Stupid Patent of the Month: Who Wants to Buy Teamwork From Penn State?

from the story-building-involves-patenting dept

Ever wanted to own the latest in ?teamwork? technology? Well, you?re in luck. On December 8, Penn State is holding a large patent auction, and one of the items is U.S. Patent 8,442,839. This patent purports to describe an improved collaborative ?decision-making process.? As well as being a good example of a silly patent, this month?s winner highlights concerns with universities trying to monetize their patent portfolio. Why would a university, which presumably has a mission of promoting knowledge and innovation, sell an unsuccessful patent that has no value except to a troll?

First, a little background. In April this year, Penn State held its first patent auction. It offered exclusive licenses to dozens of patents but only received a single bid (meaning that it likely didn?t even recover the cost of holding the auction). This is consistent with experience at other schools. Evidence shows that the vast majority of technology transfer offices lose money for their university. Selling old patents brings universities little revenue but risks contributing to the wider economic harm from patent trolling. Indeed, over 60 universities (paywall) have sold patents to infamous patent troll Intellectual Ventures.

Many, including EFF, have expressed concerns with universities selling to patent trolls. To its credit, Penn State says that it does not want to foster patent trolling. And it has included some licensing terms that will discourage trolls from buying its patents (including a six month bar on filing infringement actions). But it is difficult to see how a patent like U.S. Patent 8,442,839 would have value to anyone but a troll.

The patent, titled ?Agent-based collaborative recognition-primed decision-making,? includes a single independent claim. Steps include ?receiving information regarding a current situation to be analyzed,? interacting to receive ?assistance in the form of assumptions or expectancies about the situation,? and using ?collected information to determine whether a decision about the situation is evolving in an anticipated direction.?

The patent reads a little like what might result if you ate a dictionary filled with buzzwords and drank a bottle of tequila. A typical passage explains:

Story building also involves information gathering, but it is more than cue-driven information investigation, because the agents are still unclear about what cues to investigate. Therefore, the key is to identify a collection of cues which the team needs to pay attention to. Our model adopts a combination of two mechanisms: hypothesis exploration and experience synthesization.

In other words: learn from experience. The patent examiner originally rejected the application as not directed to patentable subject matter. Penn State responded by amending its claim to ?include a team-oriented computer architecture that transforms subject matter.? In other words, it took an abstract patent and said, ?Do it on a computer.?

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has put a stop to this kind of nonsense. We think Penn State?s patent would be found invalid under Alice v. CLS Bank. But even invalid patents have value to patent trolls. This is because they can use the cost of litigation to extort settlements. Indeed when patent trolls are actually forced to litigate to the merits, they lose over 75% of the time.

We urge Penn State and all universities to be more responsible. Instead of selling patents that have little value except as litigation weapons, universities should focus on true technology transfer?partnering with others to bring new technologies into the world. And universities should end their opposition to patent reform. We have a petition calling on universities to support patent reform here. Sign it now!

Reposted from EFF’s Stupid Patent of the Month series

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: penn state

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Stupid Patent of the Month: Who Wants to Buy Teamwork From Penn State?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
7 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Honest question

And this is only because I’ve recently gotten myself back into video game development.

This reads (skims, actually…) like a patent on an AI algorithm. I don’t know if I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. Some AI algorithms IMO deserve patent protection.

But by it’s very nature, AI would be an algorithm that mimics existing human behavior (that’s kind of the point). So in this light of “since people already do it, why should a computer doing it be patentable”, how would you determine the validity of a patent on an AI algorithm?

Tech fan says:

Tech Transfer Unprofitable

Sigh. Since apparently you don’t post tor based posts (yes I really want my ISP selling a log of every ‘subversive’ website I visit to the NSA) I’ll try to let you into the little secret about University Intellectual property.

Only a handful of universities maybe 10 are profitable. I.e Columbia, UC, Harvard and maybe MIT.

The rest are money losers that ‘sound like a good idea’ but are really just six figure jobs for the dean’s nephew Rob.

There are better over-views than the below link, but I’m tired.

http://www.bu.edu/otd/files/2011/02/How-are-US-Tech.-Transfer-Offices-Tasked-and-Motivated.pdf

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Tech Transfer Unprofitable

Sigh. Since apparently you don’t post tor based posts

We do post tor-based posts. While they may be more likely to be caught in the spam filter (not always, but sometimes), they will occasionally take longer to get on the site.

I’ll try to let you into the little secret about University Intellectual property.

Only a handful of universities maybe 10 are profitable. I.e Columbia, UC, Harvard and maybe MIT.

You do realize the article actually says exactly that. So it’s not exactly a secret. It’s in the article. Plus we’ve written about it on the site probably a half dozen times.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...