Has the USPTO finally attained ridiculous status?

[andargor]

I was reading this article this morning, and I could only shake my head at the whole patent system. Remember when someone tried to sue because they said they invented electronic commerce?

Am I the only one disgusted at the entire business of filing stupidly general patents en masse, and then going around blackmailing people with it? Why is the USPTO granting these patents, anyway?

I agree that inventors should be protected, but this makes no sense. It makes small companies fearful of going into business with an original idea because of these suits. As an entrepreneur, I am sensitive to such matters.

Check out this patent, which is one of those in the suit, and tell me if it deserves to be a patent.

 

[Umbran]

Note: this one can easily verge into politics - don't let it.

In general, the US Patent Office is not designed to deal with the sheer volume, much less the types of submissions, that it gets. They are not necessarily stupid, or crazy - they are simply not built for the task of today.

 

[blackice001]

I tried for months to get enough money to patent one of my inventions. I had about thousand dollars saved up when I realized, """ i cound never afford to defend my patent in court ""... ooh well.. its just another form of tax, and another reason to be a lawyer.

 

[Merkuri]

One thing that I think they have a hard time evaluating in the patent office is the "nonobvious" part of the patent. Did you know that Amazon.com has a patent on "one click shopping" where you can click on one button to buy an item? Every other website has to have at least two clicks for you to actually buy something. Is buying something with one click really that obscure an idea?

I recall reading somewhere that somebody holds the patents on hyperlinks. The idea that you click on some text and it brings you somewhere else. How is that not an obvious method of navigation in a document?

I can't recall it off the top of my head, but I recall seeing a patent filed by the company I worked for, and I had to keep myself from showing visible signs of disgust, thinking "why do you feel like that's an original enough idea that it deserves a patent?" We also got caught by a patent from another company. They basically patented taking one type of information and exposing it as another type. We wanted to do the same thing, since our software thrives on the second type of information, but we had to do it in an obscure, roundabout way so that it wasn't truly that kind of information - not directly. All because somebody else wrote to the patent office about how to take data in format A and change it into format B.

It seems that nowadays companies try to patent everything so they can claim they thought of it first and sue other people who try to use it, and the patent office is so overcome by requests like these that they can only spend something like two minutes (maybe less) on each patent, so they're pretty much forced to say, "yeah, sure, approved" to each one or risk falling so far behind that it'll take decades to get any patents approved.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the current patent system.

 

[Ranger REG]

How do I find out if I need a patent, trademark or a copyright?

Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are three types of intellectual property protection. They are different and serve different purposes. Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions. Trademarks include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. Service marks include any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services. Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works.

If you don't like how the USPTO process intellectual property registrations and approvals, you could try and apply for the job there.

 

[andargor]

If you don't like how the USPTO process intellectual property registrations and approvals, you could try and apply for the job there.

LOL, I'll take that under consideration.

Frankly, and trying hard to avoid annoying Umbran by going the way of politics, I can only say that the solution doesn't lie with the employees.

Here's my parting shot: Method of swinging on a swing, a classic example of patents protecting inventions, and improvements to existing inventions.

 

[Ranger REG]

Here's my parting shot: Method of swinging on a swing, a classic example of patents protecting inventions, and improvements to existing inventions.

Interesting. Even more interesting that after you found that page, you don't even bother to post a comment about it.

Scared?

 

[Victim]

I agree that the non obviousness theoretically required for patents is not generally enforced. I remember one of my professors telling a story about a friend who patented a damping system - the professor looks over the diagrams for a bit and goes "Did you just patent F= M x A?" "Yep"

I think part of the problem is that A) non obvious is supposed to be for professionals in that the field. I bet that people file patents in more fields than the patent office has trained people. And B), there are plenty of brilliant ideas that are of course perfectly obvious AFTER someone else thinks of them, but so few people actually do think of them. "Why didn't I think of that?" sort of ideas. Picking out the easy solution that everyone else is missing does seem like a worthwhile improvement. But that's a bit different from patenting some vague garbage and then going for a cash in lawsuit when someone is actually doing something.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Microsoft recently patented Page Up/Page Down

 

[Merkuri]

Microsoft recently patented Page Up/Page Down

Wow. Just... wow....

Note, too, that the patent was filed in 2005, but was just granted on Monday (if I'm reading it right). Does that mean all non-Microsoft keyboard manufacturers have to remove the page up/page down keys or pay a usage fee to MS?

Edit: I feel like there's got to be "prior art" for this. I know keyboards were being manufactured with page up and page down buttons before 2005.