Active Topics

 


Poll: Is this on or off-topic?
Poll Options
Is this on or off-topic?

Reply
Thread Tools
mullf's Avatar
Posts: 610 | Thanked: 391 times | Joined on Feb 2006 @ DC, USA
#261
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
Well... there have certainly been enough cases to back Laughing Man up.

In general: software, business process and human DNA patents. Artfully argued by skilled attorneys to the point that all 3 ridiculous examples still stand despite their utter inappropriateness.
You are talking about something different. You are talking about whole classes of patents, rather than individual patents. The Congress makes the patent laws, and the Courts interpret them. The Patent Office implements the laws and adapts that implementation based on judicial decisions. The Patent Office doesn't have the power to just stop granting patents in a particular field. If you want to eliminate a class of patents, talk to your Congressman or petition the Courts.
__________________
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made

Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#262
Originally Posted by mullf View Post
You are talking about something different. You are talking about whole classes of patents, rather than individual patents. The Congress makes the patent laws, and the Courts interpret them. The Patent Office implements the laws and adapts that implementation based on judicial decisions. The Patent Office doesn't have the power to just stop granting patents in a particular field. If you want to eliminate a class of patents, talk to your Congressman or petition the Courts.
Yeah, I knew that, which is why I worded the post the way I did.

But I still say it serves to show that it all comes down to liar-- er, lawyers.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
mullf's Avatar
Posts: 610 | Thanked: 391 times | Joined on Feb 2006 @ DC, USA
#263
Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
I say that based on

a) I know someone that works in the USPO doing this type of work
And they grant any patent application with claims that are written "in language only a lawyer or computer scientist will understand"? Without checking to see whether or not it is actually patentable? Are all your friends this ethical?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
b) I know people working in DOC that do audits of the various offices and Bureaus.
The semiannual reports are all public.


Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
c) Wasn't there a patent in the recent years that someone got by that was the basis of computing (something about lists in programming). I can't remember the conversation I had with my friend about which specific one it was though.
Have no idea what you are talking about.
__________________
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made

Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29

Last edited by mullf; 2010-01-26 at 02:11.
 
Posts: 4,556 | Thanked: 1,624 times | Joined on Dec 2007
#264
Originally Posted by mullf View Post
And they grant any patent application with claims that are written "in language only a lawyer or computer scientist will understand"? Without checking to see whether or not it is actually patentable?
.
They devote time to check whether it's patentable, but they don't have unlimited time. Thus that's why if you write it in a lawyer or computer scientist language, the longer it takes to understand it and the more likely it is to be misinterpreted. That combined with the time crunch is what causes the problem.

You think the USPO has tons of computer scientists to look at every computer science related patent with an extremely fine magnifying glass?
__________________
Originally Posted by ysss View Post
They're maemo and MeeGo...

"Meamo!" sounds like what Zorro would say to catherine zeta jones... after she slaps him for looking at her dirtily...

Last edited by Laughing Man; 2010-01-26 at 02:19.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#265
..and make sure the cases are tried in East Texas.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
mullf's Avatar
Posts: 610 | Thanked: 391 times | Joined on Feb 2006 @ DC, USA
#266
Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
They devote time to check whether it's patentable, but they don't have unlimited time. Thus that's why if you write it in a lawyer or computer scientist language, the longer it takes to understand it and the more likely it is to be misinterpreted. That combined with the time crunch is what causes the problem.
The claims are required to be clear:

35 U.S.C. 112: "The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."

If the claims are unclear, they are unpatentable.


Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
You think the USPO has tons of computer scientists to look at every patent with an extremely fine magnifying glass?
The Patent Office has the highest number of scientists and engineers of any agency in the Federal Government.
__________________
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made

Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29
 
mullf's Avatar
Posts: 610 | Thanked: 391 times | Joined on Feb 2006 @ DC, USA
#267
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
..and make sure the cases are tried in East Texas.
The Federal Circuit has been cracking down on that.
__________________
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made

Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29
 
Posts: 4,556 | Thanked: 1,624 times | Joined on Dec 2007
#268
Originally Posted by mullf View Post
The claims are required to be clear:

35 U.S.C. 112: "The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."

If the claims are unclear, they are unpatentable.




The Patent Office has the highest number of scientists and engineers of any agency in the Federal Government.
Ah mullf, there's a difference between what the code says and what actually happens. There's a U.S.C. code regarding accessibility of programs and computers in the US Government and I can tell you from my experience that that's still being worked on.

And with that high number of scientists and engineer, how do you explain the bogus patents that get by despite prior work? How about the recent IBM patent over things like LOL.
__________________
Originally Posted by ysss View Post
They're maemo and MeeGo...

"Meamo!" sounds like what Zorro would say to catherine zeta jones... after she slaps him for looking at her dirtily...
 
Posts: 336 | Thanked: 610 times | Joined on Apr 2008 @ France
#269
From TheDailyWTF:

Originally Posted by Dan M
We Don't Need People Like You (also from Dan M)
Many years back, when I was fresh out of school, I decided to apply for a job at the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO had started to grant patents on computer programs and, as such, was looking for Computer Science Patent Examiners.

After filling out the requisite stack of application paperwork, I was granted an interview. When I arrived for the interview, there was a small waiting room for candidates for the position. Half an hour later, my name was called and I entered the interviewer's office.

I sat there in silence for roughly 8 seconds until he turned the résumé around and pointed to the second line, "what is this?" he demanded, jabbing roughly at the education section.

"Uhh," I paused, wondering if I had misspelled my degree. "Umm.... Bachelor of Computer Science... Carnegie Mellon... School of Computer Sci—"

"That's what I thought" he said scornfully.

I blankly started. After a few moments I responded, "I'm sorry?"

"Do you have any idea what we do here, Dan?"

"Yes, I do", I stuttered, "you examine patent applications on a variety of systems and...whatnot. Right?"

"Exactly! We don't need people like you here," he said, tossing my résumé back at me. "We only accept Math and Engineering majors here!"

Obviously, my career aspirations at the USPTO died shortly after that. Though, after the experience, I tend not to be as surprised as others when we hear the latest story about somebody being granted a patent for "inventing" the scrollbar or something.
'nuff said.
 
mullf's Avatar
Posts: 610 | Thanked: 391 times | Joined on Feb 2006 @ DC, USA
#270
Originally Posted by CrashandDie View Post
"We only accept Math and Engineering majors here!".
Utter nonsense. The Patent Office hires scientists and engineers. They do not hire mathematicians.

"To work as an examiner with the USPTO, a person must be a U.S. citizen and hold, at a minimum, a bachelor's degree in one of the physical sciences, life sciences, engineering disciplines, or in computer science."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_examiner

I would also doubt that they grant interviews to people who do not meet their requisite qualifications. That does not even smell right.
__________________
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made

Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29

Last edited by mullf; 2010-01-27 at 01:51.
 
Reply

Tags
apple, intellectual property, lawsuit, nokia, nonsense magnet, patent infringement


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:30.