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!

US Dir. of Citizen Participation Patents the News

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the overlay-of-obvious dept.

Patents 66

theodp writes "Ex-Googler and now White House Director of Citizen Participation Katie Stanton is charged with promoting open public dialogues. Last Thursday, Stanton and Google snagged a patent on displaying financial news. Google explains that Stanton's invention — Interactive Financial Charting and Related News Correlation — will 'facilitate and encourage the user's use and understanding of financial information,' which does jibe nicely with Stanton's appointment to Obama's New Media Team. Too bad it'll be encumbered by a Google patent until 2027."

cancel ×

66 comments

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

one question: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30967500)

where's the digg button? I see twitter and facebook, no digg...

Re:one question: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30967614)

or reddit

Re:one question: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968046)

where's the digg button? I see twitter and facebook, no digg...

I don't see Twitter and Facebook buttons, I added them to Adblock Plus blacklist. So they can suck my fucking cock.

Prior Art? (2, Informative)

longacre (1090157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967510)

Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.

Examples:
SmartMoney [smartmoney.com]
MarketWatch [marketwatch.com]

Re:Prior Art? (2, Interesting)

Grond (15515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967828)

Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.

The examples you give don't implement the claimed invention. Look at the way Google Finance renders a stock chart [google.com] . There is a large detail chart and a smaller chart below it. The smaller chart has an adjustable, slidable 'window' which the detail chart shows in, well, more detail. The broadest claim basically refers to this two chart sliding window approach. There are narrower dependent claims that include the news flags feature, but they necessarily require the two chart sliding window feature as well.

Re:Prior Art? (2, Interesting)

NoddyK (202715) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967922)

This line is from a header file for a charting object we wrote in a windows desktop app written in MFC // Inception - 2.13.96

It does exactly what is described in the patent, chart with shields on it that you could click to link to corporate events and news stories, a smaller version of the chart with sliders to allow you to set the date range, and so on. Of course, the product is no longer sold, so that properly means you can reinvent the wheel where software is concerned

Stupid patents

Re:Prior Art? (2, Informative)

Grond (15515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968068)

It does exactly what is described in the patent...Of course, the product is no longer sold, so that properly means you can reinvent the wheel where software is concerned

No, you can't, that's the whole point of prior art. Patents do not allow someone to take inventions out of the public domain. It (generally) doesn't matter if the prior art is still on sale or not.

More specifically, if there was software that did exactly what is claimed in the patent (i.e. is anticipatory prior art), and that software was in public use or on sale in the United States more than a year before this patent was applied for, then Google's patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 USC 102(b). If it didn't quite do what's claimed in the patent, then it is still probably strong prior art for invalidity due to obviousness.

Unfortunately since the patent has already been granted the Patent Office will only consider prior art in the form of patents and printed publications. Invalidity on the basis of other kinds of evidence, such as a copy of the software, generally only comes up in court cases. Was there a manual for the product that described this feature? Or perhaps an advertisement or product review that described it? Submitting prior art to the Patent Office is free, but whether they act on it is up to them. You can request reexamination, but that's not free.

If you're interested in submitting prior art to the Patent Office, you should contact a patent agent or patent attorney about preparing the necessary forms and documents.

Re:Prior Art? (1)

NoddyK (202715) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968122)

I know we had a large manual that described this and all the other functionality in the app, but unfortunately, i don't have a copy. Shame really, would be fun to see what happened

Re:Prior Art? (1)

mattr (78516) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969766)

Unless you are a troll, I don't understand why you don't say the company name, the application name, and give website and street address. And why you are so defeatist despite apparently having the answer to breaking this dumb patent? Come on, if you are telling the truth then how about telling everybody what your clue is about? (Or are you holding out so you can settle with Google?)

Re:Prior Art? (1)

NoddyK (202715) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970292)

The company went belly up about 4 years ago, and the product was an English product (although it was sold in the US, which i think makes it valid for patents). I have the source code and a copy of the executable for the product but I am unable to run it, need a DLL for a 3rd party add-in (IMW3232D40.DLL). I have tinkered around with rewriting in VS2008, and removing the library, but there are a lot of compile time errors, and it uses the Jet DB engine so all the DB code needs to be redone. This is why I don't want to give the product name, eventually I would like to resurrect it as an open source portfolio manager, but I am not sure who holds the copyright (I wrote at least 90% of the code, but I was employed to do this, so I know I don't)

Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968172)

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.

so? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968558)

Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.

since when has that stopped companies from patenting the "technology" they "invented".

Re:Prior Art? (1)

reebmmm (939463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969800)

No offense, but you clearly didn't RTFP. In order to be good prior art (anticipating art), the relevant art must include all of the elements of a claim. You can make an obviousness argument if you can find all of the elements in two or more references. To help you out, I've broken down the first independent claim into manageable pieces. You'll quickly notice that neither of your examples are even close:

1. A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request, comprising:

[ ]one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including:

[ ] a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over

        [ ] a first time period;

[ ] a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart, and

        [ ] for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that

        [ ] includes the first time period; and

[ ] a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart,

[ ] wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart.

Misleading title (5, Insightful)

Wuhao (471511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967594)

The summary doesn't go into specifics as to what has been claimed. Basically, Ms. Stanton worked at Google, and was part of the team that developed Google Finance. What's been claimed here is essentially the placement of flags at points on the stock chart, along with some other specifics of Google's stock chart presentation.

Laying aside opinions on the patent system and this patent in particular for a second, I would say that the title is highly misleading: the "news" is not patented, nor was the filing made by the named inventor of record in her capacity as Director of Citizen Participation. Google is obligated to list all individuals who played a dominant role in the inventive process, and apparently it was felt that Katie Stanton was just such an individual.

Since I consider Google Finance to be a fantastically well-designed resource that communicates a lot of data very succinctly, I guess I'd say that this recommends Ms. Stanton's ability to communicate information, even in a very abstract sense. That said, I suspect that this is the last I will ever hear of her, or the office of the Director of Citizen Participation.

Re:Misleading title (5, Informative)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967646)

Also, while we're rattling off the factual errors, she's no longer the Director of Citizen Participation. She moved to a position in the State Department a couple months ago.

Guess I Missed the Official White House Tweet (2, Funny)

theodp (442580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967816)

Right you are...guess I missed the Tweet that announced the move [washingtonpost.com] . Was a replacement named?

Re:Misleading title (1, Flamebait)

radtea (464814) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967996)

Thanks--we all know that every /. patent story is full of lies, and I appreciate you taking the time to figure out which specific lies were in this one.

Rob Malda et al believe deeply in the fundamental soundness of the US patent system, to the extent that it wouldn't surprise me that they held substantial portfolios of non-trivial software patents themselves. You can tell this is the case because every single patent-related story on /. is substantially false: either the summary is full of lies about what has actually been patented, or a patent application is presented as a patent grant. The level of ignorance expressed by the /. editors may actually be beyond the limit of "never assume venality where stupidity will do", although admittedly that is a tough boundary to cross.

In any case, if they had any fundamental beef with the US patent system they would be posting stories of genuine abuse, not fabricated and misleading summaries and headlines that are clearly the work of people who think the only way to make the US patent system look bad is to lie about it.

Re:Misleading title (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968162)

I wonder if there are some legal ramifications to this - say if Geeknet were to own software patents on some innovation, these articles that basically attack the idea of the validity of software patents could be used under the principle of estoppal to argue that since Slashdot (part of Geeknet) doesn't believe any software patents are valid then Geeknet loses the ability to argue its patents are valid.

Hmmmm....

Re:Misleading title (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969626)

In short, no. Estopel only applies to statements made about your actions. If you say 'I would never sue someone under this law' then that is very different from saying 'I believe that this law is unjust'.

There are some who call me...tim.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968214)

I would say that the title is highly misleading

Well of course it is. This is very typical of articles posted by timothy.

Re:Misleading title (1)

Evil Shabazz (937088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968364)

Google Finance is a decent site, but calling it a fantastically well-designed resource is a bit of stretch. It does some of the things Google does well, like aggregate financial news from many other sites. It displays public data in a fairly clean Google fashion. But as a financial resource, it is quite primitive. I wouldn't recommend using it to make an real financial decisions. Even someone deciding how to re-balance their 401k for the year would be well advised to use more than what Google Finance can offer.

Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use (1)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 4 years ago | (#30978428)

I was annoyed at the title malfunction, too.

Anything that is copyrighted to the U.S. government can be freely disseminated and it's fair use. I would think the same applies to patents.

My erroneous conclusion was that the Dept. of Citizen Participation was somehow protecting a portion of content, probably in an effort to get them to participate in something or other, like, I don't know, a discussion board, without worrying about getting sued for copying a paragraph from an Associated Press article.

And beyond being closer to correct, I would think that "Google Patents the News" is more likely to attract attention than the Director of some obscure governmental department that I've never heard of before.

I almost skipped it.

TEABAG!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30967654)

TEABAG!!!

Patented status (mostly) irrelevant to govt use (4, Informative)

Grond (15515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967680)

As others have pointed out, this patent is basically describing the sliding, adjustable window and news flags features of Google Finance, so it's unlikely that this patent would play much of a role in Ms. Stanton's new job. But if the government wanted to use the invention described in the patent for some reason, it has an automatic license to do so. 28 USC 1498(a) [cornell.edu] gives the federal government (NB: not state governments) a license to use any patented invention. The patent owner can sue for reasonable compensation but cannot enjoin the government from using the invention.

As a side note, 28 USC 1498(b) gives the government a similar right to use copyrighted works. In that case the copyright owner's damages are limited to reasonable compensation plus the minimum statutory damages, so no overinflated damages for government copyright infringement.

Re:Patented status (mostly) irrelevant to govt use (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967860)

As a side note, 28 USC 1498(b) gives the government a similar right to use copyrighted works.

Best argument I've heard yet for ignoring copyright! I mean, we are talking about a government by, of, and for the people, right?

Re:Patented status (mostly) irrelevant to govt use (3, Informative)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968206)

As a side note, 28 USC 1498(b) gives the government a similar right to use copyrighted works.

Best argument I've heard yet for ignoring copyright! I mean, we are talking about a government by, of, and for the people, right?

I hope not. At this point, a corporation is more of a person than I am in the eyes of the law :{

Re:Patented status (mostly) irrelevant to govt use (2)

Evil Shabazz (937088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968376)

Nah, we real people still have criminal law. Wouldn't want to treat corporations equally in that sense, would we! :P

Re:Patented status (mostly) irrelevant to govt use (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971926)

[W]e real people still have criminal law. Wouldn't want to treat corporations equally in that sense, would we!

Reminds me of a study I read about, back in the 1980s I think, of the legal punishments of corporations convicted for actions in which people died. The bottom line turned out to be that the fines imposed by the courts amounted to somewhat over $300 per death. They also didn't find any cases in which the corporation's officers were tried for anything.

There's been a bit more inflation since then, but also a few decades of "conservative" dominance in the US government. I wonder what the average punishment for corporate homicide might be today. A few quick googles didn't turn up anything very relevant, but maybe I didn't guess the right keywords.

close... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968262)

we are talking about a government by, of, and for the rich people

There, fixed that for you.

Re:close... (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968354)

we are talking about a government by, of, and for the rich people

But they're not gonna stay rich if we all ignore copyrights ;-)

Nothing to see here (5, Insightful)

cvtan (752695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967714)

So she worked at Google and got a patent in 2006? Nothing unusual about that. Why is this news?

It's the black man! (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968542)

He's organizing a secret Bolshevik style plot to overthrow the government by passing health care legislation! And hiring people who used to work at companies that file patents! Or something...

Director of Citzen Participation? (-1, Flamebait)

ALeader71 (687693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967736)

What happens if we don't "participate" Comrade Obama?

What's next? A Council of Americanism?

I recommend learning and reading over passive propaganda any day.
Try these non-political books: Naked Economics [amazon.com] and Learn to Earn [amazon.com] .

Leave the passive stuff to the sheep.

Re:Director of Citzen Participation? (1)

pacoder (1148701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967824)

Yes because they're planning on knocking on your door to send you to the reeducation camp any day now to train you as an engine lathe operator comrade, for the greater glory of the state of course.... The Comrade crap sure does make for the giant 'easy' button in push button politics though doesn't it? Bonus points for your oh so original wit and don't forget to keep that tin foil hat on in case the government brain rays get you.

Re:Director of Citzen Participation? (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969432)

I agree with you on the paranoid term of the parent post, but have to admit that I also thought the title was a little (out of a lack of a better word) creepy at first; public participation is directed or controlled. It does have the tone of directing how citizens participate in government. Something like "Public Communications Coordinator" sounds more inviting, leaning more towards a tone of communications participation and partnership.

Re:Director of Citzen Participation? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30967864)

Leave the passive stuff to the sheep.

Leave the fucking Amazon links to the bourgeois. Link to some torrents and then we'll take a look at your books.

Goddamn capitalist.

Patents issue on Tuesdays-- (1)

sillivalley (411349) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967764)

Picky, picky, picky, but new patents issue on Tuesdays.

Re:Patents issue on Tuesdays-- (1)

theodp (442580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967910)

Oops...my bad.

Google is not a patent troll (3, Interesting)

marquinhocb (949713) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967842)

Have you ever seen Google sue offensively? Cuz I haven't. It seems Google uses their patents for defensive cases (i.e. so someone else can't sue them), not as a patent troll. At least, that's been the rule so far.

Re:Google is not a patent troll (4, Insightful)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968000)

They also said "Don't be evil," and had an anti-censorship statement in their FAQ, until they decided to go into the People's Republic of China.

Re:Google is not a patent troll (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975514)

They also said "Don't be evil," and had an anti-censorship statement in their FAQ, until they decided to go into the People's Republic of China.

1) and that continues to be their moto (which their employees are reminded of endlessly) and continues to be their reason for working with China to try to open communications. Unlike Yahoo! (who turns over dissidents as a matter of course) Google is so uncooperative that China had to start a major international incident to get dissident information out of them by stealing it.

2) Oh and in this case you're dead wrong about the patent being in any way used for offensive purposes. Google's membership in the Open Invention Network should be well known to the Slashdot crowd, and if you want to know more about how they view patents the licensing information for their Go language is most educational.

Re:Google is not a patent troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969110)

Google is not yet a patent troll.

In future it could become one if it is in the interests of the shareholders.

They also said "Don't be evil," and had an anti-censorship statement in their FAQ, until they decided to go into the People's Republic of China.

Is this REALLY what they want? (1)

Erbo (384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967844)

Does the Federal Government really want to "facilitate and encourage the [citizens'] use and understanding of financial information?" After all, if citizens do that, they just MIGHT figure out how the Wall Street banksters and fraudsters, and their bought-and-paid-for friends in the government (at all levels and in both parties), have been fleecing them for years, while milking off massive bonuses for themselves at taxpayer expense.

And if that happens, I foresee a big jump in the sales of torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers, and boiled rope.

See the writings of Karl Denninger [market-ticker.org] for more information.

Re:Is this REALLY what they want? (-1, Flamebait)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967876)

Don't worry. The obligatory "Obama did this to somehow screw us over" post will come soon. It won't make any real sense and will sound like it was written by a drunk 12 year old, but for some reason (hell, even when its not political we get them) I think we'll see one soon.

Re:Is this REALLY what they want? (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976244)

Don't worry. The obligatory "Obama did this to somehow screw us over" post will come soon. It won't make any real sense and will sound like it was written by a drunk 12 year old, but for some reason (hell, even when its not political we get them) I think we'll see one soon.

I must have been modded down by the drunk 12 year olds.

Another reason to outsource (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967906)

You do not have to worry about these silly liabilities such as patent infringement.

The only person who loses is the American worker.

Time to fire the incumbents in 2010 and 2012.

Re:Another reason to outsource (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968496)

Like Massachusetts did? They were so angry that they hacked off their nose to spite their face.

I wish the 3rd parties in America were not so anemic. I also wish people would just vote 3rd party without being too concerned about WHICH 3rd party. At this point pretty much any new force in government would be good. It literally can't get worse.

Re:Another reason to outsource (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969020)

Yes, because electing a woman who would allow a popo who raped his 20 month old niece with a hot curling iron off scot free for a political favor from a relative is someone we want in the Senate

Re:Another reason to outsource (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969530)

I wish the 3rd parties in America were not so anemic. I also wish people would just vote 3rd party without being too concerned about WHICH 3rd party. At this point pretty much any new force in government would be good. It literally can't get worse.

I agree that the other parties need to be considered more by the voting public. I think a lot of people are seeing how the Republican and Democratic parties, as a whole, have both gone too far towards their extreme ends of the political spectrum and how the candidates represent the party and not the voters. I heard it said on Milwaukee radio in the last few months that conservative voters want leaders with (to paraphrase) "conservative values, not Republican values."

However, blindly voting for somebody just because they are not a Democrat or Republican is not a good idea. Any vote based solely on the political party without knowing the positions on the issues is an uninformed vote, and would not necessariy be better than what we have now, as you assert. Research the candidates; vote for the issues, not the party.

The non-mainstream parties can take lessons from the Obama presidential campaign in the use of technology and the communications channels it provides. Social networking is now the norm, not some fad to be poo-poohed, and it needs to be taken advantage of in order to communicate with a tech-saavy electorate that will be replacing the Baby Boomers in the coming years.

Re:Another reason to outsource (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977840)

I consider myself a democrat still but supported Brown.

I supported him not because of his political beliefs but to scare everyone in Washington. Special interests should be a non partisan issue both Obama and McCain hate, but wont do anything about (or can't).

The health care debate angered me greatly and proved what was wrong. Yes people die each day without health care yet I will be damned if my tax dollars go to subsidize drug companies and grant them monopoly powers.

Go Brown and everyone on both sides better run for cover. You and I are not the only ones.

Re:Is this REALLY what they want? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969194)

I think most people learned enough about wall st during the crisis. They did nothing. People don't know how to organize, they are afraid of government and corporate spies and sabotage, misinformed of the real causes, and ignorant and greedy, looking out for their own good, incapable of having a cool-headed debate and analysis of situations... it's pretty sad.

automated financial news (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967972)

( Oil | Corn | Stock | Gold ) prices ( rise | fall ) on ( Middle East sabre-rattling | earnings release | Lindsay Lohan arrest | natural disaster ).

Claim 1 (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968002)

Don't bother reading the summary - it's a bunch of twaddle.

Here is what the patent covers:

1. A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request, comprising: one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including: a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over a first time period; a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart, and for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that includes the first time period; and a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart, wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart.

Government Employee? (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968028)

Patenting a government process while on government time? I didn't think that was even legal, but if it is, then 'we the people' own the rights to the patent anyway.

Re:Government Employee? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968236)

We the people don't own squat/ We don't own liberty, a democracy or even a free nation. You think because you can walk out of your house and go where ever you wish is freedom but you're mistaking. We are being enslaved financially by our government who is being controlled by large corporations that give our fucking government the money they need to win their god damn elections. its all a bunch of fucking bullshit and we the motherfucking people need to take back our country and our rights right fucking now. obama has sat in the top seat in the united nations while president which is against his duties as our president and treason. the new fucking world order has already economically assassinated entire countries into corruption and theyre doing it right fucking here in the united states. what will it take for the united states of america to finally wake the fuck up and see that us conspiracy theorists are fucking right about all the corruption and the new fucking world order bullshit.

Re:Government Employee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969124)

Troll? I hope you live in the United States when you and the rest of the people in america finally realize that everything us conspiracy theorists have been saying about 9/11 and the large corporation/banking elites striving for global domination via the "new world order", is true at which time the government will likely declare martial law and you will never see your constitutional rights again. Many high ranking officials including presidents of the united states have made public reference while in office to the "New world order". GWB Sr. said it one year exactly to the day in a speech to the nation prior to 9/11. GWB Sr. was head of the cia when jfk was assassinated and some believe he ordered the hit.

The votes here in the united states are rigged. The CIA rigs elections in foreign countries so that they get who they want in power - someone already corrupted with the money supplied to them from the corporate/banking elites If someone they dont want in power is, they're assassinated. This has happened many times if you want referrences. Don't think for a second that the cia only does this in foreign countries - because you'd be sadly mistaking. Obama is the president by design. He will serve as president during the elites finishing touches on removing our constitution and make it that much more difficult for us citizens to unite against the leaders of our country because of a racial divide of african americans believing that obama is their savior and they will not help the white man overthrow him.

You call me a troll now, but when everyone finally realizes these truths about or government and revolts and the government declares martial law and you get hauled off to a concentration camp (which has already been constructed by fema and your own tax dollars) I want you to remember this troll. Because then you'll be wishing that you had given me my own fucking topic.

Re:Government Employee? (2, Informative)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968418)

Ms. Stanton was working for Google, not the government, when the patent application was filed back in 2006.

Re:Government Employee? (1)

dsoltesz (563978) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968778)

It's legal if you're patenting it for the government. However, the patent predates Stanton taking a job with the government, so the question is moot.

Calculating patent term (2, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968054)

Patents filed these days receive a 20 year term from the earliest effective filing date. In this case, the application was filed 24 February 2006. That would mean its expiration date (assuming the assignee pays the maintenance fees) would be 24 February 2026.

However, due to delays by the USPTO, there is a patent term adjustment. The USPTO calculated it at 686 days, which would mean that the patent actually expires (approximately) 11 January 2028.

Finally, a recent court decision (Wyeth v. Kappos) concluded that the USPTO was calculating patent term adjustment incorrectly. This means that the patent may be due a (slightly) longer adjustment. Ultimately, I'm not entirely sure what the correct expiration date is at this point.

In any case, the expiration date is definitely not in 2027.

lets be realistic here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968198)

The constitution doesn't stop the white house - do you think a patent is going to?

Yet Another Smear Campaign On Slashdot (YASCOS) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968724)

When employed at Google, Ms. Stanton worked on user interface design, and yes her employer sought a patent for one of her inventions (that she created as part of a team of other workers).
She was required to assign her interests in the invention to her employer---that's 100% standard.
I'm not aware of any employer that say: "Oh, if you invent something, you get to keep it or patent
it yourself, or give it away as you see fit...."

Does this previous employment, which anyone in their right mind would consider an important
resume line, now eliminate her from serving in the White House? Does the fact that
she's creative, and had to earn a living, prevent her from later working in the public
interest in government?

We should hope not, since government surely needs talented people.

Is there some sort of "purity test" implicit in this article? I.e., anyone who has ever applied
for a patent---either personally (at enormous expense), or because of one's work---is NO LONGER
qualified to work in any position that lets them give something back to society? I think
that's the tone of this submission. That's certainly the conclusion one draws from the wording.

Yes, the patent system is complex, outdated, silly and not what we need. But do you know
what else we DO NOT need? Patent trolling on slashdot. We also don't need silly
"purity tests" that only allow patent virgins to work in public office.

What we DO NEED is talent, creativity and passion in public officials. I'm glad that highly
talented people like Ms. Stanton can decide to change her career, give up the high paychecks,
and work in government, serving the public. It's a shame there are idiots (and I use that
word carefully) who diminish her public service, because she once worked for a company.

What would the article author have us think? Perhaps only starving artists should serve in
government? Well, that wouldn't do, since the good ones bother to register copyright on
their valuable works.... Perhaps that will be the article author's next topic to attack.
Perhaps then we should have government ranks only filled by those who never held a job in
a large company, never did anything of value (worth having their employer seek patent protection),
and never wrote or composed anything of value, else they'd have tarnished themselves with
a copyright notice.

documenting Obama on http://en.swpat.org (2, Informative)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969468)

    Obama's administration submitted a Bilski brief, and Obama's made a statement about wanting to enforce US patents overseas. I'm starting to document the administration's software patent related stances here :

    swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

It isn't unusual to receive a patent (1)

mikefocke (64233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970356)

after you left the company. I received the approval for one about 3 weeks after I left the company who really owned the rights to the patent. I was just one of the "named inventors" even though I had a mostly administrative and management role in its creation. I had been working for the company to secure that patent with appropriate lawyers for 2+ years.

So what? (1)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970722)

So what? I get that some FOSS types really don't like patents, especially software patents, but where's the news in this story? It's not like she raped her dog. Nothing especially heinous, unusual, or hypocritical happened here.

New phase of business development at Google (1)

piotru (124109) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971348)

Like so many others. First - genuine growth and competitiveness by innovation. Next - if lucky to reach the level of political corruption - corporate impotency, relaying on brand strength, monopoly, dubious patents and legislation. This phase is characterized by outsorcing and growth by takeovers; Apple (ex. ARM cores under A4 brand in iGlutton), and Microsoft all meet here. Third - an empty corporate shell managing the last asset - brand.
I have already no great expectations of Google who tries to exterminate Firefox (new YouTube codecs) and attempts draining money from the government (pushing patents into public services), like in this example.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?