Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    cKarlGo, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 4:06am

    Is there any doubt?

    Really? I wonder if I could patent the color red? Or maybe air? That's gotta have some licensing potential!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 4:36am

    But the real question is...

    Why does Church hate this tucker fellow so much? What did tucker do to deserve such scorn?

    Nonetheless, I agree with CHT's analysis. Seems like an odd USPTO patent approval.

    Do we need new patent examiners? Yes. Quite frankly, when I call my congresspeople at their DC offices, I am usually greeted by a nice person with a very heavy Indian accent. Just like other customer service numbers.

    So call the local office.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 4:51am

    You know, I am continually beside myself when I read stories like this. Who reviews these patents?

    Is the USPTO outsourcing them to India to save costs?

    If so, can we stop for a moment and ask "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?"

    I mean, they're the Government. The ones under the Constitution, can print money. Why the hell is the Government outsourcing jobs to India?

    If my Government is outsourcing Patent and IP jobs to cut costs, I believe we as citizens have the right to:

    1) Not formally recognize any patents or intellectual property claims granted by outsourced personnel, or personnel that lack US Citizenship.

    2) Formally invalidate any patents or intellectual property claims granted by outsourced personnel, or personnel that lack US Citizenship.

    3) Formally replace those who granted patents or intellectual property claims with those who are qualified and hold US Citizenship.

    4) Increase pay of patent and IP examiners 10 fold. These examiner positions should be the most desired and coveted position in the country outside of the US Supreme Court, or Congress. As their decisions could reach that high.

    Apparently right now, we're not paying them enough.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Yosi, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 5:36am

    Re:

    Or, on the other side - cancel stupidity called "patent".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    angry dude, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 7:29am

    freaking punks everywhere

    "To 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"

    Each time I read this passage I admire the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who put this clause in the original US Constitution

    What is left of it today ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Nina Paley (profile), Nov 25th, 2009 @ 8:23am

    Excellent

    That article is so good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Rick, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 8:24am

    Re: freaking punks everywhere

    Nothing is left of it....

    'authors and inventors'

    authors now mean 'content owenrs' (rarely does it mean the actual author anymore)

    inventors now mean anyone with an idea (not an actual invention as the founders intended)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    RD, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 8:35am

    Not much

    "To 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"

    Each time I read this passage I admire the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who put this clause in the original US Constitution

    What is left of it today ?
    ---------------------------
    Not much, I'm afraid. Lets take a look:

    "To promote the progress of science" - definitely not happening anymore, as patent is almost exclusively used now to RESTRICT progress and CONTROL what people can and cant do with an invention.

    "and useful arts" - HA! Promote big media corporations bottom line is more like. What "useful arts" are being promoted? Again, not many, as its mostly huge conglomerates like the recording industry and hollywood studios that benefit the most. None of them, incidently, NEED copyright to be as much of a success as they are, since virtually everything is "pirated" anyway, and yet they are still making lots of money.

    "by securing for limited times" - bwahahaha - funniest of all, and the furthest off-the-mark of the entire thing. Since when was "limited times" EVER intended to be 120+ YEARS?? Please, someone in CONgress, answer me that?

    "to authors and inventors" - As someone pointed out above, this is no longer the case, as ANY person who has so much as had an IDEA can now have a copyright or patent on it. The broad brush paints all the same color, after all.

    "the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" - The only part left that is true. What is NOT said is that this "exclusive right" is now a de-facto monopoly for a virtual eternity (or at least, lifetime + about a century).

    Again, the INTENT of this constitutional clause was ALWAYS for this to be a RESTRICTED right, both in terms of length of time and scope of protection. It currently barely resembles the original intent, and has moved well past its intended purpose.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 9:46am

    Now I can sue them for using my patent for asking nosy questions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    angry dude, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 10:10am

    Re: Not much

    "the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" - The only part left that is true. What is NOT said is that this "exclusive right" is now a de-facto monopoly for a virtual eternity (or at least, lifetime + about a century)."

    You are dead wrong here

    I am holding a US Patent in my hand with the official USPTO seal and the signatuire of the PTO Director (some dude named Dudas - now gone)
    it says in writing that I have the right "to exclude others from making, selling blag balgh blah "

    DO you really believe I have that right as a small patent holder, a micro-entity if you will ?

    Then you must have spent last 5 years of your life in outer space

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Matt (profile), Nov 25th, 2009 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Not much

    Umm... yes. You do.

    You may find it difficult to exercise your right. For instance, if your patent is stupid and should not have been granted, or if it has little value, you may not be able to find a lawyer willing to take your case on a contingency-fee basis. Then you would have to hire a lawyer with your own money, and the cost of litigation may outweigh its value pretty quickly (again, we're taking it for granted that your patent is low-value or worthless).

    But you have the right, and litigation is expensive... so as a practical matter, other small operators will be unlikely to want to infringe your patent. Now the big guys - they are probably aware of the quality of your patent, and believe they will eventually win a lawsuit. Their cost/benefit analysis is very different from the small operator's. Put differently, the value of your exclusive right is that it is enforceable against other micro-entities.

    Incidentally, if your patent is valuable and the infringement significantly impairs that value, you should have no trouble getting a lawyer to protect it. The largest single-plaintiff verdicts are for patent infringement. The rules for collecting a contingency fee from a single plaintiff are much friendlier than the rules for collecting from a class of plaintiffs. So lawyers who think they can win have strong incentives to represent patent-holders. This is the genesis for myriad stupid lawsuits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    angry dude, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not much

    "exclusive right" - the right to exclude

    In patent law terms it's the right to obtain injunction

    Read about eBay Inc. v. MercExchange decision and other recent (mis)happenings in the patent world

    You are as clueless as any other punk here

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 2:05pm

    Notice how patents are meant to serve the best interests of industry and not the general public.

    "but these solutions fail to meet the needs of the industry because the pendency period for such requests might exceed that for a patent application."

    Also found this interesting.

    "David Kappos, former vice president and assistant general counsel for intellectual property at IBM, was hired as the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to flush the bottleneck of patent applications. It takes more than 20 months for the agency to take its first action on a patent application; his goal is to cut that time in half."

    Just what we need, more reckless patents being granted for no good reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 25th, 2009 @ 2:07pm

    "Therefore, there currently exists a need in the industry for a process that keeps reporters somewhat in good graces with their editors and helps news organizations’ readers/viewers/listeners better understand the workings of the USPTO."

    This sounds like an attempt to brainwash the public into believing that patents are somehow serving the public good. Just make sure you control all of the media outlets into brainwashing you and be sure to censor criticisms as well, which is exactly what mainstream media is doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 25th, 2009 @ 5:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Not much

    "exclusive right" - the right to exclude

    Angry dude, homework assignment for you: look up the history of exclusive right language. You might be surprised at what it was originally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2009 @ 9:43pm

    Re: freaking punks everywhere

    Certainly not the "limited times."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2009 @ 9:44pm

    Re: Re: Not much

    How are you holding a patent if you don't actually have one?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Gena777 (profile), Nov 30th, 2009 @ 8:56pm

    Anything

    Yes, sometimes it seems that the governing patent law eligibility standard, "anything under the sun made by man," has instead become "anything under the sun."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This