How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent(patents.google.com)
patents.google.com
How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8392585B1/en?oq=US8392585B1
69 comments
> and letting corporations be responsible for guarding their own secrets
The point of patents is that we don’t want corporations guarding trade secrets, we want them to make their secrets public so that others can benefit from them. And in exchange, they get some time where nobody else can use it.
Getting rid of patents will just lead to trade secrets getting lost, like so many have been through history.
The point of patents is that we don’t want corporations guarding trade secrets, we want them to make their secrets public so that others can benefit from them. And in exchange, they get some time where nobody else can use it.
Getting rid of patents will just lead to trade secrets getting lost, like so many have been through history.
That might of been the case at one point in time but the current patent system allows the retention of the trade secret that makes the invention actually work as well as allowing a patent on that same invention. That is because there is no longer a requirement that the invention can be reproduced from the patent because this is no longer tested.
There was once a time when an actual working prototype had to be submitted to gain a patent. This "having your cake and eating it too" issue was why such a cumbersome requirement existed.
There are companies out there who do not know why a particular product works as well as it does. Those companies can still get a patent that does not describe the invention in a way that would allow someone to reproduce the desirable attributes of that product. They then can sue any smarter companies that actually can figure out the secret.
There was once a time when an actual working prototype had to be submitted to gain a patent. This "having your cake and eating it too" issue was why such a cumbersome requirement existed.
There are companies out there who do not know why a particular product works as well as it does. Those companies can still get a patent that does not describe the invention in a way that would allow someone to reproduce the desirable attributes of that product. They then can sue any smarter companies that actually can figure out the secret.
> Getting rid of patents will just lead to trade secrets getting lost, like so many have been through history
I never thought about this benefit to a patent system. Thank you.
I never thought about this benefit to a patent system. Thank you.
That was the original point of patents when the patent office required a working copy. The inventor gave the public enough information so it can be copied and in return the government gave a limited monopoly.
Then government process change and today patent has changed. The ability to copy a invention from a patent is for all practical purposes impossible and in general no one objects to that fact. As the joke goes the only invention invention that the patent office will demand to be able to copy is one that breaks the third law of thermodynamics.
Then government process change and today patent has changed. The ability to copy a invention from a patent is for all practical purposes impossible and in general no one objects to that fact. As the joke goes the only invention invention that the patent office will demand to be able to copy is one that breaks the third law of thermodynamics.
Even so, it seems that tech patents need to have a shorter time frame. Things move faster now than they did 200 years ago.
Absolutely, and many patents are stupidly broad or obvious. I’m glad the patent office has begun cracking down on “X, but on a computer” patents, because those were all terrible.
Software patents should fall under the mathematics clause of unpatentable. Software is better protected with copyright and already is.
For hardware, I think I agree, but I doubt patents could be used to actually build something.
For hardware, I think I agree, but I doubt patents could be used to actually build something.
I think software patents can be useful, but it should be very, very "non-obvious".
The bar should be very high to get a patent and it should only cover the most novel and unique algorithms out there.
Idiotic stuff like a "one click purchase" button or "do it on a computer" should be thrown in the trash immediately.
Pretty much all of our patent problems could be solved in all industries by simply raising the bar for what is considered non-obvious to those familiar with the craft and substantially different to what is already out there.
The bar should be very high to get a patent and it should only cover the most novel and unique algorithms out there.
Idiotic stuff like a "one click purchase" button or "do it on a computer" should be thrown in the trash immediately.
Pretty much all of our patent problems could be solved in all industries by simply raising the bar for what is considered non-obvious to those familiar with the craft and substantially different to what is already out there.
Employees of companies are instructed specifically to avoid reading patents, to avoid the chance of hitting the triple damages from "wilful patent infringement". (I suppose they could read expired patent definitions, but at least in tech, those are likely much less relevant.) I imagine this also has the effect that they have no idea what technologies could theoretically be licensed from the patent owners, so, even if both parties would be willing and could agree on mutually beneficial terms, the transaction isn't initiated in the first place. (In cases where technology is licensed, I suspect the discovery mechanism involves the patent owner advertising and promoting their thing, rather than people looking at the patent stream.)
The "archive that people maybe start looking at 20 years later" might be worth something. I wonder, though, if similar or greater benefits might be gotten by encouraging companies to dump their secrets (or parts thereof) into some archive where they will remain heavily encrypted and guarded for a few decades.
The "archive that people maybe start looking at 20 years later" might be worth something. I wonder, though, if similar or greater benefits might be gotten by encouraging companies to dump their secrets (or parts thereof) into some archive where they will remain heavily encrypted and guarded for a few decades.
There are still trade secrets all over the place. Patents are an idea that has through evidence been proven to be more harmful than good. The rate of horsepower in the world exploded once the original steam engine patents expired.
The case for patents needs to be made empirically -- lets see where they actually drove innovation. In general you will see massive innovation as soon as a patent expires.
The case for patents needs to be made empirically -- lets see where they actually drove innovation. In general you will see massive innovation as soon as a patent expires.
> The rate of horsepower in the world exploded once the original steam engine patents expired.
An invention exploding throughout the world upon the expiry of a patent is the primary feature of patents, not evidence that patents are bad. The whole point of patents is that after a brief monopoly period, the entire invention - detailed in the patent to a level sufficient to recreate it from scratch - becomes the public's to use.
Your example is evidence of patents successfully driving progress everywhere and working as intended.
I'd much rather things protected by trade secrets had been protected by patent instead. If that was the case, for example, I could buy coca-cola for the price of the store brand. But I can't, because the formulas are still secret and not held by the public, even after more than 100 years. The formula being secret serves only to benefit an entrenched multinational corporation and reduce competition - rewarding neither the public nor the original inventor.
An invention exploding throughout the world upon the expiry of a patent is the primary feature of patents, not evidence that patents are bad. The whole point of patents is that after a brief monopoly period, the entire invention - detailed in the patent to a level sufficient to recreate it from scratch - becomes the public's to use.
Your example is evidence of patents successfully driving progress everywhere and working as intended.
I'd much rather things protected by trade secrets had been protected by patent instead. If that was the case, for example, I could buy coca-cola for the price of the store brand. But I can't, because the formulas are still secret and not held by the public, even after more than 100 years. The formula being secret serves only to benefit an entrenched multinational corporation and reduce competition - rewarding neither the public nor the original inventor.
There are normally many people on the verge of a discovery. The rewards should go to those who are able to effectively leverage their technology into useful products. Not artificially retard progress so that the 'first' person can milk the rewards.
Patents have a long history of abuse and very little evidence that they drive innovation. The case has to be made that their benefit outweighs their harm. My argument is that it doesn't.
Patents have a long history of abuse and very little evidence that they drive innovation. The case has to be made that their benefit outweighs their harm. My argument is that it doesn't.
> In general you will see massive innovation as soon as a patent expires.
As tofof said, that’s absolutely the entire point of the patent system. The original inventor (Watt?) patented his invention. For a period of time, he could use it exclusively. And then the patent expires and everyone gets to use it. Everyone wins.
As tofof said, that’s absolutely the entire point of the patent system. The original inventor (Watt?) patented his invention. For a period of time, he could use it exclusively. And then the patent expires and everyone gets to use it. Everyone wins.
The issue with your argument is that the alternative might be no one knowing about the idea that would have been patented.
What trade secrets have been lost? And how would patents have helped?
We don't know what's been lost because they were kept secret. The patent, being a publicly accessible description of what was accomplished and how, increases the understanding by anyone who reads it.
Let's take Google's PageRank as an example.
Until PageRank, search engines tried to decipher the content of a page to decide the value of that page in a relevant search. PageRank took the value of page links as THE defining metric of quality and the result was a much better search engine.
Had Google kept this a trade secret, we'd still be guessing at how they accomplished the goal. Knowing what they did, and how they did it, means that the knowledge is available to everyone.
For a non-search related project we are doing, I directed on of our team members to read the PageRank algorithm, as it is somewhat informative of a potential solution to one of our problems.
Google patenting PageRank has meant that we get the value of knowing their process, but are unable to use it to compete with them.
Let's take Google's PageRank as an example.
Until PageRank, search engines tried to decipher the content of a page to decide the value of that page in a relevant search. PageRank took the value of page links as THE defining metric of quality and the result was a much better search engine.
Had Google kept this a trade secret, we'd still be guessing at how they accomplished the goal. Knowing what they did, and how they did it, means that the knowledge is available to everyone.
For a non-search related project we are doing, I directed on of our team members to read the PageRank algorithm, as it is somewhat informative of a potential solution to one of our problems.
Google patenting PageRank has meant that we get the value of knowing their process, but are unable to use it to compete with them.
I am pretty sure it would have leaked out pretty quickly. Usually when somebody puts a working system into the public it's just a matter of time until people figure out how it works.
Damascus Steel is my favorite example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel although most trade secrets have been completely lost and forgotten about.
What if ideas are cryptographic-ally encrypted and posted publicly, and the keys released at a later date?
Interesting idea, but what if the company goes bankrupt in the meantime?
Have a third party hold the keys, uspto or similar.
you would need the USPTO to hold the keys anyways to be able to effectively resolve disputes.
Sounds like a great application for a blockchain
A blockchain actually seems a bit pointless for this because there is no 'good' being spent, and likewise there is also no need for a strict ordering of patents - meaning the "chain" part opens you up to unnecessary problems. Such as, you could have a silly 51% attack where the network discards existing blocks/patents for another chain of blocks/patents, even though there are no problems with simply keeping all of them (Because no inconsistency is created by just keeping the data from both chains).
I think an easier way to solve this is to use something like torrents, and have the USPTO sign the data being sent out with a known public-private key pair (So you can verify that what you're being sent isn't just junk someone generated). These can get copied by anybody who connects to the network, verified that they are actual patents, and then when the USPTO distibutes the encryption key anyone with a copy can decrypt them. In this situation, there's no such thing as a 51% attack because there is no history to rewrite, and you can't dump fake patents into the system to attempt to 'overload' it without having the USPTO's private key. An effort could be made to delete some information by simply refusing to replicate it (And hoping others also refuse), but as long as someone has a copy there isn't anything an outside force could do to cause them to delete it if they don't want too, and if someone makes enough of an effort someone else should be able to replicate it.
I think an easier way to solve this is to use something like torrents, and have the USPTO sign the data being sent out with a known public-private key pair (So you can verify that what you're being sent isn't just junk someone generated). These can get copied by anybody who connects to the network, verified that they are actual patents, and then when the USPTO distibutes the encryption key anyone with a copy can decrypt them. In this situation, there's no such thing as a 51% attack because there is no history to rewrite, and you can't dump fake patents into the system to attempt to 'overload' it without having the USPTO's private key. An effort could be made to delete some information by simply refusing to replicate it (And hoping others also refuse), but as long as someone has a copy there isn't anything an outside force could do to cause them to delete it if they don't want too, and if someone makes enough of an effort someone else should be able to replicate it.
As a bonus, use a purposefully weak encryption algorithm, effectively putting a cap on how long secrets can be kept.*
*This is a terrible idea
*This is a terrible idea
What would the inventor get in exchange for doing that?
> Getting rid of patents will just lead to trade secrets getting lost
It is hard to keep a secret. Even the most closely guarded ones (the atom bomb, for instance) tend to eventually leak. That, and many devices can be reverse engineered.
It is hard to keep a secret. Even the most closely guarded ones (the atom bomb, for instance) tend to eventually leak. That, and many devices can be reverse engineered.
Seems to me that intentional infringement should be the only path available to plaintiffs. If the next person who has the same problem arrives at a similar solution without needing to refer to the patent's teachings, then society arguably obtained no benefit from granting the first person a temporary monopoly.
Hard to prove that I didn't read a document that is intentionally made publicly available.
Very true, but that doesn't invalidate the point in the slightest.
Given that intentional infringement awards are trebled, plaintiffs have a huge incentive to accuse defendants of it. If any patent attorneys are reading this, can you cite any statistics regarding what percentage of cases end up with a finding of intentional infringement?
Given that intentional infringement awards are trebled, plaintiffs have a huge incentive to accuse defendants of it. If any patent attorneys are reading this, can you cite any statistics regarding what percentage of cases end up with a finding of intentional infringement?
If you do that, you're basically signing our future over to almost every bigger corporation that currently exists.
They will almost always be able to reverse engineer and re-implement in a cheaper fashion than most smaller companies, especially with the economies of scale on their side.
They've also got deep enough pockets to sell products below cost while they drive competition out of the market.
They will almost always be able to reverse engineer and re-implement in a cheaper fashion than most smaller companies, especially with the economies of scale on their side.
They've also got deep enough pockets to sell products below cost while they drive competition out of the market.
Another corporate angle is the extent that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is at work. Large companies in older industries will have a large portfolio and if they get hassled by a competitor, the competitor can strike back.
As a practical matter, what can happen is that small companies can't get traction since all of the minimum features/implementations in a given type of product have already been patented by one of the existing older companies as a form of low-hanging fruit.
As a practical matter, what can happen is that small companies can't get traction since all of the minimum features/implementations in a given type of product have already been patented by one of the existing older companies as a form of low-hanging fruit.
As far as software related patents go, yes, there are so many patents granted on trivial or obvious techniques that the system seems to benefit lawyers and patent trolls to a much greater extent than it benefits the actual inventors.
I do see a need for patents on pharmaceuticals, where the costs of gaining FDA approval is much more significant than the cost of reverse engineering a generic version of a medicine. But software? No.
I do see a need for patents on pharmaceuticals, where the costs of gaining FDA approval is much more significant than the cost of reverse engineering a generic version of a medicine. But software? No.
This view is common, and I think stems partly from the fact that engineers working in different industries within tech don't really understand how the business models work in other industries within tech.
In software, we'd probably be better off without patents entirely. From an economic point of view, patents protect capital investment-intensive technology from free-riding. In software, copyright does that just fine. (For most software, the hard part is writing it, not the underlying logic.)
But this software-influenced mental model doesn't scale. For example, you mention trade secrets as an alternative. But for a lot of things, you can't guard your secret sauce behind a REST API. If you're Rolls Royce and you ship a turbine blade that took tens of millions of dollars of CFD analysis to develop, your competitor can just buy an engine and replicate it. The "web software" industry is actually unusual in that you don't need patents or copyright to protect your R&D, because all the valuable software and data is protected behind a web server. Note that a lot of the anti-patent (and anti-copyright) sentiment among engineers is relatively recent, and coextensive with the ascendency of web tech.[1]
Likewise, if you're developing hardware, in many cases you need to share your secret sauce while still protecting it. ARM and the cellular industry are great examples. These are incredibly healthy, incredibly innovative ecosystems. And patents are the grease behind how those ecosystems work. ARM can sell you an IP core that gets embedded in hundreds of different chips, because it has patent protection on those chips. There are half a dozen major companies that coordinate to develop Wi-Fi, 4G, etc., and they use patents to make a return on the billions they spend in R&D.
Interestingly, as much as people gripe about patents, I'd posit that the WiFi/cellular/video ecosystems are much better models of cooperative R&D than extant patent-free models. People cluck about the benefits of patent-free, open web standards, but it's an incredibly anemic ecosystem, dominated by three companies and with just 2.5 major implementations. Part of the problem with the web is that, to monetize what you spend developing the standards, you have to build a browser that you can either use to data mine/show advertising, or use to sell some other product. You're forced to vertically integrate the development of the technology and the building of the consumer-facing product because there's no good way to monetize them separately. And the beauty of patents is that they allow you to achieve that separation.
[1] I found the anti-patent sentiment actually quite shocking when I first started talking to software folks. Coming from an communications background, patents are really fundamental parts of the business model. The first company I worked at, a cognitive radio startup, never really intended to build a product you could sell to customers. The purpose was to develop the algorithms and patent them, maybe develop a reference implementation that would be heavily customized. After all, our expertise wasn't in mass-manufacturing radios, it was in network algorithm design/RF engineering. Patents enabled us to specialize on that one piece, and package our work into something that could be bought and sold.
In software, we'd probably be better off without patents entirely. From an economic point of view, patents protect capital investment-intensive technology from free-riding. In software, copyright does that just fine. (For most software, the hard part is writing it, not the underlying logic.)
But this software-influenced mental model doesn't scale. For example, you mention trade secrets as an alternative. But for a lot of things, you can't guard your secret sauce behind a REST API. If you're Rolls Royce and you ship a turbine blade that took tens of millions of dollars of CFD analysis to develop, your competitor can just buy an engine and replicate it. The "web software" industry is actually unusual in that you don't need patents or copyright to protect your R&D, because all the valuable software and data is protected behind a web server. Note that a lot of the anti-patent (and anti-copyright) sentiment among engineers is relatively recent, and coextensive with the ascendency of web tech.[1]
Likewise, if you're developing hardware, in many cases you need to share your secret sauce while still protecting it. ARM and the cellular industry are great examples. These are incredibly healthy, incredibly innovative ecosystems. And patents are the grease behind how those ecosystems work. ARM can sell you an IP core that gets embedded in hundreds of different chips, because it has patent protection on those chips. There are half a dozen major companies that coordinate to develop Wi-Fi, 4G, etc., and they use patents to make a return on the billions they spend in R&D.
Interestingly, as much as people gripe about patents, I'd posit that the WiFi/cellular/video ecosystems are much better models of cooperative R&D than extant patent-free models. People cluck about the benefits of patent-free, open web standards, but it's an incredibly anemic ecosystem, dominated by three companies and with just 2.5 major implementations. Part of the problem with the web is that, to monetize what you spend developing the standards, you have to build a browser that you can either use to data mine/show advertising, or use to sell some other product. You're forced to vertically integrate the development of the technology and the building of the consumer-facing product because there's no good way to monetize them separately. And the beauty of patents is that they allow you to achieve that separation.
[1] I found the anti-patent sentiment actually quite shocking when I first started talking to software folks. Coming from an communications background, patents are really fundamental parts of the business model. The first company I worked at, a cognitive radio startup, never really intended to build a product you could sell to customers. The purpose was to develop the algorithms and patent them, maybe develop a reference implementation that would be heavily customized. After all, our expertise wasn't in mass-manufacturing radios, it was in network algorithm design/RF engineering. Patents enabled us to specialize on that one piece, and package our work into something that could be bought and sold.
Software folks think their space is special. Software is an immature industry and it often shows.
Additionally, the USPTO and the courts are also immature as far as software/computer patents are considered. It has only been a few decades after all.
It takes time for the law to converge on reasonable outcomes. As far as SW patents go, the law is still thrashing.
Additionally, the USPTO and the courts are also immature as far as software/computer patents are considered. It has only been a few decades after all.
It takes time for the law to converge on reasonable outcomes. As far as SW patents go, the law is still thrashing.
It has surely gone through quite a paper trail. "Final rejection" dated 13.07.2012, but that wasn't the end of it:
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201113244836.A&...
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201113244836.A&...
I wonder if the people causing and writing that nonsense lead a happy life knowing they are just creating nonsense. Who does this kind of stuff? People who hate their job? Or hate themselves?
I think it's important to note this patent is from Theranos. It was likely used to perpetuate their fraud.. by telling investors they have N tech patents to show they were innovative.
Yeah, it's not like they are building important stuff like: oppression tools for China; privacy destroying tracking software; dark pattern Skinner's boxes; advertising delivery platforms; and so on.
A lot of them probably have nice cars and big houses. There are plenty of people who do BS in business and have happy lifes.
As far as I know, a nice car and a big house does very little to increase your happiness. Once you meet nominal needs of living, all the 'extra' stuff does very little to make you 'more' happy. It also usually comes in balance with the work or other parts of your existence you have to perform which usually comes with a higher price, offsetting the 'extra' stuff you think you have, because you don't just get 'extra' of the 'nice' parts of life, also 'extra' of the bad parts.
Um. If the critics of this patent knew how to read claims they would not be concerned.
This is a garbage patent that has claims that are extremely narrow.
The attorneys that signed the last amendment introduced an extremely limiting amendment that makes the patent essentially useless. The examiner recognized this and allowed it.
The attorneys that prosecuted this case have life science/chem/pharma backgrounds and used claim language common in life science cases. Such claim language is never used in computer/software patents because it is so narrowing.
However, not having read the spec, narrow claims may be all that that are available. Though a good patent prosecutor with experience in computer/software arts would never draft them this way.
This is a garbage patent that has claims that are extremely narrow.
The attorneys that signed the last amendment introduced an extremely limiting amendment that makes the patent essentially useless. The examiner recognized this and allowed it.
The attorneys that prosecuted this case have life science/chem/pharma backgrounds and used claim language common in life science cases. Such claim language is never used in computer/software patents because it is so narrowing.
However, not having read the spec, narrow claims may be all that that are available. Though a good patent prosecutor with experience in computer/software arts would never draft them this way.
Uhh, that's basically any application that a network connection is critical to its function...
Yea, how on earth was this patened. (－‸ლ)
Yea, how on earth was this patened. (－‸ლ)
While I agree the patent is garbage, it's also covers a highly specific configuration. The operative part of the patent is not: "Methods and systems are provided for connecting an electronic device to a network."
It's the claims, and to infringe you have to meet every limitation of the claim:
> A computer-implemented method for testing network connectivity for a network device, comprising: connecting to a network provider; pinging a first server with the aid of the network provider by directing a data packet to a static interne protocol (IP) address of said first server; pinging a second server with the aid of the network provider by directing a data packet to a dedicated uniform resource locator (URL) of said second server; and determining whether to maintain connectivity to said network provider based on whether a response was received by said network device from said first server and/or whether a response was received by said network device from said second server; and connecting to another network provider based on at least one criterion selected from the group consisting of: bandwidth of the another network provider, cost to maintain connectivity to the another network provider, cost to transmit information with the aid of the another network provider, a download rate of the another network provider, and an upload rate of the another network provider.
It's the claims, and to infringe you have to meet every limitation of the claim:
> A computer-implemented method for testing network connectivity for a network device, comprising: connecting to a network provider; pinging a first server with the aid of the network provider by directing a data packet to a static interne protocol (IP) address of said first server; pinging a second server with the aid of the network provider by directing a data packet to a dedicated uniform resource locator (URL) of said second server; and determining whether to maintain connectivity to said network provider based on whether a response was received by said network device from said first server and/or whether a response was received by said network device from said second server; and connecting to another network provider based on at least one criterion selected from the group consisting of: bandwidth of the another network provider, cost to maintain connectivity to the another network provider, cost to transmit information with the aid of the another network provider, a download rate of the another network provider, and an upload rate of the another network provider.
I have actually worked with some code that took in account all those aspects. The code was written in 2005.
While not a lot video games are open source. A lot of games do things like. Particularly FPS shooters do very similar things to select servers or game hosts. Mainly in trying to find the lowest ping to ensure responsive game-play.
Let's break the claims down. * "computer-implemented method for testing network connectivity for a network device, comprising: connecting to a network provider;"
While not a lot video games are open source. A lot of games do things like. Particularly FPS shooters do very similar things to select servers or game hosts. Mainly in trying to find the lowest ping to ensure responsive game-play.
Let's break the claims down. * "computer-implemented method for testing network connectivity for a network device, comprising: connecting to a network provider;"
This is any computer connected to a network that tests connectivity.
This is any application testing ping time/rate.
Any application that makes a HTTP request to check that a URL is online.
If the tests failed or are high latency try a different connection or probably choose a closer device.
Choose the best connection from a list of connections/devices based off your tests and any prior knowledge like geography.The claims in the referenced patent are drafted to be extremely limited and inflexible. It would not apply to your product. You already get around it by considering geography.
Pretty sure adding an additional test not in the list doesn't exempt them from the patent. It's "at least one of" not "at least one of and nothing not in this list".
This happens because the USPTO has no incentive not to rubber-stamp everything that comes across their desks. For some time now, their position has been to accept claims at face value and let the courts (read: the taxpayers) deal with the fallout.
Except look at vegetish's post. It was rejected as obvious with a notice of final rejection. And they fought it tooth and nail to get it pushed through regardless of that rejection.
Hopefully that at least means it will be easy to overturn if they try to enforce the patent.
Hopefully that at least means it will be easy to overturn if they try to enforce the patent.
“Final” rejections are poorly named. All they really indicate is that you will probably have to submit a request for continued examination—-and pay a hefty fee—-to continue. Ironically, a lengthy and contentious application process can make the patent more difficult to challenge later, in a more sophisticated setting, because the presumption that the patent is valid is the strongest with prior art that the examiner “considered.” (IAALBNYL)
(Shrug) They had the option to do the right thing and maintain their final rejection. So why didn't they?
It's hard to escape the conclusion that they just couldn't be bothered.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that they just couldn't be bothered.
Agreed. The fact they were allowed to resumbit such a broad patent with obvious prior art is ridiculous.
They amended the claims which required the examiner to do another search.
As mentioned above, Final Rejection just means you have to pay more money to continue the patent prosecution. This is called a Request for Continued Examination. RCEs are common.
Generally, the initial filing fees provide for two rounds of examination -- a non-final rejection and then a final rejection.
If the applicant re-filed the same claims that were rejected in the final rejection (w/o amending them), the examiner can issue an immediate final rejection on a subsequent RCE if he disagrees with the argument the applicant might have supplied.
As mentioned above, Final Rejection just means you have to pay more money to continue the patent prosecution. This is called a Request for Continued Examination. RCEs are common.
Generally, the initial filing fees provide for two rounds of examination -- a non-final rejection and then a final rejection.
If the applicant re-filed the same claims that were rejected in the final rejection (w/o amending them), the examiner can issue an immediate final rejection on a subsequent RCE if he disagrees with the argument the applicant might have supplied.
The last amendment to the claims narrowed them to the extent that the patent is useless. The examiner knew this and allowed the patent.
The last amendment to the claims exceptionally narrows them. The examiner recognized this and issued a notice of allowance.
This patent is worthless and harmless.
This patent is worthless and harmless.
There are good insights in this exchange:
https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.201113244836...
The invention pings both an IP address of a first server, and a URL of a different server; The patent examiner found an earlier disclosure of very basic pinging (the document is referred to as "Sinha"); no mention of IP+URL pinging (at least according to Theranos), or switching network providers as a result.
You may read this and think how obvious it is to ping both a domain and an IP address, and switch providers based on that; but unless you can find it in an earlier reference with this (before Sept 2011), or convince a court it's an abstract idea ("101" in patent parlance), this is what's patent-worthy according to present laws..
If you spend 200-800k, this patent can be invalidated easily. These patents get granted because examiners have less than a day to evaluate them, and the PTO survives off the maintenance fees (it receives zero tax dollars), and the cost of invalidating them later.
The invention pings both an IP address of a first server, and a URL of a different server; The patent examiner found an earlier disclosure of very basic pinging (the document is referred to as "Sinha"); no mention of IP+URL pinging (at least according to Theranos), or switching network providers as a result.
You may read this and think how obvious it is to ping both a domain and an IP address, and switch providers based on that; but unless you can find it in an earlier reference with this (before Sept 2011), or convince a court it's an abstract idea ("101" in patent parlance), this is what's patent-worthy according to present laws..
If you spend 200-800k, this patent can be invalidated easily. These patents get granted because examiners have less than a day to evaluate them, and the PTO survives off the maintenance fees (it receives zero tax dollars), and the cost of invalidating them later.
Arstechnica had a good piece on how patent reform was killed in Congress:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/how-the-patent-t...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/how-the-patent-t...
Not just USPTO, it looks like there's a European grant, as well as others.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'm convinced we should get rid of all patents and copyrights.
I genuinely can't see anything good with artificial scarcity.
I genuinely can't see anything good with artificial scarcity.
[deleted]
Theranos.. funny stuff
I had never heard of Theranos before.
Amazing what people can pull off.
Amazing what people can pull off.
I think a patent is only worth something to the extent that it is enforceable.
Sorry, I wasnt clear. What I find amazing is not the patent, but the company. As I understood it, behind the company was the youngest female billionaire, and turns out it was all a scam all along. Valuation in billions for essentially vaporware. Poof. All gone.
The same company behind this patent of course.
Its saddening. Like wtf now.
The same company behind this patent of course.
Its saddening. Like wtf now.
At least in tech, corporations generally don't patent their secret sauce anyway. They surround their critical trade secrets with a screen of patents, building up a defense (or offense) against rivals.