Stupid Patent Of The Month: Sharing Your Hard Copy Documents, But On A Social Network

from the because-patents dept

Back when you were a kid, you may (depending on your age) have checked books out of your library using a circulation card. The cards, like the one pictured below, would allow the librarian to keep track of the books, who had them, and when they were expected back at the library.


(Ohio Univ Libraries / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

This month's Stupid Patent is awarded to Xerox, who on January 19, 2016 was awarded a patent on essentially the library circulation card, but done electronically.

The patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,240,000, is entitled "Social Network for Enabling the Physical Sharing of Documents." The patent discusses what it sees as a problem with current methods of sharing documents. Specifically, it says that "systems and methods which enable the sharing of documents among people working in proximate locations, while still promoting worker efficiency and independence, is [sic] needed." In addition, "there is still a need for an efficient social networking platform which is organization specific and which allows members of an organization to know what other members sitting in the same organizational space are reading, what documents they are amendable to sharing, and to which documents they are providing physical access."

And how does the patent solve these problems? Claim 11 details one way:

11. A computing system for enabling a physical sharing of a hard copy of a document, comprising:

[a] a plurality of programmatic instructions stored on a medium, wherein, when said plurality of programmatic instructions are executed, cause a client computing device to present a first graphical user interface to a user, wherein said first graphical user interface comprises a plurality of printing options for printing the document, wherein said first graphical user interface comprises an input for receiving an indication by the user that the user is willing to physically share the hard copy of the document within a predefined period of time; and

[b] a computing device for hosting at least a portion of a social network comprising a profile page of the user, wherein said computing device receives at least one of a characteristic of the hard copy of the document, in response to the user indicating a willingness to physically share the hard copy and publishes said characteristic on the profile page of the user, wherein said profile page is accessible to everyone who is connected to the user in a social network, and wherein said characteristic include at least one of title, date, location of document, or location of printing.

This claim is a good example of patent-speak. For various reasons, patent claims are often written in long, obfuscating language that tends to make them difficult to understand for anyone who isn't a patent lawyer. To be clear: patent lawyers will rightly tell you that every word in a claim is important. This is true. But what is also true is that often times claims include terms—such as "plurality of programmatic instructions stored on a medium"—that are essentially meaningless outside the patent system.

Claim 11, when given a plain English translation, reads something like this:

A computer that, [a] via a GUI, asks the user whether they want to print something using through a variety of methods, and to note whether they want to share the document once printed, for a certain amount of time and [b] if the user says they want to share it, updates the user's status on their profile page that tells people the name of the paper, the date it will be available and where.

This claim reads as merely a computerized version of the library's circulation card. A library purchases a book (similar to the printing of claim 11). The library then offers it to one of its patrons, who then decides they would like to borrow it for a certain amount of time. The patron brings the book to the counter, the card is filled out with the patron number and due date, and then placed in the file of all the cards for other patrons to search if they're looking for that book and when it will become available.

We just gave Xerox a patent on what amounts to sharing a book, but electronically. When considered this way, it is clear that Xerox's patent is a stupid patent. It deserves our censure. But more importantly, this patent issued this month, on an "invention" from 2011. Ultimately this patent is one of hundreds or thousands of patents that don't describe actual inventions, but rather just rehash old, obvious ideas "on a computer" using confusing language. The failure of the patent office to prevent this patent from issuing is regrettable, and shows just how dysfunctional our patent system is.

Republished from the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Stupid Patent of the Month series

Filed Under: patents, stupid patent of the month


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Tom Mink (profile), 29 Jan 2016 @ 4:23pm

    And 3...2...1

    When does Xerox start sending threatening letters to libraries who figured out this circulating documents using a computer thing decades ago. Certainly, there's a tempting mix of large deep-pocketed companies like EBSCO who make circulation software and defenseless individual libraries who roll their own or depend on open source software. It's a target rich environment.

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

    • icon
      BernardoVerda (profile), 29 Jan 2016 @ 7:02pm

      Re: And 3...2...1

      Xerox doesn't -- they'd be too embarrassed, and it would do too much damage to their reputation and to their business.

      So what they'll do instead (as they've done before) is sell the patent off to some "Patent Assertion Entity" (a.k.a. "Troll") like they sold 5,689,64
      https://www.google.com/patents/US5689642
      to East Texas based Loramax LLC, who promptly filed suit against several dozen "infringers" in the notoriously "patent friendly" District Court of East Texas.

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

    • icon
      klaus (profile), 1 Feb 2016 @ 9:25am

      Re: And 3...2...1

      I wouldn't mess with the librarians. Seriously. They may not have the deepest pockets, but they're as smart as Yoda, utterly fearless, and on the side of liberty, justice and the All American Way.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2016 @ 5:15pm

    A digital library card? Nice try techdirt!

    The patent clearly describes a digital-analog hybrid fax machine. Finally! I've been waiting for someone to invent that.

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

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 30 Jan 2016 @ 4:07pm

      Re:

      Also known as an all-in-one photocopier, something Xerox has been making for decades. The only difference being this one auto-shares the PDF on Facebook.

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

  • identicon
    Glenn, 29 Jan 2016 @ 6:15pm

    A joke (but not really)

    What do you call 5,000 [patent] lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2016 @ 10:34pm

    There,s loads of prior art that could challenge this ,
    is,nt Theres loads of programs , that allow groups, co workers to share and change documents over networks .
    I,d like to see a study how much do us companys
    spend on producing or defending against software patents ,
    vs companys in other countrys where theres no software trolls ,
    and software patents are not allowed .
    Software patents are like nuclear weapons ,
    of no good to anyone apart from the companys that
    make them,
    or maybe to be used as a weapon against others .
    Meanwhile 1000,s of lawyers and trolls make money off them,
    and they are used against small companys and startups .
    The groups that keep the aamerican economy strong .

    IN the long run the consumer or taxpayers pay for all
    this useless so called ip activity .

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

  • icon
    hopponit (profile), 30 Jan 2016 @ 7:45am

    patent

    It boils down to the magic idea "on a computer". That describes the wording of the patent. We need patent reform NOW not later.

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

  • icon
    madasahatter (profile), 30 Jan 2016 @ 7:45am

    Patent speak

    Indecipherable shyter for incompetent shysters. They have to had their incompetence or criminality behind jargon that makes marketing buzzword bingo look like Shakespeare.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2016 @ 10:05am

    How long would it take on Twitter or Facebook to find prior art?

    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.
  • 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.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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