Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Very interesting... (Score 1) 82

If more than one person have a simila idea in a close enough time frame, similar enough to generate competing patents, it should be ruled as obvious and not patentable as too obvious

Why? Is something only non obvious if only ONE person in the world can figure it out? History is rife with two or three people racing to an invention. that doesn't mean the invention is obvious. I would think it would take more than two or three geniuses figuring something out to claim it as obvious.

Comment Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal (Score 1) 225

If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out?
Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.

Comment Re:hate speach post (Score 1) 225

Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities. There is silliness from both sides here.

I'm not sure what you consider a completely legal activity. Is it legal for me to threaten you with a lawsuit, and then file what is shown to be an illegal lawsuit? Is it legal for me to claim that I will have you charged with what sounds like a legitimate crime, if you don't comply? What the troll is doing might be legal, but if it is it sure skirts the boundaries of legalities. Makes the RICO claim much more likely.

Comment Re: I have mixed feelings about this. (Score 1) 225

not only do they rip off anyone and everyone but they waste the courts time with absurd charges, or the courts are stupid enough to take on such cases

they aren't wasting the courts time with absurd charges (well they are, as the original patent lawsuit turns out was absurd) but they are threatening the defendant with the absurd charge. And that is the whole issue here.

Comment Re: I have mixed feelings about this. (Score 1) 225

Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.

This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:

Actually it doesn't. Patents are supposed to protect the implementation, not the idea. For example the one click patent, I should be able to implement one click patent myself, if I do it differently than the way Amazon does it. But I don't really know how Amazon does it, cause I can't see their code. Nor can I truly understand the patent itself.
The other issue with software patents is the majority of them are not really patent-able, as they are not novel or they have prior art.

Comment Re:Those kinds of patent laws used to exist (Score 1) 225

Curiously enough, some of the points made by 'anon' in the parent post here used to be part of some patent law systems in really ancient times (like 16th-18th centuries), but they were one by one abandoned, by court decisions or legislative amendments:

>> 1) Patent times are FAR too long in many cases and should not be renewable.

An early example of a time limit, fixed in 1623 in England, was 14 years from a really early time-point when patent grant took place -- which used to be almost immediately on application (compared with today's long process).

Current patents are 20 years from the filing date. This was extended in the 90s, up from 17 years, not sure why. But 20 years isn't much longer than 14 years. I expect someone was thinking of Copyright lengths.

Comment Re:All? (Score 1) 491

It isn't so much as forcing you to attacking the speaker. It is about inciting a mob to violence. According to Mr Wiki: "Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely" If you have an unruly mob next to a bonfire and you shout "lets burn the courthouse to the ground" you can be arrested. But saying "let us join together and burn the government down" is probably protected.

Comment Re:Fraud (Score 1) 351

The only "civil liberty" it attacks is the ability to fraudulently sign in for someone else.

How about the privacy of their fingerprints. Their employer does not need a record of their fingerprints.
Another problem with using biometrics for authentication, is one they are compromised, they are compromised forever.

Comment Re:Two clicks to submit this. (Score 1) 234

But 1-click sales via computer were decidedly not an obvious thing until after it was done .

Of course it was an obvious thing. but any idiot who brought it up, would get shot down with "you can't just charge someone's card because they clicked a button"
That doesn't mean it wasn't obvious.

Comment Re:Independence of the courts ? (Score 1) 234

Since there doesn't seem to be a clause for lack of clarity being grounds for patent rejection (which would help a lot in situations like this), the judges just accept them instead of trying to learn or, worse, looking foolish for acknowledging that they don't understand the patent (gasp!).

But there is, inventions must be Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention) and Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms.

Comment Re:Independence of the courts ? (Score 1) 234

The language is extremely formalized and very hard to read for untrained minds. And the issues are so specialized that the average judge would have to train several years in the particular field to understand what the invention is about.

Every single patent that falls into this category should NOT receive a patent.
Invention must also be:

  • Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention)
  • Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms

Seems most patents today (well at least many software patents) are only readable by patent lawyers.

Comment Re:Independence of the courts ? (Score 3, Interesting) 234

It sounds like you don't understand what OneClick is. Not only was it not common then, it's not common now.

It wasn't common then because people didn't think consumers would want to buy something with one click. Cause you know, spending money without authorization is kind of scary. And of course now it is patented, so its not common.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the concept of "one click" didn't already exist, just not for buying something.

Comment Re:Independence of the courts ? (Score 1) 234

Patents are only supposed to be awarded to things that do something new, or that do things that are not new, but in significantly different way. The pencil + eraser example does neither.

Where do you get that idea from? According to the government, patents can be for an improvement to a process. Adding an eraser to a pencil is definitely an improvement, and is something new. It was also something useful. I don't see anywhere saying that it is supposed to do something new that has never ever been done before.

Comment Re:Independence of the courts ? (Score 1) 234

That is to say, it has to be or do something completely new. The point made by the court in OP's post is that it was not an invention because it was just two common things, stuck together.

An awful lot of inventions came about by taking one or two common things and sticking them together. Of course part of the process is how you stick them together. I'm sure plenty of people thought about sticking an erase on the end of a pencil, but apparently this guy was the first to pull it off, and thus created something new. I don't see anything in the patent rules that says sticking a couple of common things together isn't new.
As far as one click, I don't believe it was new, in that purchasing something through one click probably already existed. But even if it didn't, it wasn't rocket science. There was nothing special about the concept of "we'll save your info, so you can just click a button to buy something." I can say that because other similar things existed at the time. But back in 1858 did erasers already exist stuck on the end of a pencil?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe