Patents

I saw over CNN that the Patent Office has made some type of ruling against the Blackberry. Nobody seems to understand what type of ruling was
made except it looks bad for Blackberry. The Gov. is upset because I guess all of Washington uses these things. I know nothing about Blackberry's or who's against them except that Blackberry's are very big things. Now, does this mean that the Patent Office will be looked at a little more closely (as Washington seems to be getting nailed) and possible better review of some of the stupid patents that are being given? Or business as usual.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon Miller spake thus:

If you're interested, you can read about it here: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/02/02/1452209.shtml
I don't have the time or the patience to wade through all this shit.
From the looks of things, this was an attempted shakedown of Research in Motion Ltd., the maker of Blackberries, by a company called NTP, claiming patent infringement. Apparently, not only the USPTO but similar offices in Germany and elsewhere sided with Blackberry.

Take a wild-ass guess.
--
The only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington
is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

offices in Germany and elsewhere sided with Blackberry< According to the CNN story this morning the USPTO sided _against_ Blackberry and everyone in the Gov. is worried because they all have one. However no one seems to exactly know what the Patent Office did exactly?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

According to the site mentioned in another reply:
"Reuters reports that the fifth NTP patent has been rejected. What does it say about the US Patent office and software patents that these patents have made it through trials, appeals, etc and only now has the Patent Office decided they weren't any good in the first place?" From the article: "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has sided with BlackBerry portable e-mail device maker Research in Motion Ltd. by issuing a non-final rejection of a fifth patent at the center of its legal battle with patent holding company NTP Inc. The decision means the patent agency has now issued non-final rejections of all five patents at issue in a BlackBerry patent-infringement case before a federal judge."
What happened is five re-examination procedings are being conducted on the patents at issue in the Blackberry case. The PTO has rejected the claims in all five cases. The patent holder gets to respond to, and argue, those rejections. If the PTO maintains the rejections, the patent holder can appeal their descision all the up to the US Supreme Court. The final descision as to the fate of Blackberry is still in the hands of the infringement court, and AFAIK no decision has been made yet.
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon Miller wrote:

Actually, it was _for_ the Blackberry, in that it rejected a patent held by the people who are suing RIM (Blackberry's maker.)
The only reason the UsPatOff is reviewing the patents is that Washington is having a fit at the prospect that within the next week or two all their Blackberrys will be turned off.
The PatOff in the US is woefully underfunded, and the situation is only slightly better in Canada. There is IMO no prospect of it getting the staff it needs to the job it's supposed to do. Such staff costs way too much money, since the people need the equivalent of two or more PhDs. Patents aren't sexy election slogan fodder, and what pol running for re-election is going to say, "We're going to have to raise taxes so we can bring you all the services you expect from the gummint." Mind you, I'd vote for 'em. Would you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What are examples of "stupid patents" that you are thinking of?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This "news" about the 5 NTP patents being initially rejected in first office actions during a reexamination procedure is not news. It's a dog-bites-man story.
Patent office rules require that "substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed publications" be established before a reexamination is ordered. Since this threshold must be established before the patent office will reexamine the patent, it would be expected that most reexams receive a non-final rejection. Then the applicant has an opportunity to rebut the non-final rejection.
It would be a surprise if the applications did NOT receive a non-final rejection.
It will be more interesting if the applications get final rejections, then NTP appeals the rejections.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not to worry. If all decisions should go against RIM, the Neocon Socialists will simply decree that government users continue to be supported either by RIM, or NTP, or whoever can do it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With something on the order of 300,000 patents being issued every year, it is not hard to find a so-called stupid patent, especially if you don't take a close look at what is actually claimed. Besides, there is no basis for rejecting a patent application for being "stupid."
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, since it's not hard... give some examples of "stupid patents" that you and Jon are thinking of?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

One that made the rounds of "wierd news" a year or two ago: A man and his son from Chicago (?) who patented a method of pumping a swing to get it to go higher. A method that pretty well every kid discovers on his/her own around the age of 8, from the description I read in SciAm.
Main problem with patents: One person's invention is another person's ancient knowledge. To be good patent officer you have to know a hell of lot of odd data and strange facts, the kind that will never be "useful" -- until someone shows up claiming an original idea.
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The swinging sideways patent was reexamined by the patent office and all claims were rejected.
Richard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mr snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

True, but IIRC that happened after the publicity -- ie, someone realised the pat. off. looked dumb. Not good for business.... :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

United States Patent 6,368,227: "Method of swinging on a swing"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf Kirchmeir spake thus:

Hmm; sounds like either urban legend or faxlore to me. Do you have a cite?
--
If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

[...]
6,368,227 method of swinging sideways.
Since reviewed and disallowed, AFAIK.
(Thanks to Ken Rice and others. I originally saw the story in Sci. Am, but I don't keep magazines, so didn't have the details.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf Kirchmeir spake thus:

Thanks; I found it soon after I posted that.
My patent on the letter "M" is still pending. What do you think my chances are?
--
If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

chances are?< Probably pretty good<VBG>! I noted a site but using MSNBC and searching the word patent will bring up lots of information. Included is the fact that the government is siphoning off moneys from the patent office to the tune of $800+ million for other purposes. Typical for Washington! I was hoping this Blackberry problem would bring attention to the patent office but probably not. Anyway do the search and read the interesting information about our wonderful government.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since you won't give examples of "stupid patents," can you at least give us a link to this fact?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a link to this fact?< Simply go to MSNBC and do a search for "patents". All sorts of interesting news articles come up. I have to go a certain amount of credit to the people writing these stories (I have no idea how much research they do) as I am not in the business and don't get paid to research for others. Just for you a waver of my normal $300 an hour research rate <VBG>! http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4788834 / I was wrong about the amount, it's $650 million taken from them. "sic---So Congress began raiding the patent office piggy bank; as of last year, more than $650 million had been siphoned off to pay bills for other government functions.---sic"

Others haven't given you enough? The same article linked above gives a couple of examples
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.