IBM bathroom patent symbolic of US patent ills
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert Green on March 27, 2008, 3:27 pm
Please log in for more thread options http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080327-uspto-boss-ibm-bathroom-patent -symbolic-of-us-patent-ills.html aka http://tinyurl.com/2ewrpr Here are some "fair use" snippets: << On August 14, 2000, IBM filed a patent on "an apparatus, system, and method for providing reservations for restroom use." . . . (IBM) is routinely at or near the top of the heap when it comes to number of US patents obtained in a given year. . . . Wall Street loves it when companies file patents, since patent numbers can be used as an easy proxy for innovation and R&D work . . . also make it easier to strike cross-licensing agreements with other companies . These things don't "promote innovation," . . . The result has been predictable; a surge in bad applications. Over the last 40 years, the USPTO granted 62-72 percent of all patent applications, but that number has been dropping. In the first quarter of this year, only 43 percent of applications have been granted. The problem might be fixed by raising the barrier to filing an application, possibly by raising the price (one government official proposed a $50,000 fee per application), >>
Sounds like a $50,000 fee would be the death knell for small business innovation! -- Bobby G. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by John J. Bengii on March 27, 2008, 8:03 pm
Please log in for more thread options building a Great Wall of China around itself for technology and the USA will eventually be left behind in the tech world. There is only one prerequisite for a patent to be approved in the USA...did they apply? This has been proven in many patent infringement suits in the USA to date. If you contest an Intellectual Patent, once they look at it, they overturn it. This is typical of spending the 4-5 hours on each case. They don't know Jack about the product. > There's an interesting article in Arstechnica about patents:
> > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080327-uspto-boss-ibm-bathroom-patent > -symbolic-of-us-patent-ills.html aka http://tinyurl.com/2ewrpr > > Here are some "fair use" snippets: > > << On August 14, 2000, IBM filed a patent on "an apparatus, system, and > method for providing reservations for restroom use." . . . (IBM) is > routinely at or near the top of the heap when it comes to number of US > patents obtained in a given year. . . . Wall Street loves it when > companies file patents, since patent numbers can be used as an easy proxy > for innovation and R&D work . . . also make it easier to strike > cross-licensing agreements with other companies . > > These things don't "promote innovation," . . . The result has been > predictable; a surge in bad applications. Over the last 40 years, the > USPTO > granted 62-72 percent of all patent applications, but that number has been > dropping. In the first quarter of this year, only 43 percent of > applications > have been granted. > > The problem might be fixed by raising the barrier to filing an > application, > possibly by raising the price (one government official proposed a $50,000 > fee per application), >>
>
> > > Sounds like a $50,000 fee would be the death knell for small business > innovation! > > -- > Bobby G. > > > | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by pltrgyst on March 27, 2008, 11:07 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
>The US Patent Office and system is a crock of shit.
Ah, well, there we have it. The US Patent Office and system are exactly what Congress desires them to be. >There is only one prerequisite for a patent to be approved in the USA...did
>they apply? Hmm, maybe you ddn't read the OP's "Over the last 40 years, the USPTO granted 62-72 percent of all patent applications, but that number has been dropping. In the first quarter of this year, only 43 percent of applications have been granted." >This has been proven in many patent infringement suits in the
>USA to date. Proven? Do you have any statistics concerning how many of the up 150,000 to 200,000 patents issued each year are challenged? Did you ever consider that maybe the relatively few patents that are ever challenged are the ones most deserving of challenge? >If you contest an Intellectual Patent, once they look at it,
>they overturn it. And just what is an "Intellectual Patent"? >They don't know Jack about the product.
There's certainly someone here who doesn't know Jack ... and, coincidentally, he might even be called Jack, since his stated name is John! -- Larry (anti-patent, but in favor of a little bit of logic here and there...) | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert Green on March 28, 2008, 9:19 am
Please log in for more thread options > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:03:31 -0400, "John J. Bengii"
> wrote: > > >The US Patent Office and system is a crock of shit.
>
> Ah, well, there we have it. Indeed. > The US Patent Office and system are exactly what Congress desires them to
be.
"We the people" seems not to factor into it, unless you're of the opinion that Congress serves the people, and not itself. Most of us would kill for a health care and pension system they voted for themselves while they were passing other, not so nice health care laws for common people. The problem with changing the USPTO is that it's probably not going to help Joe Citizen ad mush as it helps Big Business. It's much the same as what happened with changing copyright and DRM laws. It's obscure, highly technical stuff of virtually no interest to the common man until he hears "Your Blackberry may have to shut down because of patent issues." or realizes he can't record video without BigBiz's explicit permission. > >There is only one prerequisite for a patent to be approved in the
USA...did
> >they apply?
>
> Hmm, maybe you didn't read the OP's "Over the last 40 years, the USPTO > granted 62-72 percent of all patent applications, but that number has been > dropping. In the first quarter of this year, only 43 percent of > applications have been granted." Numbers are often deceiving. When I first read that I asked myself what it could mean. Did a fiat come from high above to change the end result? That's often the case for Federal programs. Like veteran and disability programs, the bottom numbers can change pretty quickly if the right kind of attention (i.e. the Walter Reed fiasco) is focused on the issue. Are they reviewing patents more thoroughly? Or are they just disapproving more based on some arbitrary standards change? Some of the stories told by former patent examiners aren't exactly heartwarming tales of an agency in continuous improvement. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/42207.html Says "the Electronic Frontier Foundation launched a "Patent Busting Project" partially predicated on the notion that patents harmful to innovation were being issued by the office because it was doing an inadequate job of discovering prior art." http://w2.eff.org/patent/ EFF has a hit list: Acacia Research Streaming Media Patent Clear Channel/Live Nation Live Concert Recording Patent Acceris VoIP Patent Sheldon F. Goldberg Online Gaming Patent Ideaflood/Hoshiko Personalized Sub-domain patent Neomedia Technologies Identifier/Directory Lookup Patent Test.com Online Test-Taking Patent (A personal favorite bad patent: http://w2.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=test ) Nintendo Handheld Software Emulation Patent Firepond/Polaris Natural Language Processing Patent Seer Systems Digital Music Encoding Patent > >This has been proven in many patent infringement suits in the
> >USA to date. >
to
> Proven? Do you have any statistics concerning how many of the up 150,000 > 200,000 patents issued each year are challenged? Did you ever consider
that
> maybe the relatively few patents that are ever challenged are the ones
most
> deserving of challenge?
As long as a big company can wait out an inventor until he's near death, the rich and powerful will be able to game the system. Patents need to protect the little guy just as much as the big, something the Feds are now finding out with the mortgage crisis. Consumer protection protects the entire economy, eventually. So should a robust, reasonable and workable patent system. I believe I read somewhere that Spain and Germany are out-patenting the living daylights <groan> out of us in the area of solar power, and that's
pretty scary. We're losing the lead on important innovations because we're
so addicted to oil. > >If you contest an Intellectual Patent, once they look at it,
> >they overturn it. >
> And just what is an "Intellectual Patent"? The opposite of an "Anti-intellectual Patent?" (-: > >They don't know Jack about the product.
>
coincidentally, he
> There's certainly someone here who doesn't know Jack ... and, > might even be called Jack, since his stated name is John!
What's the product? I thought this was about patents. And bathrooms. Eeeiiwww! > -- Larry (anti-patent, but in favor of a little bit of logic here and
there...)
-- Bobby, (pro *reasonable* patents and *reasonable* copyright laws but willing to admit that's not the place we're in or the direction we're headed.) | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by John J. Bengii on March 28, 2008, 1:42 pm
Please log in for more thread options Something Mark_, Taz and Weiner can't get.
> And just what is an "Intellectual Patent"?
| ||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| IBM bathroom patent symbolic of US patent ills | March 27, 2008, 3:27 pm |
| Install a bathroom window question | April 17, 2005, 5:56 am |