an innovative new idea, they should be rewarded for it, above and beyond what the free-market would give them.
    2. Some people won't even attempt to inovate unless they can be guranteed that no one will copy them, because if people copy them they won't be able to get enough back for their investment of effort into the invetion.

    In case #1, I'd say screw them; why should the government spend taxpayer money, and restrict people's freedom, just so that some inventors can get more money than they could make on the free market? In case #2, I'd also say screw them; there are plenty enough people out there ready to innovate without having to give them extra incentives have them come up with new inventions.


    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

  • What does it mean to be "OBVIOUS" ?! (Score:3)

    by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @08:05PM (#733246) Journal


    You said:

    "The law already says that obvious stuff
    is not patentable."

    The above sentence makes lots of sense to you and me, but to a lawyer or any person who are in the legal profession, words like "obvious" is not enough.

    You have to be as specific as possible, detailing exactly what you mean by "obvious", in the legal arena, in order to make your case.

    Therefore, the question here now lies on what "OBVIOUS" really means.

    Let me take an example:

    The way the "one-click" amazon.com patent works
    is OBVIOUS to many of us, but to the legal staff
    amazon.com has hired, they could argue the
    contrary.

    I do share you view that a new bill is not needed, but some EXPLAINATIONS (in the form of amendment to the existing patent laws) are urgently in need.

    We have seen the effects (many of them negative) of not having EXACT EXPLAINATIONS on many terms, and people who have axes to grind can manipulate the whole notion to their advantage, and that is what has given us so much miseries - not only about the patents, but also copyrights and issues regarding free speech and stuffs.

  • I'm curious.. everyone here is very negative about software patents and indeed it seems to me that they are a very dumb idea. Yet.. If I recall right, the EU just voted (or will vote) to allow software patents. What are the arguments for the other side of this? I mean, if everyone is so negative about it, every country would just simply ban software patents - yet the situation is the opposite. Why? What are the arguments FOR software patents?
  • uhm, its not offtopic; its funny. laugh.

    --
  • The law already says that obvious stuff is not patentable.
    That's right. The problem is that the law does not define what is obvious. A comment on slashdot saying "well duh! I could have thought of that" doesn't count!

    Actually, it does specify what it means by obvious, it states that it should be non-obvious to experts in the patent's field.

    But, lawyers have been messing with the meaning of expert in the field, so that now, a software developer isn't an expert, only a patent lawyer is an expert. Fsck them.

    -elf

  • I'm always curious whether anyone actually reads the constitution. I think I'll just break down and memorize it one of these days so that I can correct people without having to go look up a quote.

    The constitution makes no reference to obviousness. It uses neither the word "patent" nor "copyright". It makes no reference to "invention". In fact, allowing patents on scientific discoveries would definitely be in accord with the constitution (but let's hope congress isn't completely bought and paid for).

    Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8: Congress shall have the power "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

    The constitution is imprecise. The constitution is short and to the point. This is good, because you don't have to be a lawyer to understand the constitution. It also means that you aren't going sue someone for anything under the law as specified in the constitution -- congress makes the laws that are followed to the letter; the constitution says what they are in charge of.

    And to think, people are allowed to vote without ever having read the constitution...
  • Face the facts: internet commerce is fantastic today. Trillions of dollars worth of transactions have taken place over the wire, and awesome wealth has been created for people because of it.

    How many real problems exist with the internet today? The few that appear to be substantial problems seem to violate EXISTING laws (i.e. Napster opponents arguing copyright violation).

    I would like to draw a parallel to the war on drugs, specifically, alchohol prohibition. Before prohibition, problems with alchohol existed (and will likely always exist considering it is possible to make 64 Oz's of booze in 3 days with less than $3 worth of supplies), yet imposing government sanction in regards to alchohol increased the problem to an exponential magnitude.

    This does not necessarily mean that new laws restricting and confining internet trade will backfire, however, one can argue further that they will.

    For example: teen porn. When was the problem larger before or after the media exposed it? Well, how many results will a query of "teen porn" to Metacrawler return? How many IRC or Hotline sites deal with that crap?

    Part of the problem lies in the fact that some people don't have the "expected" reaction to these types of media attention. Instead, many see them and think "Holy crap! I can get pics of hot teenage girls doing nasty things on the internet!!!! Its illegal but... that just makes it more exciting!!" Problem escalated.

    The internet (along with any other network) was DESIGNED to PROVIDE services and power, not to limit them. Attempts in the past (and made today) to limit illegal activities simply DO NOT WORK (to the point that non-governmental solutions do)!!! Even those who live within government-controlled firewalls can still (potentially) get access to information their government considers "restricted".

    I agree with the laws supposed function of giving the public one extra chance to make a decision, as I am a firm supporter of democracy. However, I ask you, given the legendary success of the internet as it is today, as a free and open forum, does it need, and would it substantially benefit from, more government control?

    I think not.

    BTW, I do not have very much respect for WIRED magazine because of (what I percieve) is their negative attitude towards Macintosh.

  • How easy is it to find analog world equivalents? (Score:3)

    by tetrad ( 131849 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:21PM (#733259)
    According to Wired, this bill "create[s] the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable."

    So let's play a game: choose a patent you don't like, any patent....

    Ok, the Amazon 1-Click. What is the "analog-world" equivalent of one click? Is there is one...

    How about Priceline? Is there an "analog-world" equivalent? Not really...

  • Slashdot should patent the slashdot effect. Anyone who becomes slashdotted owes massive royalties.
  • Why? Because, as shown by the recent trends in patents, everyone seems to think the implementation is fine. Yes, the problem is probally in implementation, but that's (probally) not gonna stop patents on linking or downloading or whatever.

    Think of it this way, the patent system is like a huge software system. Instead of isolating a bug and fixing it, you simply release a patch, which causes new bugs, which needs more patches, ect, ect. The system barly stands a chance of changing, so why not try the next best way, of which this may seem

    Plus, I kinda like the idea of saying something's been done to a company, it's the only way they'll listen to me. (Yea yea yea, buying/not buying their product...)

  • Will it pass? (Score:3)

    by dizee ( 143832 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:23PM (#733264) Homepage
    I don't see how it could possibly *not* pass. IANAP (politican), but, I mean, it's all good. There's nothing bad about it. Assuming no conflict of interest in a majority in the House or Senate, this bill should definitely pass. It is about time someone listened or did something about these ridiculous patents. For a while there, I thought it was going to go on forever, another testament to the ailing US government.

    Mike

    "I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."

  • What really should be done... (Score:3)

    by cr0sh ( 43134 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @09:58AM (#733265) Homepage
    This bill sounds like it will be a step in the right direction, but I feel that more could be done, specifically:

    1. Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business methods (and possibly naturally occuring things - like DNA/genes).

    This actually used to be the way it was - but not anymore, for some reason. All was (mostly) well before the commercialization of the internet, then suddenly business methods done in the real world for years could be patented merely by adding "using a network" or similar language to the patent application.

    2. Disallow large organizations (companies, conglomerates, corporations, non-profits, etc) from patenting, holding patents, or being assigned rights to patents after the fact. Only allow individuals to patent inventions, and only allow the individuals to license the patents to larger organizations.

    This would help return the system back to allowing "the lone inventor" to actually invent things, be able to patent them, and then profit from the patents (hopefully spurring him to invent more!). As it is today, companies can build large patent portfolios and use them defensively and offensively, like they were weapons in a war.

    3. Lower the costs for patenting, and streamline the process.

    What? You want them to do what? Yes - you heard me: Make it easier to get a patent. Right now, even for a simple patent, one nearly has to go broke just to afford the lawyers and various fees needed to patent an invention (take a look into it someday - I have had several good ideas that I would love to patent, many are improvements on existing products - none are in the computer sector - but I can't afford it on my salary. Most people can't). I have a friend who patented 3 inventions - and it has since cost him well over $75,000! One of the inventions is something you probably see almost everyday: In some pickups (I have seen them in Toyotas and Dodges), they have a little drink holder - in front of the air conditioner vents - to keep hot drinks hot in the winter, cold ones cool in the summer. My friend patented that device in the mid-'70's. He hasn't seen a dime from anyone, because he can't afford to fight the automakers. In fact, it isn't only the automakers, but other companies are making ones that clip on to the vents (his patent covers all these options). It doesn't matter much now, since the patent is expired - but I hate to see people getting screwed like this.

    4. Hire competent patent examiners, or allow for an outside agency(s) to act/provide competent patent examiners.

    This one is pretty self-defining.

    5. Provide a working model or implementation of the idea to the patent examiners.

    This requirement got dropped a long time ago, but it should be reinstated. Requiring a working implementation or model would show 100% that the individual patenting the device KNOWS what he is doing - plus it would show the validity of the device for patenting. In addition, it would eliminate the ability to patent things which don't quite work now, but someone gets working later, then they fall under scrutiny because this "ye-ole-ancient" patent is there blocking them.

    Those are my ideas. Please expand on them, or tear them apart. I would very much enjoy seeing what everyone thinks...

    I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
  • The patent office has been ignoring larg segments of the process for a while now.
    Even before Slashdot jumpped on this issue the busness world has published some consern that the patent office has been answering a flood of patents with a rubber stamp.
    A lot of those patents were simply patents on existing real world busness.
    The patent office treats the Internet as compleatly new and unique and ignores 20 years of Internet prior art and 30 years of BBS prior art. Not to mention prior art from other networks (FidoNet and WWIV Link)

    Hyperlinking for example.. This was not exactly a new idea.
    Annother example is one click... clearly obveous... but I'll go on.. There is prior art in the BBS world.. however instead of searching the history of online book store BBSes the patent office granted one click shopping.
    The prior art would not be easy for you or I to get at however the patent office should have access to the copyright databank from years preveous when you needed to file your source code to get a copyright.
    A program for one such program has a copyright in the 1970s.. at that time you needed to file your program to get a copyright.
    While the busness is gone and the software not in use the program should be on record.

    As I rember one of the features was to rember your credit card information and keep it on file so that it may bill your card automaticly as you went shopping.
    Alternitively it could just ask you for billing method etc when you were ready to "check out"..
    Very much like todays web malls.. and Amazon.. only all text and you navigated like a text advanture seeing vertual shoppers etc just like a game (In fact they had to add a warnning that this was REAL and you really would be billed for this stuff).
    One of the items was the program itself..
    For the most part it was an on-line book store with a few software titles and some nick nacks (like floppys with images printed on them... the truely original porn disks.. I never got them but I imagin the disk holes blocked the view)

    Anyway... prior art.. only this vertual mall closed many years before Amazon openned it's doors.
  • 1. Algorithms - I mean anything that can be reduced to a mathematical sequence of steps. I don't think a process (how to make a better butter) is the same as the RSA algorithm (which I do think was quite ingenious, getting the idea to work, but it still involved natural mathematics - BTW, I wouldn't have a problem with a patent on say a chip using the RSA algorithm, just the patent on the algorithm itself).

    2. That is what I meant - getting rid of the assignee system (in addition). I don't mind the number of submissions, and the courts should hear any grievances, etc - if it causes headaches, so be it - at least it will be heard (or maybe a better system could be come up with to lessen the court problems).

    4. Yeah, this is one I have a problem with to - as to how you assure that the examiners will be trustworthy (impartial and objective) if they are a third party. Maybe some kind of representational election system (instead of a bid process, or something)?

    5. You got a point there - however, perhaps such a model could be done in a computer (ie, a virtual model - in fact such models are being used more and more before an actual model is built by the inventor, and it has been proposed that the vmodel may actually suffice for a real model in some circumstances). The virtual model could then be presented (along with relevant paperwork).

    In the case of such a network - I tend to wonder if it would be patentable at all (under my suggested guidlines). Sticking an attenna up in the air and flashing data between nodes is old hat, so anything patentable would have to be hardware related (new transceivers, new antenna designs, perhaps new method of layout of the antenna nodes), as software couldn't be patented (because it can be reduced to a series of unpatentable algorithms). These bits of hardware or layout could be modeled (at normal or smaller size, or virtual) for presentation...

    I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
  • That really suck, and I thought we might be dealing with some intelligance here.

    ...and bust out laughing? Maybe I'm just strange that way...

    But to rebut the aforementioned post, I beg to differ. One-click purchasing is just another implementation of a common business model (using IT to keep track of customer info to use during their next purchase). Papa John's, the most popular pizza parlor here at OU keeps track of addresses based on customer's phone numbers, so all you do is give your order, and based on caller ID they know where to deliver it. Just one of many examples.

  • More info on the bill (Score:4)

    by flieghund ( 31725 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:23PM (#733281) Homepage

    From Rep. Boucher's web site [house.gov]:

    There doesn't seem to be anything in Thomas [loc.gov], probably because it hasn't been assigned a bill number yet...

  • The original justifications for patents (at least under the U.S. constitution) was that inventor might keep their inventions as trade secrets, and the public would never get the knolwedge that the inventor had found. With patents, the inventor gives away that knowledge in return for a short term monopoly.

    Thus, in addition a bill that says "these here things are obvious", also add a bill saying that patents can only be awarded to things that could have been kept as trade secrets, if the inventor had chose to not patent it. This would take care of a great deal of the stupid software patents out there. Amazon could never have used "1-click buying" without revealing it to the whole world; same goes for their business-associates patent.

    Of course, if it's already in the consitution, why bother writing any new laws? I don't know much about the history of government and law enforcement, but it seems to me that if a particular law or point of law has been forgotten about, it's easier to pretend the old law never existed and pass an new law saying the same thing, rather than try to breath new life into an old law.


    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
  • This is very pleasing to see some effort put forth by politicians to help stop the ludicrous 'let's patent everything' attitude people (large companies) have these days.

    The patent system was set up to help spread knowledge and also to protect the originator's ideas (so a smart one man show doesn't get put out of business because a company with more money steal's his/her idea). And the knowledge part is simple: patents are there so people can SEE how you did something so that new ways to improve it can be thought up and new advancements can me made (almost open source that way, except the originator owns the rights... i guess it would just be 'read-only source').

    It was a decent system until stingy businessmen and lawyers went and messed it up. The entire 'Net' needs it's own set of laws made up by the community that uses it (not some consortium of politicians/companies). This bill appears to be a reasonable beginning.

  • Re:Why? (Score:3)

    by jesser ( 77961 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2000 @06:25PM (#733285) Homepage Journal
    This law will force the patent office to enforce the idea that obvious things aren't patentable.

    --

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close