×

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!

Third Anniversary of Bezos-Backed Patent Reform

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the submitters-with-an-axe-to-grind dept.

Patents 115

theodp writes "With IE, IM and Linux all threatened by patent infringement lawsuits, it's worth noting that Saturday marks what would have been the third anniversary of BountyQuest. With $1+ million of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' money and an Amazon VP on its Board, BountyQuest vowed to reform the patent system through its prior art contests. While BountyQuest raised eyebrows when it found winning prior art right off the bat for a patent Amazon was sued for infringing on, it surprisingly drew little heat when it announced no winning prior art could be found for Bezos' own 1-Click patent. 'There was no Bounty winner, mainly because the 1-Click patent is specific to the Web,' explained BountyQuest. 'This was a tough one to win because the Amazon 1-Click patent is so specific to the Web,' added BountyQuest investor Tim O'Reilly. Amazon's claim that the contest outcome vindicated Bezos' 1-Click patent went unchallenged by the New York Times, who instead took contestants to task for submitting prior art that 'failed to mention the Internet.' But legal documents have surfaced revealing that a month before these arguments were made, Amazon was told by a Federal Court that 'This distinction is irrelevant, since none of the [Bezos 1-Click patent] claims mention either the Internet or the World Wide Web.' If it was 'in everyone's interest to get all relevant prior art out into the open,' as Bezos said, then what happened?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

115 comments

Pedro's ego costs the Sox teh series (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239487)

That moron's massive ego let the Yankees pick away until they were even and had all the momentum. He should immediately be traded to the Brewers for a box of fungo bats.

Re:Pedro's ego costs the Sox teh series (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239651)

No, send him to the Yankees, and in two years, he'll crush their hopes once again...

Re:Pedro's ego costs the Sox teh series (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239842)

And Aaron Boone is the new Bucky Dent. [msnbc.com]

Re:Pedro's ego costs the Sox teh series (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239862)

Bucky Dent and Bill Buckner (Pedro Martinez) all in one game.

Sweet.

Re:Pedro's ego costs the Sox teh series (-1)

Rhodey (702341) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240684)

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. What -- should he have asked out of Game 7? Grady Little had a tough choice to make and botched it, simple as that.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239494)

First Post! Woot!

YOU SO FUCKING FAIL IT, TARDMUFFIN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239629)

TIMOTHY likes LITTLE BOYS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239699)

Hey Timmy, take that virgen boy's cock out of your mouth!

Wow (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239496)

Thats confusing!!

Who do I send my $699 to?

A True Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239745)

The thing about Timothy is that he likes 'em young. True, if there's grass on the field, you can play ball, but 14? Well, OK, at least he only jacks 'em and watches them blow their load...

TIMMIE's BOY TOY NEWS FLASH! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7240332)

Last week, our fav SlashMod TIMOTHY came out! YES IT'S TRUE. He likes the firm young cock! It all came out last week when a certain person ("MOM") saw him at the MALL with boy-toy-in-tow, buying his boi some baggy jeans! Go figure! More room to hide that "40" incher!

Whoda thunk it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239504)

Suprise Suprise! Company X gets money from Company Y, Company X says Y is A-OK!

Timmy Boi ROCKS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239791)

Who would have thought that a Slashdot "editor" (and I use that term losely!) would be into guys? I mean, sit in front of a screen all day, your only life being LAN enabled? But it's true! Gay as gay gets, that Tim boi! At least he only LOOKS at the 14 y.o. guys! One word: Thailand!

Simple explanation (3, Insightful)

mopslik (688435) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239509)

If it was 'in everyone's interest to get all relevant prior art out into the open,' as Bezos said, then what happened?

Money changed hands?

Re:Simple explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239624)

ROFL mod parent up! this is the best comment i've seen all decade!!!!1111111 okay, maybe not.

Re:Simple explanation (1)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239652)

If it was 'in everyone's interest to get all relevant prior art out into the open,' as Bezos said, then what happened?

>Money changed hands? Folks didn't want to upset the boss?

Please remind me (1)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239520)

Exactly what patent is Linux threatened by?

Re:Please remind me (1)

lspd (566786) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239709)

Exactly what patent is Linux threatened by?

It's easier to point out which software patents are actively avoided.
GIF, MP3, and S3 Texture Compression immediately spring to mind.

Re:Please remind me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239774)

And how Linux is threatened by those patents again?

Re:Please remind me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239908)

Linux, like all software, is threatened by the very existence of software patents. It's just that Linux, being open source, has even more to fear because it is so easily scanned for infringing methods. It is very wrong that some should have to live in FUD so that others may profit by doing the same thing, sans FUD, badly and for money.

Excuse me (3, Funny)

arvindn (542080) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239525)

Could you back that up with some links please?

Re:Excuse me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239541)

Here you go [slashdot.org]

Put it on the tab.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7240959)

WTF? "Put it on the tab" is the exact same as 1-click. Or din't anybody in the patent office ever watch Little House on the Prairie?

Re:Excuse me (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239586)

They could, but then they'd have to license Bezos' new "direct linking" technology.

-- Dr. Eldarion --

Re:Excuse me (1)

EinarH (583836) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239599)

No need for that.
After reading that introduction I feel that I can speak with infinite wisdom on the subject without RTFA. Thanks, But No Thanks.

Let's state the obvious (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239528)

If something already exists, except for the "on the Internet" part, then clearly that's neither invention, nor not obvious to a person skilled in the field.

So I don't see why this talk of "it doesn't mention the Internet" is even relevant.

But of course, I suppose I lack cynicism...

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239592)

Exactly. Bountyquest was only there to try invalidating patents for prior-art reasons.

But there is a whole separate criteria for patent validity: non-obviousness. It's that aspect which was missing in the "One Click" patent. Since BountyQuest didn't try to disprove non-obviousness (which is a much higher legal threshold to reach), it can't be blamed for failing to stop "One Click". (People don't tend to publish documents about obvious things)

If, in 1998, you had asked an experienced web developer "How can I let my returning customers order a initiate a product delivery with one button-press", a decent number of them would've been able to describe the exact system Bezos used.

If someone with ordinary skill in the field can guess the text of a patent by reading the title, it should never have been granted.

Re:Let's state the obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239783)

But there is a whole separate criteria for patent validity: non-obviousness. It's that aspect which was missing in the "One Click" patent. Since BountyQuest didn't try to disprove non-obviousness (which is a much higher legal threshold to reach), it can't be blamed for failing to stop "One Click". (People don't tend to publish documents about obvious things)

I think this is the bigger issue...

Obviously, a system to store and retrieve saved user information, and to allow people to shop on websites without reentering such information, isn't really going to have prior art... except for like a telemarketing company keeping a file on this, I can't even think of anything close to relevant (of course, I'm tired, heh), and that's not really the same

The bigger problem is, they patented something that was an obvious thing to do for web shopping, and unless there's some revolutionary method they're using to save the information, it's something anyone could've done... the point of patenting is to protect creative ideas, not to protect the first person to exploit a new technology for obvious ideas

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

Gaijin42 (317411) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239967)

Hey bartender, gimmie another beer! Put it on my tab!

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

nullard (541520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240589)

That's a perfect example. It's amazing that the whole 1-click thing was actually granted a patent when anyone who has ever been a "regular" at just about any establishment is already familliar with it. Heck, if you've ever ordered room service at a hotel you've already done the same thing!

Re:Let's state the obvious (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240127)

the point of patenting is to protect creative ideas, not to protect the first person to exploit a new technology for obvious ideas

Not even that - the point is to protect specific implementations of an idea.

Most confusing /. news ever (1)

MagerValp (246718) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239531)

OJ Simpson made more sense than this guy. What the hell is he trying to say?

Re:Most confusing /. news ever (3, Funny)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239553)

Oh come on, it mentions patents, Amazon, Linux, and has lots of links! What more do you want???

He's saying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239575)

I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and big butt and my butt smells and... I like to kiss my own butt

Re:Most confusing /. news ever (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239914)

Let me clarify:

theodp:With IE, IM and Linux all threatened by patent infringement lawsuits, it's worth noting that Saturday marks what would have been the third anniversary of BountyQuest.

translation:Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

theodp:With $1+ million of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' money and an Amazon VP on its Board, BountyQuest vowed to reform the patent system through its prior art contests.

translation:Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

theodp:While BountyQuest raised eyebrows when it found winning prior art right off the bat for a patent Amazon was sued for infringing on, it surprisingly drew little heat when it announced no winning prior art could be found for Bezos' own 1-Click patent.

translation:But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

theodp:'There was no Bounty winner, mainly because the 1-Click patent is specific to the Web,' explained BountyQuest. 'This was a tough one to win because the Amazon 1-Click patent is so specific to the Web,' added BountyQuest investor Tim O'Reilly.

translation:Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

theodp:Amazon's claim that the contest outcome vindicated Bezos' 1-Click patent went unchallenged by the New York Times, who instead took contestants to task for submitting prior art that 'failed to mention the Internet.'

translation:And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

theodp:But legal documents have surfaced revealing that a month before these arguments were made, Amazon was told by a Federal Court that 'This distinction is irrelevant, since none of the [Bezos 1-Click patent] claims mention either the Internet or the World Wide Web.' If it was 'in everyone's interest to get all relevant prior art out into the open,' as Bezos said, then what happened?"

translation:If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

What happened!? (1)

whitelines (715819) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239537)

What happened!?
What always happens, fiscal interests overtake any possible *cough* moral/societal principles/obligations. It wasn't in the investors best interests to have prior art found.

amazon owns the intarweb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239538)

when will Timmy O'Reilly put out a book on that?

Need a firewall? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239539)

#!/bin/bash
# --
# Slashdot Opensores Firewall Script
# --
# Distributed under the superior BSD license
#
# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
# are met:
#
# 1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# 2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
# copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
# disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
# with the distribution.
# 3.The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote
# products derived from this software without specific prior
# written permission.
#
# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
# IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
# WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
# ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY
# DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
# DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
# GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
# INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
# IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
# OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN
# IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE
#
# -- Start Here
#
IPTABLES="/sbin/iptables"

# Being gang raped by sinos is not fun
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies

${IPTABLES} -t filter -F INPUT
${IPTABLES} -t filter -F OUTPUT
${IPTABLES} -t filter -P INPUT DROP
${IPTABLES} -t filter -P OUTPUT ACCEPT

# The rulz
${IPTABLES} -t filter -A INPUT -p unprotected -s male/16 --sport penis --dport mouth -j ACCEPT
${IPTABLES} -t filter -A INPUT -p unprotected -s male/16 --sport fist --dport anus -j ACCEPT
${IPTABLES} -t filter -A INPUT -p unprotected -s male/16 --sport finger --dport anus -j ACCEPT
${IPTABLES} -t filter -A INPUT -p protected -s male/16 --sport fist --dport anus -j ACCEPT
${IPTABLES} -t filter -A INPUT -p protected -s male/16 --sport penis -j ACCEPT

# I know this may seem controversial but it feels good
${IPTABLES) -t filter -A INPUT -p unprotected -s female/16 --sport fist --dport anus -j ACCEPT
${IPTABLES) -t filter -A INPUT -p unprotected -s female/16 --sport finger --dport anus -j ACCEPT

${IPTABLES} -t filter -A OUTPUT -d female/16 -j DROP

# TODO: IMPLEMENT NAT AND DMZ
# -- Finish

Re:Need a firewall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239558)

Your skills amaze me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Why do the English have such disgusting teeth? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239564)

Filthy blackish-yellow shit stained teeth with breath that smells like dried vomit. Even wealthy parasites like the royal family have awful teeth. Why is that?

Oh and did the old bitch the queen mum ever die? I always hated her.

Thank You Very Much

Translation of news article (3, Insightful)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239572)

Tomorrow is the 3rd aniversity of a dead company that was involved in things we don't like.

Slow news day?

aaaaargghhhhhhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239580)

link overload. core dumped

since oyu asked... (1)

soloes (415223) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239620)

SCO is suing IBM and others for patent infringement around the use of linux
http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/sco/index .en.htm l

do not buy or use any SCO products under any circumstances..

Re:since oyu asked... (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239666)

Actually they are not threatening linux with patent infringement retard. In the end SCO is going to be killed off by the patent system. They infringed IBM's patents and they are just going to have to pay for that.

Re:since you asked... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239724)

SCO vs. IBM: Not patent infringement. Supposed breech of contract.

SCO vs. Linux: Again, not patent infringement. Supposed copyright infringement.

so, no, Linux is not being threatened by patents.

Re:since you asked... (1)

inc_x (589218) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240760)

There is no SCO vs. Linux lawsuit.

Maybe you are confused with
RedHat vs. SCO

Re:since you asked... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#7241452)

Parent poster was talking about a patent lawsuit with SCO as plaintiff vs Linux.

I pointed out that the only lawsuits SCO has filed to date are against IBM (contracts) and SGI (copyright); there are no patent lawsuits from SCO against any linux vendor/user.

What you are referring to is Redhat (as the plaintiff) suing SCO (as the defendant). Certainly not a threat to the linux community :-)

I am the winner of 1064 (Remote Control Patent) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239626)

It's sad that bountyquest became another dot-bomb.

You can read more about the issues here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0117/p11s01-stgn.htm l

I believe completely in the ideas of patents, but - things have gotten out of hand and very absurd. I mean patenting methods of swinging? (#6,368,227) Get real.

The chilling effect of an absurd patent is the legal threat it can cause little companies and little people.

Sad... Write your congress men and women, I have. I have personally shown up and bothered them at speaches and stuff like that.

What's more fun is showing them a reply letter telling me there is nothing going on, then I personally hand them their own letter back with copies of things that are going on (ie: DMCA stuff, FCC, and the like).

They are at best clueless.

-Duane.

Re:I am the winner of 1064 (Remote Control Patent) (1)

colinleroy (592025) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239761)

I believe completely in the ideas of patents, but - things have gotten out of hand and very absurd. I mean patenting methods of swinging? (#6,368,227)
See also Method for exercising a cat [uspto.gov] using a laser.
Pathetic patents.

Re:I am the winner of 1064 (Remote Control Patent) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239859)

Dont confuse the novel and non-obvious requirements with the useful art requirement of 35 USC 101. Something can be novel and non-obvious (music, for instance), and not a useful art under 35 USC 101. The standard of 35 USC 101 is very limited, and virtually anything applying to a mechanical or electrical device or method passes muster under 101. The USPTO has always considered 35 USC 102 (novel) and 103 (obvious) to be the barriers to granting a patent, and not 101, as it would be impossible for the USPTO to determine if an invention is worthwhile (maybe exercising cats with a laser will be important in the future). Granting a patent on ridiculous inventions, provided the patent is correctly limited in scope, is something patent offices have been doing since their inception in 15th century England.

Re:I am the winner of 1064 (Remote Control Patent) (1)

good-n-nappy (412814) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240668)

Watch out marmot owners! This applies to you too!

Although particularly suited to amusing and exercising cats, the method of the present invention can be applied to other domestic pets, for instance dogs, ferrets, and any other animals with the chase instinct.

What's sad about that patent is that they actually seem to have done some appropriate background research. One of the articles they reference is titled:

Visual `cortical-recipient` and tectal-recepient pontine zones play distinct roles in cat visuomotor performance

Och! I'm just wondering how they hoped to enforce this patent. I guess maybe they were planning to go after any laser pointer companies that tried to market their product as a cat toy.

Prior Art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7241018)

Does it matter that as a little kid, I used my timex watch to reflect a beam of light onto the wall, which served as entertainment for my cat?

Re:I am the winner of 1064 (Remote Control Patent) (2, Informative)

symbolic (11752) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240694)

I mean patenting methods of swinging? (#6,368,227) Get real.

My impression is that this was done as a satirical gesture, using the system itself to show how outrageous it really is.

Re:I am the winner of 1064 (Remote Control Patent) (1)

br0ck (237309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7241294)

When the swinging patent was featured on slashdot [slashdot.org], there was a post [slashdot.org] claiming that this was submitted by a patent lawyer, on a lark, for his seven year old son.

Hard-hitting analysis. (1)

Asprin (545477) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239669)


Ummm, Bezos started the organization to shill for Amazon's patent position? Did anyone honestly expect otherwise? What else have they been doing for the past 3 years? They sound like Microsoft: soooooo cogniscent of "IP issues" when handing 10 million over to SCOX to thump Linux, but willing to change the way their browser works and force their customers to rewrite millions of web pages to avoid a 500 million fine for infringing on Eolas' plug-in patents.

Re:Hard-hitting analysis. (1)

Ben Hutchings (4651) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240013)

They didn't avoid the fine, and they weren't avoiding future license costs either because Eolas isn't willing to sell them a license.

Re:Hard-hitting analysis. (1)

hubie (108345) | more than 10 years ago | (#7241424)

Forgive my ignorance but I really haven't been following this story. If Eolas isn't willing to sell a license, then what is their angle? It would seem that they could make a pretty penny with even modest license terms considering the IE market share.

Re:Hard-hitting analysis. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7241475)

$500 for one guy to split with a school sounds like a pretty penny to me. Maybe he's just trying not to look greedy.

BountyQuest = scam (1)

GoldenBB (703833) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239683)

I was taken in by the possibility of winning a $10K prize and actually did some research and located some prior art to submarine one of the patents on BountyQuest. Long story short, they fucked me over. I can't prove it, but they told me someone had beaten me to punch. I find that difficult to believe given how quickly I located the prior art and submitted it. I think what really happened is that those assholes ran out of money to pay the honorariums. What a convenient business plan:

1) Convince other people to do your work 2) Pretend their efforts were unsuccessful for various reasons so you don't have to pay them 3) Sell the collected information to interested parties 4) Profit!
Didn't work though, did it?

Re:BountyQuest = scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7240704)

I cannot confirm if it worked or not :- I cannot seem to find the number to Jeff Bezos' private Carribean Island!

You are far too trusting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7241209)

If you don't mind me saying so, when there is money on the line and contests in the works, you really need to cover your bases. Hell, all through life you need to cover your bases. People will take advantage of you at a moment's notice. That's just how they are. We all know it, but who actually works on minimizing it?

What would have helped alleviate those issues for you would have been to e-mail them and ask if someone had solved your contest yet. Tell them you might know some info, but you didn't want to look into it without knowing there was a reason. Tell them you solved it, but just wanted to re-write the way the data was presented. It doesn't matter what you tell them, the point is that when you are working with your personal self (and you don't want to give away that work for free), you should take the oppurtunity to protect yourself from theft.

Had they said "well, it's been solved already," you would have known the truth at the beginning. Had they said "it's been solved, but send your stuff in anyway to add to the pile!" we might have gotten a clearer picture about what may have been going on. Had they said "No, send it in!" and then tried to pull a fast one, you would have had conversational proof that you could admit as evidence in a civil claim against them.

Currently, however, you are drawing self-involved conclusions about something you have no real inside knowledge on. The fact that you were able to quick research generally means that there is someone else out there who can also research just as quickly, if not quicker, than you. Hell, they might have pulled an all-nighter two days in a row while you slept soundly (assuming you slept ;).

Then again, they may have f*cked you over. You never know these days...

1st anniversary of pateNTdead eyecon0meter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239718)

welcome to the gnu millennium.

as most of you already know, there's nothing really 'new', just more&more ways to try to keep you from getting it without paying some liesense fee to some whoreabull georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi stock markup FraUD softwar gangster execrable, who then, in turn, use yOUR money to further limit yOUR freedoms.

get ready to see the light.

consult with/trust in yOUR creator...

Here is something revolutionary! (2, Interesting)

CooCooCaChoo (668937) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239741)

How about granting patents to companies that ACTUALLY invent something that is of real intellectual value instead of the user tripe of, "here is a widget, it does something, it come in multiple colours and was developed by doo-dacky incorporated at their R&D facility located out in the sticks where donkeys dig for day light".

Just look at the eloas patent, it is so open ended, one has to place it in the "how long is a piece of string" pile of questions which hopefully can be answered by some divine intervention when the second coming occurs (if ever?).

AMERICAN MOONWALK WAS FAKE!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239770)

Did man really set foot on the moon?

Shocking : See what NASA has done (Long but worth reading)

Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne?

In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.

"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.

He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.

And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?"

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.

Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."

NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."

A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the
public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

And now NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."

9 SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

The Moon or a Studio in the Nevada Desert!

From: Patrick Kilcullen - pkilcull@roanoke.edu
17 April 2001

I was reading about the supposed moon hoaxs (I'm not yet sure that they
were faked) on your web site when I came across an excellent point in your
arguments. You said that during the videos of the lunar landings the astronauts
replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. Yet light, radio waves, and
all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles
per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made
by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the
moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth. Excellent point! I was stumped
here for a minute, until I considered this: we're only hearing the astronauts
transmission. Okay, that explanation obviously needs an explanation. First
off, like you said, NASA didn't establish a direct link with televison stations
for the broadcast. Instead, the video we saw was actually filmed as it
happened on the huge television screen in Mission Control, which accounts
for the poor quality of the film. What does this mean? It means that the
video and audio in the broadcasts of the Apollo missions were both time
delayed. You didn't hear people speaking inside Mission Control, you heard
their transmission to the astronauts. The audio we heard from Mission Control
was actually several seconds old. In other words, the landings transmitted
back to Earth video and audio feed of their landing, audio including messages
from Mission Control that the astronauts had just received. To make this
easier to picture, image it this way: Mission Control transmitts a message to
Apollo 11 on the lunar surface saying Neil and Buzz can get out of the LM
and walk around (with suits on, of course.) This message travels just over a
second to the moon, where Neil and Buzz receive it and reply "Finaly!" This
message is transmitted all the way back to Earth, where it is received and
broadcast on the huge monitor in Mission Control. So you see, Mission
Control spoke first and then the astronauts replied, only the audio transmitted
to us contained both messages with no time lapse in between. Confused?
Don't worry, you'll get it soon. I've looked over the arguments used by
believers of a moon landing hoax and they are rather solid and rooted fairly
well in logic, so I can safely assume you're all pretty smart guys, so this
shouldn't be to hard for you to understand. I would appreciate it if you
would respond to this email with your thoughts on my explanation of this
lunar quandary that is now solved (hopefully.)
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&ar ticle=748

===
Watcher's Opinion RE:
Orion/Giza Correlation and Mars/Moon/Masonic Connection

Hoagland, West, Hancock and Bauval are on to something. What they collectively have implied is nothing less than a PERFECT set up for the advent of the Antichrist. With the idea that Isis was the Egyptian god of "returning" and resurrection, it is uncanny that NASA has been engaged in a type of worship of this god from the beginning of the space program. Even the name Apollo is the Greek derivitive of Isis. The landing sites, the dates for landing and the incredible connection with Giza concerning the moon missions all fit together. There is even evidence that the US astronauts were closely watched by the aliens while on luna firma.

We agree completely with Bauval that the Giza pyramids are an earthly analogue for Orion and Sirius. I do not however agree with His conclusion that this analogue addresses the Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris. The Egyptians recorded a degraded form of the true meaning of the Giza complex. The Cydonia region IS in complete correlation to Giza, but again, its original meaning was not intended for reverence to "aliens" or the so called proginators of the human race. This conclusion will be the driving force behind the uniting of all nations under the Antichrist. Antichrist will appear as a bringer of peace in Israel along with a worldwide manifestation of aliens claiming a Mars\Earth connection (the fake saviour will appear with his fake holy ones).

The reason that the King's chamber ventilation shaft is open to the star "Al Naith" in Orion's belt is because that star, whose meaning is "The Wounded One", describes the God who has come. This God manifested in human flesh, died and rose again. The ventilation shaft in the Queen's chamber which points to Sirius is CLOSED. This is symbolically accurate because Sirus represents the same God who died and lives, but has not as of yet returned. Sirius is not the consort of Isis (the degraded meaning), but the symbol of the God who remains to come as the King of Kings. Sirius means, "THE EXALTED KING"--the ruler of the whole earth. When He returns He will set up a kingdom that will never end.

If a man were to "force" this shaft open, he would in effect usher in the sequence of events that surround the working of the counterfeit-messiah, the antichrist.

A close look at Orion reveals a warrior, holding the skin of a lion, treading his enemy. His upheld club is poised to smash his enemy. The river of fire, Eridanus, which issues from before him, flows out to consume Leviathan, or Cetus, the sea monster to whom the cords of Pisces are fastened.

Sirius is properly the embellishment of Pullox, second of the twins, or correctly, the sign of second advent of the Messiah. Procyon embellishes Castor, the first advent of the Messiah as the redeemer, which is the actual translation of Procyon.

The Giza complex, as well as the Cydonia region, were designed to reveal Jesus Christ.

However, the Antichrist will of course try very hard to usurp the meaning for himself. The forces behind antichrist's coming were builders of the monuments (pre-rebellion). They are not presently alligned with the God which these structures describe.

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/sirius.html

===

THIS SUBJECT WON'T GO AWAY....

I STILL WONDER WHY WE HAVE NEVER GONE BACK AND WHY WE DO NOT
HAVE A BASE ON THE MOON NOW?

Subject: Why NASA DID land on the moon.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:47:17 -0400
From: "Kyle Connolly"
Reply-To:
Organization: Point Of View Productions
To:

I am writing to argue that NASA really did put men on the moon. Here
are my 9 responses to your nine "space oddities".

1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front
of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the
ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the
ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air."
The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said,
merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell
exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.

2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off
the Moon. Who did the filming?"
Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the
Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control,
controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want
to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent
the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it
happened, and it all worked out.

3. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong
about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have
been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the
Moon, then who took the shot?"
You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start
attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that
was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had
a television and a still camera mounted to it.

4. "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football.
The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but
were seen freely bending their joints."
Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight
jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from
the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The
space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow
movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The
two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas
lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids
and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In
space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit
should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just
learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic,
among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of
space.

5. "The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America
make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would
have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium
flares."
That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with
millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!!! What
you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon.
they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a
magnesium flare without oxygen).

6. "Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on
the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in
the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?:

As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts
didn't hold cameras like you do whn you're taking a picture of your
grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most
small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they
would not be lost.

7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark
line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to
the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow?
And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? &
How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And
where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"

Do you honsetly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't
been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo
really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case
against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo.
And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly
lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit
of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the
flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not
moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for
several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look
at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to
prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close
the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here
than the brightest day on earth. Whith the iris down far enough to
prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING
in the sky other than the sun and the earth.

9. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made
a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of
the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it
has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have
created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been
fired."
A few things you're forgetting.. It's mas was 17 tonnes, yes, however
since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's
gravity, the WEIGHTof the lunar lander was only 17/6 tonnes (2.833
tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred
up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper landes here on earth.

Some of your points (which I'm sure you didn't come up with on your own)
were ALMOST valid. Please e-mail me back when you read this. I'd love
to read your defending points.

-Kyle Connolly
(P.S. Your spelling sucks)
Kyle Connolly
phone: (613) 220-2532
fax: (613) 727-3849
email: pointofview@rogers.com

===

Nasa pulls Moon hoax book
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2424927. stm

Not heroes but actors, claim the theorists

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

The US space agency (Nasa) has cancelled the book intended to challenge the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon landings were a hoax.
Nasa declined to comment specifically on the reasons for dropping the publication, but it is understood the decision resulted from the bad publicity that followed the announcement of the project.

Criticism that Nasa was displaying poor judgement and a lack of confidence in commissioning the book caused it to abort the project, agency spokesman Bob Jacobs said.

Oberg will still write the book

Nasa had hired aerospace writer Jim Oberg for the job on a fee of $15,000.

He says he will still do the work, although it will now be an unofficial publication with alternative funding.

The book will deliver a point-by-point rebuttal of the theory that the Apollo landings were faked in a movie studio, to convince the world that the US had beaten the Soviets to the Moon.

It will explain why in still and video footage of the landings, no stars can be seen in the Moon sky, why a flag appears to ripple on the atmosphere-free satellite and why shadows fall in strange directions - all "facts", conspiracy theorists say, point to a hoax.

Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an official Nasa publication, the agency was actually giving a certain credibility to the hoax theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2424927. stm

===

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.
http://www.moonmovie.com/

Why the Americans NEVER landed on the moon.
http://thepeoplesrevolution.tripod.com/moon landing .htm

WERE THE MOON LANDING SHOTS FAKED?
http://www.mohammedi.freeserve.co.uk/moons hots.htm l

NASA Masonic Conpsiracy
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/mason apo.htm#NASA %20Masonic%20Conpsiracy

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net worker's...."

Re:AMERICAN MOONWALK WAS FAKE!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239812)

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:AMERICAN MOONWALK WAS FAKE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7239912)

me, too! Damn that's incredible.

please send me a copy of your newsletter at YOU_ARE_SO_FULL_OF_SHIT_YOUR_BREATH_STINKS@onlyass holes_dont_believe_in _moon_landings.com

Bring it back! (2, Interesting)

krysith (648105) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239816)

I remember when I first heard of Bountyquest. I checked it out, and actually did some searching to see if there was any low-hanging fruit. Unfortunately, if someone is offering a few $1000s to find prior art, usually it's hard to find. However, I thought the idea was a very good one. The whole point is to attract people who have worked in the field of the patent in question, because they would be the ones who would know about the prior art. Say if someone had a patent on "hypersonic oil pumps". Well, most people don't pay much attention to the hypersonic pump field, and most patent attorneys don't either. But if you are someone with 20 years of experience in that field, and you remember back in '78 when those guys in Minnesota were working on the Fido project, well, provide some proof and you just pocketed $20k. (Example completely hypothetical: I'd be surprised if there actually were hypersonic oil pumps) For the system to work, Bountyquest had to have experts from various fields drop by to see if there was anything from their particular field. It also benefits the experts in that field, by not only giving them money, but by keeping bad patents from cluttering the technological landscape in that field. Programmers, see the advantages of this?

I hope that a successor to Bountyquest appears soon. There is no reason that someone else cannot offer rewards for proof of prior art - even in the Amazon case! Although the Amazon case is really more about whether doing something already done, but claiming it is new because it is on the internet, is valid as an invention. I think most slashdotters would agree that it shouldn't be (otherwise we basically have a 20 year moratorium on internet innovation).

Re:Bring it back! (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240114)

Wouldn't the "reward" for finding prior art be the protection of that prior art from infringement? I agree that where BountyQuest was going was finding someone who invented/owned or knew about that prior art but never filed for a patent. You can't expect the USPO to know about everything ever invented, only what is patented. If it was invented, but never patented,someone else could claim it (i.e. the Windows GUI that Xerox PARC invented, Apple copied and M$ patented). I think they were onto something, there are way to many obvious things that are patented and thus protected. Software should have copyright protection but not be patented. But that is a whole 'nother argument!

Hypocrisy (1)

bpd1069 (57573) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239900)

hypocrisy

\Hy*poc"ri*sy\ (h[i^]*p[o^]k"r[i^]*s[y^]), n.; pl. Hypocrisies (-s[i^]z). [OE. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, OF. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, F. hypocrisie, L. hypocrisis, fr. Gr. "ypo`krisis the playing a part on the stage, simulation, outward show, fr. "ypokr`nesqai to answer on the stage, to play a part; "ypo` under + kri`nein to decide; in the middle voice, to dispute, contend. See Hypo-, and Critic.] The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.

Re:Hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7240024)

What's this, they include regular expressions in dictionaries now?

Prior art shoudl be irrelevant (2, Informative)

Baki (72515) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239918)

If you believe in patents, what matters is not if it has been done before, but if it is worthy of patent protection, i.e. it must be non trivial and not something that is so logical that the "invention" is unavoidable.

The problem with prior art is that you do not reward a patent based on a objective judgement if it is a true invention or not, but based on luck: If the first one who happens to think of a new but trivial idea (probably a lot of people think of it in parallel, but one of them writes a bit faster than the others so to say) is a bastard then the rest is out of luck and has to live with a patent situation.

For me, law must not be based on luck or chance, but on objective judgement.

A further problem of course is, how to determine what is trivial and what is not.

Re:Prior art shoudl be irrelevant (1)

ChaoticPup (80891) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240375)

The problem with prior art is that you do not reward a patent based on a objective judgement if it is a true invention or not, but based on luck: If the first one who happens to think of a new but trivial idea (probably a lot of people think of it in parallel, but one of them writes a bit faster than the others so to say) is a bastard then the rest is out of luck and has to live with a patent situation.

It actually isn't a race to get the application in as you say. The law accounts for this and could theoretically award the patent to the 'slower writer' who conceived the idea days or even hours before the 'faster writer' who got the app in sooner. He'd have to be able to prove it, of course, which means he has to have his act together in terms of proper documentation -- but the bottom line is the "faster writer" situation you speak of does not exist (at least by the letter of the law).

There are time constraints of course, such as the fact that the application must be submitted within a year of public disclosure; but they all strike me as being pretty reasonable.

Prior art (or the lack thereof) is an important and necessary test to ensure the invention is novel and unique.

-CP

Hold on a sec . . (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239921)

I'm still reading all the links . . . gimmie a bit to formulate a comment . in themeantime:

Imagine a . . oh wait.

So... Where's the prior art? (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 10 years ago | (#7239985)

If there is prior-art invalidating the one-click patent... Where is it? Do you think, if someone submitted prior art on BountyQuest and was ignored, they wouldn't speak up elsewhere? Or was BountyQuest paying them hush money when they turned up? Or were Amazon's hit squads murdering them once they were identified?

The fact is, Amazon's patent is pretty darn specific, and after I heard the particulars I wasn't much surprised that there's no prior art. (Frankly, I don't really LIKE that one-click service; I'd rather they not keep my credit card info on file.)

Re:So... Where's the prior art? (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240095)

"Prior Art" is not the only invalidator for a patent claim, as far as I know. I would think that, in the instance of 1-click, that should not be patentable because how is that different than purchasing something from a vending machine? All you do there is put in a coin/bill, one "click" and presto! you have your purchased item. Why is making a computer program for that patentable? I don't know but, of course, I'm not a patent lawer.

Re:So... Where's the prior art? (1)

mfli (305825) | more than 10 years ago | (#7242135)

I would think that, in the instance of 1-click, that should not be patentable because how is that different than purchasing something from a vending machine?

Don't you think that someone out there has a patent for exactly that process? i.e. the mechanics of how a vending machine vends based on a user putting in money and pressing some buttons?

I don't really agree with software patents, but I don't think your analogy is accurate.

Re:So... Where's the prior art? (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240344)

The problem of amazon 1click is not "prior art", the problem is "Where's the damn invention?", "Where's the inventive step, the technical effect"? It's trivial and trivial patents are harmful to an economy. More analysis on the prior art issue ( FFII paper [ffii.org])

BountyQuest failed to deliver (1)

deanj (519759) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240082)

I submitted something to BountyQuest that clearly proved one of the patents they were looking at had prior art. After the contest ended, I bugged them every couple of months for at least a year (maybe longer), and kept getting the "we're trying to finalize that" run around.

If these people couldn't "finalize" any of the bounties people were looking at, no wonder they went under.

I wonder how many other people this happened to?

The agony of it all (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240091)

As much as I really hate the patent system it is the dagger that is going to finally finish SCO. No matter what happens IBM is going to destroy them with infringment claims.

It came from Linksville! (0)

sbeast702 (447699) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240170)

Damn.. he should have just opened the tag before the first word and closed it before the last

1 click is bad (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240261)

In fact, whether there is 'prior art' or not: Amazon 1 click revealed the failure of the patent system when it comes to eCommerce, Internet and Software. Patents may be good in other fields, in the software industry they are not common usage. Patents benefit only lawyers and patent privateers. And Large scale IT companies can deal with them...

Europe canceled plans to introduce an Us style software patent system because the SME software industry kicked the patent industry (patent lawyers, patent institutions) in the ass.

Now it is time for the US to join the bandwagon and get rid of the patent lawyer's regime that does so much harm to innovation.

See FFII [ffii.org]

Somebody translate it? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240429)

With $1+ million of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' money and an Amazon VP on its Board, BountyQuest vowed to reform the patent system through its prior art contests. While BountyQuest raised eyebrows when it found winning prior art right off the bat for a patent Amazon was sued for infringing on, it surprisingly drew little...and so on and on...

This reminds me of another text:

"An ye be a man of mettle and sympathy, aid me now. I hight the Princess Alison Jocelyn, daughter to good King Giles, and him, foully murdered by his brother, the bloody Duke Wulf, who hath ta'en my three brothers, the princes Corin, Colin, and Calvin, and cast them into a fell prison as hostages that I will wed his fat son, Lord Dudley, but I bribed the sentinel and sopped the dogs--" (Peter Beagle, _The Last Unicorn_)

No wonder dragons were married and princessed slain in that ancient times with explainations like that, and no wonder 12-yo grannies subpoenate 1-click systems and free software defenders get distributed over beowulf clusters of those nowadays.

I just woke up so I'm not thinking at my highest resolution, so Would someone PLEASE, slowly, clearly and simply explain WHAT THE HELL IS THAT THING ABOUT?

"... on the Internet!" (2, Funny)

el borak (263323) | more than 10 years ago | (#7240522)

So this is now to become the patent equivalent of the old fortune cookie "... in bed!" game?
  • "You will prosper in your next venture" ... "on the Internet!"
  • "Exercise extreme caution before making a life changing decision" ... "on the Internet!"
  • "With this laser pointer I can exercise my cat" ... "on the Internet!"

Theodp has an axe to grind indeed (4, Informative)

tadghin (2229) | more than 10 years ago | (#7241263)

I was glad to see that the moderator at least labeled the "dept" correctly -- but I wish that slashdot wasn't reduced to posting flamebait in order to drive traffic.

Theodp did indeed submit what he thought was prior art to the bountyquest 1-click competition -- he sent in a huge binder of IBM mainframe documentation without any comment about what part of it he considered prior art. When pressed for details, he gave some section numbers, but for the life of me I couldn't see its relevance, and neither could any of the bountyquest patent attorneys. It basically described a system in which you issued commands, and the computer responded! I think we all know a few of those. I gave him far more time and consideration than the actual merit of his submission required -- it seemed to me to be one of the most useless and irrelevant of all the submissions, yet he keeps claiming it as if it were the answer. Spending time answering his assertions seems only to have whetted his appetite for attention.

Theodp's accusations of malfeasance are particularly irritating because I did in fact pay out $10,000 of my own money for the three pieces of prior art that seemed most relevant. None of them were a slam dunk, though. (However, after the contest ended and BountyQuest went on the rocks, someone did send me a killer piece of prior art, which I still have in my possession in the event that Amazon ever sues anyone else over 1-click. I never used it because in the interim, Amazon settled with Barnes & Noble, and the case was put to bed. Meanwhile, I had become convinced that Amazon had seen the light (and the pressure -- suing B&N was a PR disaster for them) and would not again choose to use patents offensively.

As to acquiring patents (however ridiculous), the system is so broken that all companies are doing it these days, so that they'll have some defense if someone else sues them. Amazon is no worse in this regard than anyone else, and I believe that because of their bad experience, they are likely a lot better. They understand in a way they never did before that they are part of a technology ecosystem, and owe a lot to the open source and open standards developer community who created their opportunity. The Amazon web services interface is a direct outcome of what they learned through their mistakes over the offensive use of the 1-click patent, and the conversations about "giving back" that ensued.

The fact that BountyQuest failed was a big disappointment both to me and to Jeff -- it seemed like a good idea. But like many other startups in the dotcom era, it didn't make it over the hump.

I Patented bad Slashdot Articles (1)

I-R-Baboon (140733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7241457)

So using SCO Math I figure Cowbowneal has about 30 days to purchase a license from me in the amount of $47,000 which is fair market value of my imagnination.

1 click crap (1)

deathmolor (676227) | more than 10 years ago | (#7241536)

It still blows me away they allow pantents like that. I better go out and patent the 1-word-order. You know the system were instead of calling 1800 numbers and ordering product through a lengthy process all u have to do is phone the number say one word and your order is on its way.

But u can't do that in the normal world. Because the order system can not be patented. I can not believe the EU also gave them a patent on this. I thought they were smarter then that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...