Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Files the Patent Troll Patent

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the prior-troll dept.

IBM 109

An anonymous reader writes "It's all or nothing over at IBM as the company goes for the gold and files the patent troll patent. Forget the Hyperlink patent or the POS shutdown patent, IBM wants the patent patent. Its idea is centered around an approach to managing patents from inventor training to filing and protection strategies, including competitive monitoring. At least in theory, IBM could get approval to own the idea of how to manage patents and make a business out of IP. The next time you file a patent, you may want to contact them as you may need a license to file for filing."

cancel ×

109 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Metapatent? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738504)

So basically this is a "metapatent." Someone should patent the idea of doing metapatents! And someone else should patent the idea of the idea of doing metapatents!

Re:Metapatent? (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738542)

We're awfully close to (meta^n)patents when we start going down that path.

Re:Metapatent? (2)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738642)

no no, haven't you ever read a patent?

the way to say it is

"We're awfully close to meta, to a plurality of powers, grants made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time."

Re:Metapatent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738998)

This is to server notice that you are infringing on my Patented Technique of commenting about of idea of the idea of doing metapatents.

Re:Metapatent? (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739732)

Server? I 'ardly know 'er!

Re:Metapatent? (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739008)

So basically this is a "metapatent." Someone should patent the idea of doing metapatents! And someone else should patent the idea of the idea of doing metapatents!

No its not.

Its a patent for a software system. Period. End of Story.

The Summary above is almost pure hype, based on an article that itself was mostly hype, leading to a perfect storm of hype.

(Maybe Hype Squared should be patented, at least we could go after these hypesters that post stories on Slashdot to troll anything relating to patents.)

You can''t release a piece of software that mimics ALL of IBMs claim, but that has nothing to do with patenting anything.

Re:Metapatent? (1)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739674)

"Its a patent for a software system."

"software system" does not magically make something unique. Compare "A method for adding 1+2" with "A method for adding 1+2 using software".

Wow software! how original.

But, that's how our patent system works.

You likely can't patent a general banking system.

But you could patent:
"banking system on the internet"
then
"banking system on a mobile phone"
then
"banking system on a smart phone"
then
"banking system on a tablet"
then ...
"banking system on a holographic computing device" ...

Our system, unfortunately, encourages this type of reinvention.

Get a fortune cookie, add "on the computer|Internet|phone|modern-computing-device", and patent it.

Re:Metapatent? (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739770)

"Its a patent for a software system."

"software system" does not magically make something unique.

It is a patent for a unique software system.

There is no system exactly like this system which therefore makes it unique, no magic needed.

You can not market a Software System to manage Patents if it violates this patent.

If IBM did not restrict their patent to a particular platform then it is not so limited, and they can come out with an iphone version, a tablet version, etc, and nobody else can take IBM's system and tweak it for an iphone.

If IBM DID tie their patent to a specific platform (which would be really dumb) then you can patent something almost exactly the same but which runs on an iphone.

Go read the patent.

What about this is so hard to understand?

Re:Metapatent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34740224)

"If IBM DID tie their patent to a specific platform (which would be really dumb)"

Except that, in most current systems, the only way to get a properly -valid- patent -is- to tie it to a specific platform (or at least to make it look like you have).
So... aside from counting on the continued ineptitude of the current patent process (the system isn't actually that bad, but the process is broken), tying their "software system" to specific hardware isn't dumb... it's the only way to get it approved.

Re:Metapatent? (1)

diodeus (96408) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740824)

I'm going to patent the process of patents. Nyah!

This will be the death of us all.

Re:Metapatent? (1)

crono_deus (796899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34741496)

Bwa! Hands off! I have prior art! [slashdot.org]

*grin*

Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (4, Insightful)

seebs (15766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738506)

I was walking in an icy parking lot when it hit me:

1. File a business method patent on "keeping a parking lot so icy that it's hard to walk safely in it."
2. Sue people for violations.

This led to my revised idea:
1. File a business method patent on patent trolling.

I thought I was joking. The thing is, if I blogged about it (and I may have), I wonder if it's prior art?

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (1)

linuxgeek64 (1246964) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738572)

Talking about it != an actual implementation.

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (2)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738608)

pfft like having an implementation ever stopped anyone filing a patent.

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738788)

"prior art"... art != implementation

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738574)

Does your "blog" have a copyright notice? Contact a lawyer, it's time to SUE!

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (2)

seebs (15766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738674)

I have no idea, but copyright wouldn't allow me to sue them unless they used my exact wording in their patent, because copyright protects expressions, not ideas.

IANAL, but I talk to one sometimes.

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738816)

No, the **AA has already established that IBM has criminally violated your rights.

As a red-blooded American, you *MUST* seek a high fine and jail sentence for the THEFT of your intellectual property.

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739192)

When I ask people who's the first dork they can think of they all answer:
- You!

Now I've found out there are plenty of other dorks around, but obviously I was the first one, now ...

2) ...
3) profit!

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739010)

You can't sue people for violations of your patent if they don't actually commercialize it.

Well, you could, but you'll just get laughed out of court and end up paying for all the patent lawyers.

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739170)

The way a patent works is the claims in the patent need to be invalidated for the patent to be invalidated. So unless IBM is claiming exactly what you may have blogged about and you blogged about it more than a year ago, it would not be prior art. Even if you did blog exactly what they were claiming, if they changed the wording semantics a little they could get around that. Also they have made it easier to get stupid patents.

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (3, Informative)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739252)

This led to my revised idea:
1. File a business method patent on patent trolling.

I thought I was joking. The thing is, if I blogged about it (and I may have), I wonder if it's prior art?

Was that before April 2007? If not, Halliburton beat you to it:

Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party [uspto.gov]

Re:Hah! I had this idea once, sort of. (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34741050)

1. File a business method patent on "keeping a parking lot so icy that it's hard to walk safely in it."

I would like to cite the parking lots at several places I have worked or studied, as prior art.

Or maybe... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738514)

I should patent the idea on patenting an idea about patenting patents and patent management.

Re:Or maybe... (4, Funny)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738586)

And while we're at it, let's trademark the trademark symbol

Re:Or maybe... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739034)

That is in fact an interesting suggestion. Who did invent the trademark symbol and created the typography? Maybe a knowledgeable person could enhance the relevant wikipedia page..

Re:Or maybe... (2)

jepaton (662235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739400)

Recursive use of the trademark symbol could make things a little interesting.

Re:Or maybe... (2)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739748)

I for one welcome our new Recursive Overlords...

Re:Or maybe... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740410)

Radio Shack beat you to it.

I think I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738518)

Frist

Re:I think I am (5, Funny)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738570)

it appears there is prior art

Re:I think I am (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738634)

LOL

Re:I think I am (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739224)

Indeed there is, at UserFriendly.org [userfriendly.org]

Fixing this mess (4, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738520)

documenting it on http://en.swpat.org/ [swpat.org]

More important than yet-another-silly-patent, this year there will be opportunities to fix this mess somewhat. In the USA, the Supreme Court is to hear the i4i v. Microsoft case, and in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal will decide if Amazon's 1-click patent is valid patentable subject matter.

Background info:

Re:Fixing this mess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738648)

Nothing will change. The legal lobbying people wants more crap passed through the patent system than now. Why? Because they get big pay-days fighting about it in court.

Waiting for lawsuit against the patent office (5, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738548)

For contributory infringement, due to having approved a patent whose filing infringes upon IBM's patent rights

Perhaps would teach them a lesson about obvious patents?

Re:Waiting for lawsuit against the patent office (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740646)

Perhaps would teach them a lesson about obvious patents?

No, just recursive ones.

Patent Patent Patent Follows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738582)

Of course, ORACLE will file...

It's broke (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738596)

From nations such as China ignoring our IP to bigger International Corporations roping off the industry to prevent newcomers from competing; I'd say the whole damn system is just broken. I think many of us can agree to that. The real question is, what can we replace it with? Or, should be just drop the whole damn thing and hope for the best? I tend to think the latter, I'm not 100% sure about that.

Re:It's broke (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738708)

Step 1: Elect a President who was actually honest about change.

Re:It's broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738752)

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ [whatthefuc...esofar.com]

Re:It's broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738860)

I suppose bad change is still change. I clicked through a few dozen of those and only saw a couple that won't screw over this country now and especially in the future.

Re:It's broke (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738766)

Step 0: Convince voters to vote for politicians that actually care about change.

Re:It's broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34740156)

Step -1: establish a voting system such that voting for a politician who actually cares about change doesn't simply throw the election to the worse of two evils... but wait, that would be a real change, wouldn't it...

So I said "hedwards, whatcha doing tonight?"
He looked at me with a face full of fright
And I said, "How 'bout a revolution?"
. . .

(O.A.R., That Was a Crazy Game of Poker)

Re:It's broke (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738856)

The president has very little power on domestic issues. Do you think he is a king or something?

Re:It's broke (0)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738886)

No, but he does, as does a scary percentage of the population [youtube.com] .

Re:It's broke (0)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739498)

Scary indeed..

Re:It's broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739064)

IP was really created to keep jobs and industry in USA - as it can never compete with cost/labor alone.

China is NOT ignoring IP. US corporations are/have moved the production lines and allied technology to China and the USA Trade deficit (and jobs) are being sucked away. The assumption that things would just be 'made in USA' is totally broken. National interest is being ignored.

Presently there are people pretending the current (IP) situation is sustainable - not broken. Never mind the proof that blockbuster drug discoveries are at an all time low - because research and cooperation is 'locked up'.

The solution is to put a tax on off-shored processes/goods coming in, and re-jig IP law so stuff made in the USA is not at a disadvantage.

Re:It's broke (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739242)

From nations such as China ignoring our IP to bigger International Corporations roping off the industry to prevent newcomers from competing; I'd say the whole damn system is just broken. I think many of us can agree to that. The real question is, what can we replace it with? Or, should be just drop the whole damn thing and hope for the best? I tend to think the latter, I'm not 100% sure about that.

I say first off, nuke the entire backlog of patents the office has with a REJECTED stamp, then hire some competent workforce, who actually check the background and decide whether it's actually new or even if new, not obvious. If obvious, kill it with fire, regardless of who filed it.

That's just my two cents, though...

Well... (1)

r6144 (544027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34741318)

I suppose the fee for filing a patent can be increased to a million dollars or so, so that we can pay for a sufficient number of real experts with enough time to show how a given patent is actually obvious.

But money only works up to a point. Examining patents is much less interesting than actually developing new stuff, and the real experts are probably paid well enough for developing stuff. If you tell them that examining patents is a citizen's duty to protect the country from patent trolls, maybe they will more likely listen, but I still doubt it.

Re:It's broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739402)

The real question is, what can we replace it with? Or, should be just drop the whole damn thing and hope for the best? I tend to think the latter, I'm not 100% sure about that.

You should write a blog post about this. Then, submit it to Hacker News, generate some commentary and critique; go back and revise the post to be stronger. Then take it back to HN a few more times. Then to reddit, then through a few blog carnivals. If you get enough readers and comments who knows, you might find yourself on the variety hour on television.

If only (1)

Richard_J_N (631241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738650)

...one could patent a step necessary in obtaining patents, and then refuse to license it to anybody.

Re:If only (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738868)

Congress would just confiscate it and pay the guy $10 or so each time it's used as a fair market value, turn around and pass the fee onto the people when they file.

Patents are one of congress's constitutional duties. They can do about anything that doesn't violate the constitution to maintain the ability to fulfill that duty however they wanted.

Awful article, legitimate patent (4, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738668)

After reading TFA and finding effectively nothing about the patent itself, other than typical "oh-no-patents-are-bad" scaremongering, I finally found one single link to the patent in question [uspto.gov] . The title (conveniently not mentioned in TFA) is "Intellectual Property Component Business Model for Client Services". From that alone, it appears the patent covers only a particular method for managing IP. It doesn't directly relate to actually filing patents at all.

Looking at the abstract and claims, it describes a "computer system" (probably implemented as an application like any other) with a large number of modular parts that manages each step of IP creation, organization, administration, and enforcement.

It includes a module to keep track of what is or is not a current patent, and where.

It includes a module to keep track of who's licensing what, and with what conditions.

It includes a module to take a business plan and figure out what IP will be necessary to enact that plan.

Skimming through the other claims, it appears to be pretty benign: It's an application to sort out the mess of IP every big company has. Heck, as a final product, it might even cut down the number of patent trolls, because companies can more easily show all the IP that a particular product uses, and know that what the troll is claiming is not in the product.

Re:Awful article, legitimate patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738756)

This may be an interesting technology (for a very broad definition of "technology" - the scientology guys call their stuff "tech" too), but should it be patentable?

Re:Awful article, legitimate patent (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738984)

Why shouldn't it be? It's an unique way of doing something that people may find useful. If they do then the creator gets some profit from it. Isn't that the whole point of patents?

Re:Awful article, legitimate patent (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739072)

Exactly.

Its a computer system people.

Now can we just stop with the sophomoric posts about patenting rain and move on?

There never was a story here. They patented a software package. Thats all.

 

Re:Awful article, legitimate patent (1)

ProgramErgoSum (1342017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34741266)

ok, I am going to use type-writers and telegrams. Or, perhaps, I will just use pen and paper and communicate with postal mail or pigeons. No computers, just good ol' vintage commerce style. The wheel has turned full circle ?

Re:Awful article, legitimate patent (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740554)

So basically, you are allowed to patent the idea of creating a software system of any specific business operation or operations, without even having a specific implementation, at which point no one is allowed to create their own implementation without paying you? I could patent software for managing the selling and charging of ads for example, assuming it hasn't already been done? It still sounds pretty broken to me.

Re:Awful article, legitimate patent (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34741446)

Yes, if you're very specific about the details of what your program does, and what's novel about it. There's the rub: How much novel material would you be able to gather in one place? How much time and money would it take to compile the material into a marketable system? That investment is what the patent aims to recoup.

This is not a patent covering all forms of IP management. It covers one specific system. Change any part significantly, and it's no longer covered. One of the details is that objects are referenced by a keyword. I'm no lawyer, but you could have a system use a set of keywords, and consider that a novel addition.

If you were to patent a particular system for managing advertisements, any other system that does things differently would be fair game. Maybe you pick an advertisement at random for every display, using weighted probabilities. A different system that draws from a deck wouldn't infringe.

Patents do not cover ideas. Only copyright does that. Patents cover specific novel solutions to problems. Solve a problem differently, and you don't infringe the patent. There's nothing "broken" about rewarding inventors for solving problems. What's "broken" in my opinion is the notion that any interesting solution is fair game for copying by anyone, regardless of how little they contributed to solving the problem.

IBM is the perfect troll ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738682)

its as if they are doing this consciously, to break down the patent system by showing how absurd and illogical it is. it is SO extreme that, well, extreme.

Re:IBM is the perfect troll ? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739090)

You idiot. They patented a software package. Thats all.

Re:IBM is the perfect troll ? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740006)

You idiot. They patented a software package. Thats all.

Keep repeating your meme and insulting other posters, that'll win people over to your side.

has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (5, Informative)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738712)

there are 3 independent claims, 1, 10, and 18
1 is below
It is a bit hard to follow, but claim language is the precise definition of what the patent covers; if you have something that omits only one of the items below, then you are not infringing Given the many, many steps in the claim 1, I don't see it having much value - for instance, the claim language says that there will be guidelines for IP counsel; if you did everything exactly as the IBM patent said, but omitted this step, you would not be infringing. 1. A computerized system for an intellectual property (IP) framework, including:a strategic planning computer module for formulating business strategies for creating and managing inventions and IP rights, said strategic planning module including at least one electronic database having data for formulating said business strategies;an invent computer module for managing creation of said inventions based on said business strategies;an IP creation computer module for determining value of said inventions and creating an IP portfolio, said creating of said IP portfolio including creating said IP rights based on said determining of said value and said business strategies;an IP administration computer module for managing said IP rights based on said business strategies including extension, maintenance and retirement of said IP rights, measuring performance of said business strategies, creating and modifying budgets, and setting guidelines for IP counsel;a defend computer module for defending against infringements and invalidations of said IP rights based on said business strategies and monitoring market and competitor actions to develop risk management plans;an influence computer module including a standards influencing unit, a legal and regulatory influencing unit, and a policy influencing unit; anda capitalize computer module for identifying potential licensees and potential assignees of said IP rights, and managing licensing negotiations, cross-licensing negotiations, and assignment negotiations based on said business strategies,said business strategies provided by said strategic planning computer module being input into at least one of said invent computer module, said IP creation computer module, said IP administration computer module, said defend computer module, said influence computer module, and said capitalize computer module,said inventions provided by said invent computer module being input into said IP creation computer module, andsaid IP rights provided by said IP creation computer module being input into at least one of said IP administration computer module, said defend computer module, said influence computer module, and said capitalize computer module.

Re:has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738980)

Here's a little tip: there is a button labeled "preview"...please try using it next time you post a solid block of text.

Re:has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739026)

You have a +5 Informative, but you have absolutely no paragraphs. This makes it hard to read your work, so I wont. You may have been informative, but I doubt you informed as many people as you could have if you had at least put in some spacing.

Re:has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739068)

module IP computer strategic module said framework legal IP module framework computer said administration legal module module computer strategic IBM strategic module IP IBM IP framework rights strategic legal computer IBM IP strategic administration module legal rights strategic legal strategic IBM IP strategic said computer rights legal strategic IP module computer computerized IBM legal module IP computer IBM legal computer rights module IP module administration rights said module said IBM module framework strategic module IBM said IP framework IP module computer IBM module administration module IP strategic administration rights framework module strategic computer strategic module IP strategic module IBM module rights strategic IP module computer computerized legal said rights administration capitalize framework

Re:has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739506)

BINGO!!!

Re:has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739078)

Thank you for that wall of text.

Did someone patent the paragraph break while I was asleep?

Re:has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (1)

mikiN (75494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740714)

Siiiiggghhh.

If people (inside and outside of the patent office) would spend less time burping up all that text and building those paper walls that don't do nothing in defending a (non-)idea (i.e. intellectual property), then those very same people could spend more time thinking up Actual Useful Stuff, like extremely low-power sensor networks to monitor the (destruction of the) environment, super-efficient solar panels, software that debugs itself, or even a cure for cancer for all I care.

Let's stop this BS while we still can, or lawyers will still be hitting each other over the head with boxes full of paper stained with toxic lawyeridaridosis while the planet boils away into oblivion under their feet.

Re:has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739186)

Learn to write, cretin.

Re:has anyone bothered to actually read claim 1 ? (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740858)

Learn to read? Learn to not post pure noise?

You only have to read the first 3 lines to realize that the rest is a verbatim copy of patent claim #1, and you don't *really* have to read all that... so that "wall of text" several posters complained about really isn't one.

Patent Troll Patent Patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738736)

It's time for me to file the PTPP, so big blue will have to come to me first.

I can see an Abbott and Costello routine in here (0)

gone.fishing (213219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738744)

IBM: "I'd like to File a Patent Application on how to get a Patent"
Patent Examiner: Okay but what is the patent application for exactly?
IBM: How to get a patent.
PE: Let me get this straight, you want a patent on patents?
IBM: Well not exactly, on how to get a patent.

I'm not feeling funny enough to take this all the way but you get the idea.

Prior art? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738760)

Considering all the patent trolls around, couldnt this have some kind of prior art problem?

IBM Files the Patent Troll Patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738826)

I need to investigate this title.

POS patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34738882)

Perhaps it's just me, but whenever I see "POS", the term "point of sale" is never the first thing that comes to my mind.

Re:POS patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34740016)

I think piece of shit. Strangely it often works in the sentence.

My patent on patent patenting (2)

johnwbyrd (251699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738896)

That's OK because I have already patented the process of patent patenting. Therefore, any patent patenters who attempt to patent their patent patenting process will need to first license my patent patent patent.

Re:My patent on patent patenting (1)

mtaht (603670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739712)

I think Charles Stross has prior art. From Accelerando [antipope.org] , published in 2005: "In IP geek circles, Manfred is legendary; he's the guy who patented the business practice of moving your e-business somewhere with a slack intellectual property regime in order to evade licensing encumbrances. He's the guy who patented using genetic algorithms to patent everything they can permutate from an initial description of a problem domain - not just a better mousetrap, but the set of all possible better mousetraps. Roughly a third of his inventions are legal, a third are illegal, and the remainder are legal but will become illegal as soon as the legislatosaurus wakes up, smells the coffee, and panics. There are patent attorneys in Reno who swear that Manfred Macx is a pseudo, a net alias fronting for a bunch of crazed anonymous hackers armed with the Genetic Algorithm That Ate Calcutta: a kind of Serdar Argic of intellectual property, or maybe another Bourbaki math borg. There are lawyers in San Diego and Redmond who swear blind that Macx is an economic saboteur bent on wrecking the underpinning of capitalism, and there are communists in Prague who think he's the bastard spawn of Bill Gates by way of the Pope."

Re:My patent on patent patenting (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739724)

My patent is "A method and process for doing stuff with things." So that covers about everything. So the US patent folks can clean their desks out, and go fishing.

prior art (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738942)

the dude or dudess that invented spear heads, using flint tools.... the dude or dudess that invented fire the dude or dudess that invented the wheel.... you get the idea they all had to sue this IBUM idea

After RTFP, (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739032)

which took me 2FH, I believe this falls into the patent tools arena, sort of like TurboTax (if they had been the first to patent a computerized way to aid in the preparation of taxes) for patents. Some of it seemed either ironic or sarcastic, like the figures describing the computerized system -- 1400 -- a veiled reference to one of IBM's most famous computer lines. It would only be useful if someone else tries to market a PatentMaker app. Without the computerized part, it would be like trying to patent a cookbook.

Intellectual property is an oxymoron. (1)

Beer Drunk (1059846) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739042)

The rest of the world will probably put the US into quarantine to avoid contamination by our lawyers. We don't have any money left to buy anything from them anyway and who needs a nation of moochers.

I patent the use of the letter "E" on line $0.02 p (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739162)

I patent the use of the letter "E" on line $0.02 per use pay in 7 days or $45 late fee.

Damn (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739314)

If only someone had been a bit faster, they could have headed this off by filing the patent troll patent troll patent!

When will the patent offices catch on? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739324)

If anything, this proves how ridiculous the whole patent process became.

Patents are supposed to encourage innovation. Not stifle it. They're supposed to encourage publishing and give someone an incentive to invest into R&D without fearing someone else reaping the rewards. Instead it has been perverted into a get-rich-quick scheme where the winner is not who invests into R&D but who comes up with trivial ideas and locks them up in a patent so nobody else may use it without coughing up dough.

So the first thing that has to fly out of the window are nobrainer patents like one-click. If someone can dream it up in a drunken stupor after a night out, it should not be patentable. Patents are supposed to protect investment, and a three digit bar bill is NOT an investment!

Second, treat patents as investments. In other words, let those that developed it earn their reward and then let it go free. Anyone who files for patent has to prove how much he spent on it, he will be allowed the exclusive rights until X+interest amount of money has been earned (the licensees will be very interested in providing the info when that sum has accumulated) and then the patent is gone. I admit that it may be hard to determine that sum in most cases, but it's worth a try and should pretty much mean the end to patent trolling and one-click patents.

Re:When will the patent offices catch on? (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739668)

If anything, this proves how ridiculous the whole patent process became.

Patents are supposed to encourage innovation. Not stifle it.

No, if anything, this proves how ridiculous all the "zomg patents r broke" posts are. Look at this thread - 95% ranting about how patents are broken and making jokes about patenting breathing, and 5% actually talking about the claims of this application and noting that the article summary has little to do with them.

Slashdot threads are supposed to encourage investigation and debate. Not stifle it in FUD.

As a side note, much of your post is complaining about the Amazon one-click patent. That patent has been upheld on reexamination, with all of the prior art that Slashdot and anti-software patent groups could throw at it. It really wasn't just a patent on clicking. You have to actually read the claims, not just the title. And certainly not a Slashdot article that is based solely on a misinterpretation of the title.

Re:When will the patent offices catch on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34740234)

Given that the point of patents is to promote _progress_, not simply R&D investment, it seems like sabotaging hem according to your "Second, ..." paragraph would be counterproductive, as it means people would still invest in R&D, but would keep the results as trade secrets (forcing everyone else to independently rediscover them on their own R&D budget) instead of publishing them as patents (and letting the other R&D labs drop that invention and generate real progress).

Remember, for every patentable idea that plays out well and makes a big profit, there's 9 that lose money. If you can't make back 10x your costs, the whole thing is a losing proposition -- and trade secrets don't have any artificial profit limitations.

A better solution would be shorter patent terms, more appropriately scaled to the typical payback period, but still allowing the truly great inventions to turn their megabucks of profit in that time.

My invention: the Phone-y-Arm (1)

careysb (566113) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739326)

This is MY invention: Phone-y-Arm [inasphere.com]
I'm going to patent it.
Then sue everyone holding a cell phone to their ear while driving.

Pimp my patent (1)

sprins (717461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739388)

Yo dawg! I heard you like to sue while you troll, so we put a patent in your patent so you can troll when you sue.

Re:Pimp my patent (1)

healyp (1260440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740684)

Let me take a crack,

Yo dawg! I heard you like patents, so we patented patenting so you can't patent when you patent.

I chose you because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34739450)

... you look like that actress.

Not sure if that's a good intro.

Somebody Had To (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739680)

Somebody had to file this. Now how long before somebody patents getting money for patent trolling?

Oops... Prior Art.

GJ, IBM! (1)

splerdu (187709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739970)

If this finally gets the courts to see how broken the patent system is and force lawmakers to re-think or scrap the whole system it'll be a big win for all concerned.
At this point, big players like MS, Apple, IBM and Intel may have realized the the risk of loss from patent trolls might be greater than any potential gains from licensing their technology.

Is it too late... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740092)

...to file a patent on filing patents against people who file patents.

No, wait....

Idea to reduce patent trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34740342)

Heres an idea to reduce patent trolling - have the cost of filing a patent increase proportionally to the number of patents that entity already holds. Throw in some conditions so you can't get around it by starting a subsidiary for each one or something. Startups with a good idea can easily get it patented, because its cheap. Entities like IBM would only be willing to pay to patent things truely patent worthy. If IBM wanted it cheaper, they can release some of their existing patents.

Thanks for playing (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740526)

Sanity test.

Fail to scan the summary *before* clicking the link == fail.

It's a samzenpus submitted "story". Apparently in a fit of anti-discrimination stupidity Slashdot decided that trolls should be allowed to be editors - and samzenpus got the job. At least it's consistently wrong - from naming the author to interpreting meaning.

Dear Cowboy - please stop by sometime, the bots you left in charge are all broken.

I heard.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34741812)

Yo dawg, I heard you like patent, so I put a patent in your patents so we can troll patent while you troll patent.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?