Prior Art Prevents Bad Patents – The EFF Need Your Help

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3920793.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3920793.stm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Do you want to own part of the world wide web? I don't mean your own domain, or a web server in a rack or a piece of ancient computer technology used in the net's forerunner Arpanet. I mean some of the software that makes the web what it is today, such as the code behind video streaming, pop-up windows or the technology that lets you use a credit card online. The rights to those three basic ways of web life have been snapped up by other people, but with some ingenuity - and money - you too could patent your own slice of web life and cash in."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/logo_patent_busting_165x50.png" /> <br /><br />The BBC news article seems to start off on the wrong footing, in an article about how prior art in the computer world is not well documented and a large number of software patent applications are now being given to individuals or companies who exploit the situation. In fact 'extortion' would probably not be too strong a word for some of the things going on that are just 'patently' wrong. :roll: The patent holders are suing small businesses, individuals and nonprofits organistions and threateing free expression and innovation. In order to counter this, the Electronic Frontier Foundation have recently anounced a Patent Busting Project and they are looking for prior art in order to challenge some of the overly broad patents that have been granted. Once the team has gathered enough prior art on a given patent, the EFF will submit a petition to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a legal process known as "reexamination." If the USPTO finds the prior art compelling, it will formally revoke the patent and release the idea back into the public domain, where it belongs. The top ten list of prior art they are looking for is as follows:<br /><br />• One-click online shopping <br />• Online shopping carts <br />• The hyperlink <br />• Video streaming <br />• Internationalising domain names <br />• Pop-up windows <br />• Targeted banner adverts <br />• Paying with a credit card online <br />• Framed browsing <br />• Affiliate linking <br /><br />Yup, each of these is covered by a patent and is currently the subject of legal wrangling and haranguing which could leave end users dangling. So, to read more about the problem, to donate to the EFF to support the fight on your behalf or to help practically or by submitting prior art, visit the <a href="http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/">EFF website</a> for more information.

[jonathanchoo]

I think software patents should not be allowed - copyright should be sufficient.

I do hope US patent procedure does not come to Europe. Last I heard France and Germany was putting a stop on that but some countries (being in Microsoft's pocket - Ireland being one) planned to vote FOR it.

BBC News Online seems to be covering better in terms of the tech industry these days - and better than some online (although their intro should do better) dedicated tech websites. Good for them. They do seem obsessed with iPods though.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I do hope US patent procedure does not come to Europe. Last I heard France and Germany was putting a stop on that but some countries (being in Microsoft's pocket - Ireland being one) planned to vote FOR it.

There's pro's and con's on whether software/process patents should be allowed, but we've definatly been seiing the bad side of them recently.

BBC News Online seems to be covering better in terms of the tech industry these days - and better than some online (although their intro should do better) dedicated tech websites. Good for them. They do seem obsessed with iPods though.

I constantly pleasantly surprised by the tech stories on the BBC these days. Who isn't obsessed with iPods these days. :roll: :lol: Roll on the search for the 'iPod killer' :snipersmile:

[MRNUTTY]

all this whining about patents reaffirm the notion that the patented technology _IS_ the best way of doing it, and thus does add value to patent claims. Why don't you find a better way to solve the problem, it's not really that hard, there's always a better way.... or are we just lazy?

[Rob Alexander]

all this whining about patents reaffirm the notion that the patented technology _IS_ the best way of doing it, and thus does add value to patent claims. Why don't you find a better way to solve the problem, it's not really that hard, there's always a better way.... or are we just lazy?

It's not about being lazy, it's about patents being issued for such broad, vague or obvious ideas as to leave no room for better ways since every way is covered by the patent. If you'll look at some of the examples, you'll get the idea.

Paying by credit card on the web being patented? What's the invention there? The idea of paying by credit card isn't new. The idea of transmitting information over the Internet isn't new. There's nothing here to patent, but it's like a lottery. Someone takes a shot, the rubber stampers reviewing it don't understand enough about technology to reject it, and the patent holder heads off to extort money from small and medium-sized businesses who can't afford the legal fees to defend themselves.

If sending credit card information over the Net is patentable, then I ought to be able to patent the idea of sending database information over the Net, since I did that way back when the Net was just a university/govt research tool and I'm just sure I was the first one to do it. :roll:

The number of clicks it takes to perform a transaction? Amazon has one-click. I'll patent two clicks and someone else can patent three. Pretty soon, the only 'better way' is to not do the transaction at all. Again, it's not an invention; it's just an obvious use of existing technology.

No, it's about time some organization decided to try to do something about this. Not only is this a good idea from the direct appeal approach, it might raise the profile of the issue and result in it getting some media attention. What we really need is a new set of patent and copyright laws that address all of these new issues we're facing, while recognizing that the original intent of both ideas was for the betterment of society as a whole by creating modest incentives, not to promote individual wealth at society's expense.

[MRNUTTY]

well, of the 25 patents i've had issued, there was a heck of a lot of scrutiny paid to them.

it's nearly never about the 'the idea', it's the arguments on the 'wording of the claims of the invention'. if it can't be shown that a previous patent contained a disclosure that evidenced the claim, or in combination with another patent that 'one skilled in the art' would have made the obvious conclusion, then it's patented. never has an 'office action' (kickback from the patent office about unacceptable claims) ever referred to material outside the patent system.

and thanks, i got the idea. it's not about patents, it's about lawyers. your alleged rubber stampers DO understand the technology, they just don't have the material in an admissable form to reject claims.