If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   The patent office wants to know what you think about their software patenting "system", also known as a "rubber stamp". No, really   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 22
    More: Interesting, software patents, patent office, USPTO, overly broad, level of detail, patent office wants  
•       •       •

1063 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-05 12:51:24 PM
*submits new prescription med*
Ok, that's non-obvious. Patent granted.
*submits extended release version*
LOL ALSO NON-OBVIOUS ANOTHERPATENT4U ENJOY
 
2013-01-05 02:16:22 PM
Move patent jurisdiction to a special federal court in D.C. Texas has proven they cannot be trusted with this type of responsibility.
 
2013-01-05 02:27:18 PM
There are a few software things which might have actually deserved a patent, stuff like the RSA algorithm or the MP3 codec which are non-trivial ways of doing things that you just couldn't do before. The overwhelming majority of them are garbage, like the idea of using exclusive-OR instructions to draw a cursor on the screen or the revolutionary idea that you could purchase a product by clicking once.

Oh, and the half-dozen or so software patents that have my name on them are really good ones too.
 
2013-01-05 02:39:29 PM
That's a great status bar you have there. I'd better patent it before someone steals your idea for "way to place things.. on a phone."
 
2013-01-05 02:44:26 PM

Fabric_Man: Move patent jurisdiction to a special federal court in D.C. Texas has proven they cannot be trusted with this type of responsibility.


You mean like the Federal Circuit, which has full appellate review of patent matters including patentability determinations?  The one that sits in D.C.?
 
2013-01-05 03:25:11 PM
1. Hire a class of fifth graders.
2. Give them the patent, in its functional language form.
3. Ask if they've heard of something like that, or if they could draw it out.
4. If they've heard of it, there's prior art. If they could draw it out, it's obvious.
5. Go back and dopeslap Apple for submitting yet another obvious patent with clear prior art conflicts.
 
2013-01-05 03:58:24 PM

FormlessOne: 1. Hire a class of fifth graders.
2. Give them the patent, in its functional language form.
3. Ask if they've heard of something like that, or if they could draw it out.
4. If they've heard of it, there's prior art. If they could draw it out, it's obvious.
5. Go back and dopeslap Apple for submitting yet another obvious patent with clear prior art conflicts.


I had to laugh at myself the other day when I saw a story about Apple patenting curved glass on phones. I'm so used to bullshiat Apple patents I got into a internet commenting rage before reading the article. The patent turns out to be on a method for forming the glass using a new technique. I was so surprised that it looked like something that actually should be patented I didn't know what to do...
 
2013-01-05 03:59:46 PM

FormlessOne: 1. Hire a class of fifth graders.
2. Give them the patent, in its functional language form.
3. Ask if they've heard of something like that, or if they could draw it out.
4. If they've heard of it, there's prior art. If they could draw it out, it's obvious.
5. Go back and dopeslap Apple for submitting yet another obvious patent with clear prior art conflicts.


That's so cute.  The only reason Apple is patenting every little thing is because a patent troll sued it - prior to the iPod - Apple patented very little.

/Apple is not even in the top 50 of patent system abusers - trying getting past your irrational Apple hatred and pay attention to the market sometime.
 
2013-01-05 04:15:20 PM

gingerjet: That's so cute. The only reason Apple is patenting every little thing is because a patent troll sued it - prior to the iPod - Apple patented very little.


The appropriate response to getting robbed is to become a robber
 
2013-01-05 05:13:51 PM
Rubber stamp saying "rejected" maybe, Subs. Over 90% of patent applications are initially turned down.
 
2013-01-05 05:15:21 PM

Teiritzamna: Fabric_Man: Move patent jurisdiction to a special federal court in D.C. Texas has proven they cannot be trusted with this type of responsibility.

You mean like the Federal Circuit, which has full appellate review of patent matters including patentability determinations?  The one that sits in D.C.?


No, I think he means that if a California inventor sues a California company for patent infringement, they both should have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in travel fees to get back and forth from a D.C. trial court.
 
2013-01-05 06:31:23 PM

Glockenspiel Hero: FormlessOne: 1. Hire a class of fifth graders.
2. Give them the patent, in its functional language form.
3. Ask if they've heard of something like that, or if they could draw it out.
4. If they've heard of it, there's prior art. If they could draw it out, it's obvious.
5. Go back and dopeslap Apple for submitting yet another obvious patent with clear prior art conflicts.

I had to laugh at myself the other day when I saw a story about Apple patenting curved glass on phones. I'm so used to bullshiat Apple patents I got into a internet commenting rage before reading the article. The patent turns out to be on a method for forming the glass using a new technique. I was so surprised that it looked like something that actually should be patented I didn't know what to do...


Point at all of the other patents Apple's submitted recently that cover obvious items, some with existing prior art in other hands? I mean, c'mon, it's practically like shooting fish in a barrel - with a LAW...
 
2013-01-05 07:11:02 PM
No, they don't. They wouldn't like it.
 
2013-01-05 07:57:53 PM

FormlessOne: Glockenspiel Hero: FormlessOne: 1. Hire a class of fifth graders.
2. Give them the patent, in its functional language form.
3. Ask if they've heard of something like that, or if they could draw it out.
4. If they've heard of it, there's prior art. If they could draw it out, it's obvious.
5. Go back and dopeslap Apple for submitting yet another obvious patent with clear prior art conflicts.

I had to laugh at myself the other day when I saw a story about Apple patenting curved glass on phones. I'm so used to bullshiat Apple patents I got into a internet commenting rage before reading the article. The patent turns out to be on a method for forming the glass using a new technique. I was so surprised that it looked like something that actually should be patented I didn't know what to do...

Point at all of the other patents Apple's submitted recently that cover obvious items, some with existing prior art in other hands? I mean, c'mon, it's practically like shooting fish in a barrel - with a LAW...


Like what? I'll save you some time - before you say "Google's notification bar" or "Apple's Notification Center", if you actually look at what Apple filed for, it was an improvement on a notification pane that allows the user to utilize it while locked, without compromising security of the device. They're not actually claiming the same thing.
 
2013-01-05 10:42:31 PM
Oh look! Paid shills and brainwashed douchebags parroting lame anti-Apple propaganda. Hey, that only happens on days that end in Y.
 
2013-01-05 11:29:02 PM
what Apple filed for, it was an improvement on a notification pane that allows the user to utilize it while locked, without compromising security of the device. They're not actually claiming the same thing.

You mean like I can do on my Galaxy Sll?
 
2013-01-05 11:39:41 PM

bingethinker: Oh look! Paid shills


Not until you showed up.

Does a dead man's ass smell worse than a live one's? Crawl down out of there and tell us all about it.
 
2013-01-05 11:46:33 PM
43% is the average award rate over the last 10 years for the USPTO. So not quite a rubber stamp but maybe a coin toss?
 
2013-01-06 03:34:59 AM
And to think I'm to drunk to want to respond formally.

Software should NEVER have been granted any patents. Copyright? Sure, no problem. You can't copy my code and call it your own, but you can do the same thing and that should be perfectly fine.

It's like letting Tiger Woods "patent" his golf swing. "oh no - you may have just won the tournament but nobody gets to swing a club like that without talking to my lawyers first."

It's farking ridiculous. Screw the lawyers.
 
2013-01-06 08:50:18 AM

Happy Hours: And to think I'm to drunk to want to respond formally.

Software should NEVER have been granted any patents. Copyright? Sure, no problem. You can't copy my code and call it your own, but you can do the same thing and that should be perfectly fine.

It's like letting Tiger Woods "patent" his golf swing. "oh no - you may have just won the tournament but nobody gets to swing a club like that without talking to my lawyers first."

It's farking ridiculous. Screw the lawyers.


This. Software patents stifle innovation.
 
2013-01-06 10:35:31 AM

Theaetetus: Rubber stamp saying "rejected" maybe, Subs. Over 90% of patent applications are initially turned down.


There's the key word in your statement.
Not all Ideas should be patentable. It shouldn't matter how much you tweak or adjust your claims.
 
2013-01-07 01:17:10 PM

Theaetetus: if you actually look at what Apple filed for, it was an improvement on a notification pane that allows the user to utilize it while locked, without compromising security of the device. They're not actually claiming the same thing.


My Android phone already does this.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report