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

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: auctions, patent trolling, patents, teamwork
Companies: penn state


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2014 @ 3:13pm

    I wonder who at Penn State got paid initially for creating this garbage , was it deemed valuable just to put money in some bigwigs pocket ripping off the University?

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

  • identicon
    Tom Stone, 25 Nov 2014 @ 5:41pm

    "Teamwork, by Penn state"

    Dude, it's NAMBLA approved!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2014 @ 5:30am

    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?

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

  • identicon
    Tech fan, 28 Nov 2014 @ 7:29pm

    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

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Nov 2014 @ 5:35am

      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.

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at publiccode.eu
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.