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.

(Foss Patents)   After preliminary invalidation of Apple's iPhone patents last winter, USPTO completes a full re-examination and determines that... wait, I hear the ghostly laughter of Steve Jobs   (fosspatents.com) divider line 24
    More: Interesting, USPTO, iPhone, Apple, Google, Federal Circuit, Samsung, U.S., Trademark Office  
•       •       •

2378 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Oct 2013 at 10:23 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-18 10:25:47 AM
What? Patent system, broken?

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the USPTO is just an extortion racket now where each patent application comes standard with an envelope of cash.
 
2013-10-18 10:29:17 AM
Zoinks!
 
2013-10-18 10:43:29 AM

bdub77: What? Patent system, broken?

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the USPTO is just an extortion racket now where each patent application comes standard with an envelope of cash.


Like a filing fee?
 
2013-10-18 11:02:17 AM
In a just world practicing patent law would be s capital crime.
 
2013-10-18 11:36:49 AM
I didn't read enough of it to find out: so... touchscreens are owned by Apple?
 
2013-10-18 02:45:14 PM
Is this where Samsung's paid shills and brainwashed douchebags come to whine?
 
2013-10-18 03:13:18 PM

bdub77: What? Patent system, broken?

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the USPTO is just an extortion racket now where each patent application comes standard with an envelope of cash.


What particularly in this re-examination procedure to you find problematic?

Arthen: In a just world practicing patent law would be s capital crime.


You know the invalidation of bad patents is also considered "practicing patent law"?  Or is your argument that we should have no patent protection at all?
 
2013-10-18 03:13:18 PM
Ok, but what about rectangles with rounded corners?
 
2013-10-18 03:17:57 PM

bingethinker: Is this where Samsung's paid shills and brainwashed douchebags come to whine?


I guess Apple is the better company, seems like Apple's paid shills and brainwashed douchebags got here first.
 
2013-10-18 03:36:00 PM

Teiritzamna: we should have no patent protection at all


Nailed it.
 
2013-10-18 03:36:45 PM

Representative of the unwashed masses: Ok, but what about rectangles with rounded corners?


You mean "squircles"?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squir cle
 
2013-10-18 05:49:42 PM

bdub77: Teiritzamna: we should have no patent protection at all

Nailed it.


Ah - carry on - although i will suggest that under the system you seem to want, you will likely hate trade secret lawyers just as much, if not more.
 
2013-10-18 06:18:18 PM
This is a huge win... For HTC and Microsoft which have patent cross licensing deals with Apple.

Samsung is screwed.
 
2013-10-18 06:54:15 PM

Teiritzamna: What particularly in this re-examination procedure to you find problematic?


The outcome, naturally.

Any time a patent case is decided contrary to how I imagine it works, then it must be proof that the system is broken.
 
2013-10-18 09:02:34 PM

poot_rootbeer: Teiritzamna: What particularly in this re-examination procedure to you find problematic?

The outcome, naturally.

Any time a patent case is decided contrary to how I imagine it works, then it must be proof that the system is broken.


Is it not a conflict of interest that the patent office carries out the re-examination? You are asking them to admit that they made an error.
 
2013-10-18 09:19:58 PM
Is it not a conflict of interest that the patent office carries out the re-examination? You are asking them to admit that they made an error.Not necessarily, as reexamination requires a showing that you are aducing evidence that was not available during the first examination. Which is majorly why Google and others are losing this round - the prior art they are relying on is weak.
 
2013-10-18 11:06:36 PM
If you are fluent in gibberish and have about $10k, you can patent anything through the joke that is the USPTO.   Example.

Teiritzamna: You are asking them to admit that they made an error.


Yeah, doesn't happen often.  One of the dipshiats that usually comes here to try to defend the sorry state of his profession loves to spout the most misleading stats about rejection rates. The reality is if you have the money and patience to resubmit, the rates go to about 90%.  Go to google patents and search on a field of invention you know something about.  There are sometimes dozens of overlapping patents.  It's a farking joke.
 
2013-10-19 12:33:27 AM

Bacontastesgood: If you are fluent in gibberish and have about $10k, you can patent anything through the joke that is the USPTO.   Example.


4500 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 seconds? WTF.
 
2013-10-19 10:36:03 AM

Bacontastesgood: One of the dipshiats that usually comes here...


He's referring to me. The fact that he has to start with an ad hominem before he even gets to his argument is probably an indicator of something.

... to try to defend the sorry state of his profession loves to spout the most misleading stats about rejection rates.

There's nothing misleading about the truth. The truth is that patent applications are initially rejected around 90% of the time.
Now, you may think that's misleading because you stop reading there and start ranting and name calling, but the astute reader will note that I'm talking about (i) patent  applications, not patents overall, and (ii)  initial rejections. In fact, I only ever bring up this argument to rebut the false claim that patent applications are "rubber stamped" as allowed. If that were true, then that should be a 90% initial allowance. It's a 90% initial rejection. If anything, patent applications are rubber stamped as rejected and it's an uphill climb.

And you even admit this, in a subtle and (dare I say), misleading way:

The reality is if you have the money and patience to resubmit, the rates go to about 90%.

You don't just "resubmit", you amend and narrow the claims. If, for example, I filed a patent claiming an automobile, it should be rejected. If I then amend the claims to narrowly claim an automobile that incorporates a Mr. Fusion device and time machine, then that should be allowed. But it's misleading to claim that all I've done is resubmit and imply that the original broad claims were allowed.

Go to google patents and search on a field of invention you know something about.  There are sometimes dozens of overlapping patents.  It's a farking joke.

Sounds like someone listened to This American Life. When you see a lot of patents with the same name and overlapping claims, look at the inventors. They're frequently also the same. And the patents are all from the specification, and have the same effective filing date, and the same expiration date. They're not really "dozens" of overlapping patents, but one patent with multiple aspects of the same invention. Of course, expecting This American Life to understand that would require that they actually read past the title.
 
2013-10-19 02:13:58 PM

HotWingAgenda: 4500 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 seconds? WTF.


Yeah, you're not fluent in gibberish I see.  The abstract is factually incorrect because a tard was involved at some stage.  That is one extreme temperature of the heating elements, not the bread.   Anyway it's a farking toaster oven. The patent would be laughed off and rejected by a grad student if it were submitted to any half-ass journal* for publication for not only being unoriginal but for being poorly written and having conflicting and nonsensical information like what you found.  But it's pretty much par for the course for patents.  I would just laugh it off, but this shiat is ruining innovation because these things can be the basis of litigation for fark's sake.

I mean, this patent was not only written and submitted but paid for, reviewed and awarded.  There are many like it, in every field of innovation, some more subtle because most of us don't understand communication networks or drugs or fuel injectors like we understand a toaster oven.  Think about the implications.   The shape of a tablet is the least of our problems.

*yeah, there are full-ass journals out there who will publish any crap, sorry to say.  At least people can just ignore those.  You can't ignore patents if you're trying to invent and sell stuff.
 
2013-10-19 02:38:52 PM

Bacontastesgood: HotWingAgenda: 4500 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 seconds? WTF.

Yeah, you're not fluent in gibberish I see.  The abstract is factually incorrect because a tard was involved at some stage.  That is one extreme temperature of the heating elements, not the bread.   Anyway it's a farking toaster oven. The patent would be laughed off and rejected by a grad student if it were submitted to any half-ass journal* for publication for not only being unoriginal but for being poorly written and having conflicting and nonsensical information like what you found.  But it's pretty much par for the course for patents.  I would just laugh it off, but this shiat is ruining innovation because these things can be the basis of litigation for fark's sake.

I mean, this patent was not only written and submitted but paid for, reviewed and awarded.  There are many like it, in every field of innovation, some more subtle because most of us don't understand communication networks or drugs or fuel injectors like we understand a toaster oven.  Think about the implications.   The shape of a tablet is the least of our problems.

*yeah, there are full-ass journals out there who will publish any crap, sorry to say.  At least people can just ignore those.  You can't ignore patents if you're trying to invent and sell stuff.


Cite the prior art or STFU.
 
2013-10-19 05:03:59 PM

bacongood: Cite the prior art or STFU.


I hope you're joking.  #1 non-obviousness to someone skilled in the area of invention is a requirement, you don't have to have prior art. This one is obvious to anyone.  #2 even so, there are thousands of patents for farking toaster ovens prior to 1999.

If you're not joking you're friggin retarded to be defending that shiat.
 
2013-10-19 07:16:25 PM

bacongood: Bacontastesgood: [comments]
[comments]


Based on your nicknames, I would never expect you two to disagree!
 
2013-10-19 07:22:16 PM

Bacontastesgood: bacongood: Cite the prior art or STFU.

I hope you're joking.  #1 non-obviousness to someone skilled in the area of invention is a requirement, you don't have to have prior art. This one is obvious to anyone.


I hope you're joking. Non-obviousness is a legal  conclusion, like "guilty". Just as you have to evidence to show someone is guilty, you have to have evidence - in the form of prior art - to show that an invention is obvious.

#2 even so, there are thousands of patents for farking toaster ovens prior to 1999.
If you're not joking you're friggin retarded to be defending that shiat.


You do know that that patent explicitly does  not claim toasting bread, but refreshing it in a squishy, non-toasted state? Like, toast is explicitly outside of the patent claims? And you can actually design around the patent by, say, actually toasting the bread?

Shiat, it's almost like you actually have to read these documents rather than getting all of your information about them on This American Life or other pseudo-journalism sources.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report