decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 06:39 PM EDT

We have a SCO wannabe. Except this one has patents. Dubious patents, apparently, but patents nonetheless. Dubious claims, as we have seen in the SCO litigation, are no barrier to entry into the litigation lottery.

SCO had better not rest on its laurels. We have a competing contender for most annoying plaintiff of all time, judging from the ZDNET article. Of course, the field is packed with companies forcing the world to do the patent dance, so they will have an uphill fight to reign as king of annoying. Remember JPEG?

I think they call that dance the Patent Hustle, but I'm not positive, not being much of a dancer myself. The steps go something like this, although there are variations:

1. Get a patent. (Ideally, get them from a company that never enforced them and then goes out of business, so that no one can accuse you, the new owner, of bad faith in any standards process.)
2. Wait until the tech is in widespread use. Extra points if it is a standard.
3. Reevaluate your assets and discover this wonderful opportunity to "monetize" your portfolio. Hold up everybody in the industry, particularly the deep-pockets companies.
4. Profit.

Remember JPEG's owner's priceless answer to the question about whether it was fair to demand licenses so many years after JPEG had become a standard?

"It wasn't until we went through a restructuring in 2000 that we started to look at the patent portfolio and realized we had this great opportunity," said Noonan. When asked if it was fair to begin a licensing push so long after the fact, he said, "It's not question of fairness, it's a question of, this is what we have."

Ah, yes. Exalted US business ethics. I hope Europe is paying attention to this little patent tale. There is a new organization, the European Software Association, with some old players, including Microsoft. I'm hearing rumors it may be used to push for software patents there. Yes. Again. Speaking of Microsoft, they claim a patent on XML-related software too.

Now to the new patent claims. Scientigo, a 340-employee company that hasn't been doing so well, with an IP portfolio some say is of dubious merit, would like to monetize its assets at the expense of the rest of the inhabited earth. They claim patents on XML. And just after Massachusetts chose OASIS OpenDocument XML, too. Go figure. And so, once again, the world has to stop being productive and take a detour to deal with patent craziness. Could somebody please do something about patent highwaymen?

From the ZDNET article:

A small software developer plans to seek royalties from companies that use XML, the latest example of patent claims embroiling the tech industry.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Scientigo owns two patents ( No. 5,842,213 and No. 6,393,426) covering the transfer of "data in neutral forms." These patents, one of which was applied for in 1997, are infringed upon by the data-formatting standard XML, Scientigo executives assert.

Scientigo intends to "monetize" this intellectual property, Scientigo CEO Doyal Bryant said this week.

Rather than seek royalties itself, Scientigo has forged a tentative agreement with an intellectual-property licensing firm that will handle contracts with third parties, Bryant said. A final agreement could be announced early next week, he said. . . .

The standard itself is developed at the World Wide Web Consortium, which published an initial draft of XML in late 1996 and proposed XML version 1.0 in December 1997. . . .

As part of the restructuring, company executives decided to try to draw revenue from its patents--including the two in question that came through Scientigo's acquisition of the assets of a Texas company called Pliant Technologies.

Bryant does not dispute the company's interest in potentially huge revenue from these patents. A multimillion-dollar annual royalty from Amazon.com, for example, would not be onerous to Amazon and yet would help revitalize Scientigo, Bryant said.

Scientigo says it met with 47 companies in the last few months, including Microsoft and Oracle. So, they have a list of potential victims. "Microsoft declined to say whether it has spoken to anyone from Scientigo." Uh huh. Right. I know several, including a Microsoft spokesman and Andy Updegrove of OASIS, are quoted by ZDNET as saying that the claims are questionable and will be challenged. Many patent claims are questionable. But the only way to know is by means of incredibly expensive litigation, with an uncertain outcome. What kind of system is that?

Remember the ridiculous jury award to Kodak over Sun? Remember Michael Anderer indicating that Microsoft's strategy would be to make sure FOSS is hit with one patent lawsuit after another until it lies down and dies? Remember Andrew Orlowski writing about Ballmer's speech in Asia, which he later tried to clarify, that Microsoft's weapon of choice is not patent infringement lawsuits, but rather the *threat* of them, or to put it plainly, FUD? That success for Microsoft would be in the *bringing* of lawsuits (or having someone bring them), one after another, whereby the ultimate outcome doesn't matter so much as being able to tie up everyone in costly litigation, so it can herald the "news" that FOSS is dangerous to use in the enterprise? More SCO, anyone?

So, could OASIS or somebody please explain to us again why it's acceptable for standards policies to permit patents? How is that working out, guys? The very thorough David Berlind provides some background on the OASIS controversy and the discussion on all this.

Let's get back to Scientigo. I've done some research, and I'll share with you everything I have found so far. The company sold off part of its business recently, the article tells us:

"The company, once known as Market Central, went through a complete overhaul this year after the arrival of Bryant as CEO. It sold off its call center business, eliminated debt, and focused its product development on content management software."

Here's the press release from April of 2004, which tells about Market Central acquiring Convey Systems, and with it Mr. Bryant:

Market Central, Inc., a provider of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) services and solutions, today announced that the Board of Directors has approved a letter of intent to acquire the assets of Convey Systems, Inc., including patents, intellectual property, software, and certain other assets, from Convey's parent company, The Tag Group, Inc. (PNK: TGGP).

Effective immediately, the Board has entered into an interim management agreement naming Mr. Doyal Bryant, President and CEO of Convey Systems, to serve as the President and CEO of Market Central, Inc., pending the consummation of the transaction. . .

The addition of Convey Systems' OnDemand(TM) product line to Market Central's current operations will enable Market Central's contact centers to operate as sophisticated, multi-media customer contact centers on an outsourced basis.

Additionally, Market Central intends to combine its SourceWare(TM) software with OnDemand(TM) in a new software licensing division that will provide more sophisticated data search capabilities to its contact center clients. SourceWare(TM) is a powerful next-generation search engine application that captures, integrates, cleanses and organizes back office and customer data for data mining. . . .

Prior to Convey, Mr. Bryant held senior management or ownership positions in companies that provided financial and technical due diligence services for major investment banking firms with transactions valued at over $300 million. He played an integral part in the growth and development of major telecommunication companies such as ZTEL, Premiere Technologies, CommSouth, Talk.Com, PrimeTec International, and ATMNet. His companies have developed international joint venture agreements and investment transactions for Voice, VoIP, and Internet related services in Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, as well as several European and South American countries. . . .

About Market Central

Headquartered in Atlanta, Market Central, Inc. is a full service Customer Relationship Management (CRM) provider. The Company has developed a next-generation suite of CRM solutions that include proprietary, patented software for data capture, cleansing, mining, integration, search, and intelligent document recognition. The Company is also a Microsoft development partner for MS CRM solutions. Market Central provides other CRM services, such as campaign management, and operates a 900-seat contact center to support the software line of business and provide outsourced contact center services to select clients as part of their overall CRM effort.

So, they were a development partner of Microsoft. Well. Here's another description of what they used to do:

Market Central, Inc. operates as a global technology management company. It specializes in solutions that enable businesses to store, categorize, and retrieve information. The company develops a suite of solutions that include software for search, intelligent document recognition, data capture, cleansing, mining, and integration. Its subsidiary, Ecommerce Support Centers, Inc. (ECOM) provides outsourced contact center solutions and customer relationship management (CRM) services. ECOM offers inbound technical support, sales, and customer service; outbound presales and sales; data mining; campaign management; and CRM integration. Market Central was formed in 2003. The company was formerly known as Paladyne Corp. and changed its name to Market Central, Inc. Market Central is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

And who are the people behind the company? Aside from a new CEO, Doyal Bryant, the company also has a new COO, Cynthia White, as of September 22, 2005, the date James McGovern "resigned as a member of the Company's Board of Directors because of other pressing time and business commitments," according to the company's 8K filed on the 28th. Here are some Yahoo financials on the company, and insider transactions.

Also in September, Scientigo and Ribstone Systems announced they "are jointly developing and will offer solutions to help companies gain a competitive advantage through automated coding & indexing of photo copied documents and the ability to search and find documents, enterprise wide. As part of the partnership agreement, Scientigo has agreed to license its patented search, automated coding and indexing applications to be integrated with Ribstone's Canon Compatible(TM) document scanning and processing engine." So, at least one company has licensed their patents.

You can get the best feel for the company by reading a a Taglich Brothers research report [PDF] that clearly explains their patent portfolio in plain English. I hadn't heard of Taglich Brothers, not being a financial person, but I'm very impressed at their ability to read a patent claim and understand it. I confess I read them and wonder what they are saying most of the time. Lawyers write them that way on purpose, another argument against the current patent system, a system where no normal person can possibly know in advance if they are in danger of violating someone's patent. Writing software in the US is now like doing a cannonball into a muddy lake you've never swum in before. You can't know what you'll hit under the water's surface.

On page two of the report, it tells us this:

Market Central, Inc. (OTC BB: MKTE), which was formerly known as Paladyne Corp., is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina and currently doing business as Scientigo, Inc. The Company was formed through a March 1999 merger with Synaptx Worldwide, Inc., a Utah corporation. Investors should be aware that according to public filings with the SEC, the Company anticipates shareholder approval of the Scientigo name by the end of October 2005.

Oh, lordy, another Utah corporation. I see XML co-inventor Tim Bray was interviewed by David Berlind and points out that XML is a subset of SGML, and that SGML has been around since way before the patent was filed:

The notion that an application filed in January 1997 can cover a technology whose first public draft was in November 1996, and which was based on a then-ten-year-old ISO standard, seems ridiculous on the face of it. So one assumes that they're not trying to put a tollboth on XML itself, it must be some particular B2B application of it or some such. There are no specifics of what they're claiming on their Web site.

Here's a document describing SGML, dated 1986. The problem with prior art, as Bray said, though, is this: it's not a matter of when XML was first invented. It's a question of exactly what Scientigo's specific claims are. There must be a reason why they are mentioning Amazon as being a likely target of their licensing efforts, aside from the fact that Amazon uses Linux. For example, on page 3 of the report, they claim their two patents include 35 claims:

"According to Management, the Company's overall mission is to leverage its intellectual or outright sale, as well as the creation of technology offerings that are intended to improve products and services of its partners for the ultimate benefit of their clients. . . . The Company believes that its issued patents related to XML (Extensible Mark-up Language) have commercial value. The patents are entitled Method for Modeling, Storing and Transferring Data in Neutral Form, with one issued in 1998 and the second issued in 2002. Collectively, these two patents include a total of 35 claims."

Finding prior art would involve finding prior art for all of the 35 claims. The report also says there are pending patents, to "automatically categorize information based on the topics contained in the documents content. A technique to determine topics associated with, or classifications for, a data corpus uses an initial domain-specific word list to identify word combinations that appear in the data corpus significantly more often than expected. Word combinations so identified are selected as topics and associated with a user-specified level of granularity."

They seem serious about heading for patent infringement claims in the real world. Page 10 says this:

"The Company has been transitioning to become focused on providing customers intelligent Business Process Automation technologies through the growth and development of its intellectual property portfolio. This has led to changes in the financial structure as follows: All the assets and stock in the Company's call center were sold.... During May 2004, the Company sold its U.S. Convergion, Inc., subsidiary to Sylvia through a stock purchase agreement. The sale resulted in that business segment being accounted for as a discontinued operation...."

The financial picture looked bleak in 2004, with operating losses in the previous two years noted in their Form 10-KSB filed August 31, 2004. The independent public accountants said there was "substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern" at that time. The report notes that management "believes that the raising of capital over the past few months has mitigated the doubts about its continuing as a going concern." But the report expresses some continued doubts. You don't want to miss the legal history on page 15.

The Economist, in a must-read article providing a bleak overview of the current patent mess we all find ourselves in, quotes what it wrote about patents in 1851:

The granting [of] patents "inflames cupidity", excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits. . . The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just.

Amen, brother. In modern English, it's saying that patent law encourages greed, fraud, schemes to set up tollbooths on the public's use of common and universally used technology, and endless litigation, and that any law that has such unpleasant results can't be just. Everyone used to know in the 1800s that patents were dangerous and should be granted only sparingly. Now, in a twist on the dot.com 90's headstrong greed bubble, the new moneymaker is patents and patent litigation, what Mark Webbink of Red Hat, quoted in the Economist, calls a "patent bubble". Is that a basis for a sound economy? How did the dot.com madness play out?

I hope standards bodies take very seriously their responsibility to protect the overarching public interest by insisting on unencumbered standards. And the UPTO needs to seriously revamp its policies or someone needs to rewrite the law so it achieves a better and more rational result. As the Economist reminds us, the original purpose of patent law was to benefit the public:

Before the 18th century, innovations were mainly kept secret through trade guilds. Sometimes monarchs capriciously granted indefinite exclusive rights to someone they favoured. Intellectual-property law was meant to remedy this by requiring the invention to be vetted by experts, limiting the right to a set period and making knowledge more widely accessible through public disclosure. Its development was part of the drive towards democracy and capitalism and the abolition of royal privileges and monopolies. . . .

But when talking to executives in the technology firms themselves, the language you hear most often is that of “the arms race” and “mutually assured destruction”. Companies amass patents as much to defend themselves against attacks by their competitors as to protect their inventions. Many technology companies have recently championed reform of the patent system to deal with spuriously awarded patents, licensing extortion and massive lawsuits. “There is a broad recognition in the US that the patent system, if not reformed, will...begin to impede American competitiveness around the world,” says Bruce Sewell, general counsel of Intel, the world's biggest chipmaker.

Scientigo is just a symptom. But like any symptom, it reflects an underlying disease process. Whether or not Scientigo represents anyone's strategy beyond its own inflamed cupidity, I think the bottom line is this: loopholes in the law that allow something like this to happen need to be closed. Scientigo's CEO is quoted in the ZDNET article as saying:

"We're not interested in having us against the world. We're just looking for ways to leverage an asset; we have pretty concrete proof that makes us feel comfortable saying it is an asset," Bryant said.

But that's just it. It *is* Scientigo against the world, because we have competing interests. And while I hope for a cure for the underlying disease, as a person with a really nasty flu today, I can say categorically that symptomatic relief will do when no immediate cure is at hand. I hope others will build on this research I've done, so that at least the symptoms can be dealt with appropriately, while we longingly await a complete cure.


  


Scientigo Claims Patents on XML | 326 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Korrections here
Authored by: DFJA on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 06:54 PM EDT
.

---
43 - for those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe
and everything

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here
Authored by: DFJA on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 06:55 PM EDT
Please follow the instructions to make links clickable.

---
43 - for those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe
and everything

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 06:55 PM EDT
You called them "Patent highwaymen", PJ, and often it seems there are
similar motivations. Choosing the highwaymen path due to greed or despair.
Mostly with these motivations people and companies forget that they act in a
social environment, which is a market economy in the end. Greed and despair
makes them ignore, that you can not just hit the other guys you want to do
business with in the face. Funny enough, unlike the ordinary highwaymen, the
"patent highwaymen" use legal standards to justfy and push through
their claims.

JB

[ Reply to This | # ]

How long until MS buys a license?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 07:04 PM EDT
Gee, we've seen this before. I wonder how long it will take MS to come along
and buy a license for the purposes of legitimizing their claims, and funding the
lawsuits sure to follow ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art
Authored by: Fredric on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 07:04 PM EDT
I posted these links about XML and SGML history in an earlier thread. You will se that XML, via SGML, can trace its roots back to 1966 or so.

XML history page
SGML history page

---
/Fredric Fredricson
--------
[Funny sig temporarily removed for tests on Salisbury Plain]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: dmarker on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 07:12 PM EDT
From what I have read in this article, they are on very thin ice because of the
history of XML as a derivitive of SGML.

(IIRC) IBM was the original developer of SGML but it then passed into the
public domain and was adopted as an international standard. I imagine IBM will
have something to say about any company claiming rights to any aspect of XML
that derives from SGML.

XML was (IIRC) originally inspired by a Sun employee who saw a way to borrow
some of the features of SGML. Microsoft quickly picked up on it (IIRC they
claimed to have invented XML) and then IBM became a pro-active participant.

The problem with something like XML is that it is a metalanguage (a language for
defining language dialetcs). In this respect it seems vulnerable to patent
madness.

But, in my reading of the original Scientigo article I gather the issue is
around using XML to allow data to be packaged and passed in a neutral format and
that is the core asset and aspect of XML that the world has run with. It is by
and large the raison d'etre for XML. Patenting that seems ludicrous.

Doug Marker





[ Reply to This | # ]

If you build it, they will come
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 07:16 PM EDT
So the Courts and PTO built the patent disaster framework and now,
they're here!

---
TTFN

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent highwaymen?
Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 07:26 PM EDT
Patent highwaymen? Nice turn of phrase! Waylon and Willie come to mind
("The Highwayman") in the same spirit as FOSS... and I'll be back
again, and again, and again, and again...

---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Patent Office
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 07:42 PM EDT


I used to believe that the Patent Office carefully veted claims, and that
anything that had a patent was a remarkable device, the product of time and
money spent in producing something new and innovative.

I was wrong.

I am not of the opinion that the Patent Office and the Patent System should be
abolished worldwide.

This is a strong opinion, and one that many people will question. So I have to
make my arguements carefully.

1) The Patent Office is incapable of carrying out it's duties. Patentable items
are supposed to be inspected by experts, who are capable of judging the item
submited to see if it is patentable by the rules of the Patent Office.

For a long time this has not been true. The result is that patenting of:

At Least One Space Drive (which doesn't work)
At Least One Interstellar Communications System (which doesn't work)
At Least 1000 Fuel Enhancers (none of which work)
Serving sandwichs without the crust (which has been done for hundreds of years)
Parts of the Human Genome (patents are supposed to only be allowed for NEW
inventions - the human genome is neither new or an invention.
Plant based medicines (which have been in use for hundreds of maybe even
thousands of years by the indigenous populations, and therefore are not novel,
or and invention)

2) The costs to society of the problems of the Patent Office are probably close
to 100 Billion per year worldwide in lost productivity through sale of devices
that don't work (but are patented), the blocking of the use of technologies that
are patented (but were in use in some cases for hundreds of years before a
patent was issued), the blocking of the use of technologies that are patented
(but where the patent is for something that is neither novel or an invention).

Patent Office reform as has been discussed does not address most of these
issues. Indeed the so called "Reformers" seem more interested in
protecting their own interests, at the expense of society rather than in real
reform.

When something is so badly broken, the only logical answer is to through it out
with the trash.



---
Wayne

telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Eminent Domain
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 07:59 PM EDT
Can the state of Massachusetts or any other state take the patent from a
company through the use of eminent domain - particularly when it is for the
public good?

This would be a way to remove hostile patents from public standards such as
XML.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 08:46 PM EDT
We need a national referendum process. There needs to be a way that the
citizens in this country can take directly into their own hands the process of
creating law, when the legislature lets them down.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 08:53 PM EDT
Makes you wonder what the roll of "Government" (notice the
capital G) really is. My take is that is isn't putting the
best interest of the "people" first.

Go USA!!!!

Big blue swirly here we go!

History really does get repeated - such is life,
It is really sad. As a race, I thought we, humans, were
better than that. Obviously not.

;(

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art
Authored by: dkpatrick on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 09:03 PM EDT
I am sure there are many many examples of prior art because the idea of
'normalizing' data into a data stream that is architecture-neutral has been
around forever. DCOM, DCE, and other system-to-system protocols
"marshal" data which means putting them into a normalized form.

As far as metadata for data (data that describes the nature of data) that's what
Java does, that's what IBM tried with their FS (Future System) project, and
heck, I worked on a "data dictionary" product in the late 60's for IBM
where data was captured in a database to describe other data.

Oh well. XML is merely an implementation of a not-so-novel idea.

---
"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer!" -- Sun Tzu

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this a coincidene . . .
Authored by: rao on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 09:05 PM EDT

. . . or possibly my faulty memory. Wasn't Anderer from Charlotte, NC before Darl bought his company while at Cannon?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's a list of their hired guns.
Authored by: Xymbaline on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 09:46 PM EDT
It's time to go to work researching these people.

I think we should begin now and make it perfectly clear to everyone at Scientigo
and their, uh, associates, that from here on, their public activity will be
publicized and analyzed like never before.

Let's start another category and begin taking them apart.

Those who are conversant with patent law might want to provide us with an
analysis of their claims.

Anyway, here's the list of mercenaries they seem to be quite proud of:

http://www.scientigo.com/web-content/innovations_ipteam.html

[tried making HTML but didn't succeed]

---
Elisp 3:51
"He who disregards the Only True Editor or His Documentation strays far
indeed."
(setq load-path (cons (expand-file-name "~/XEmacs_Rules!/") load-p

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 09:48 PM EDT
There are many ways for an individual, a corporation or a government to print
money without actually printing it - for example, go into deficit spending,
don't pay the bills on time, create rump companies that don't produce anything
and sell stocks based on nothing more than taking advantage of the buyer's
dreams of easy riches. Given all these perfectly legal venues, mugging people
for their wallets and printing fake money in the basement demonstrates a lack of
brains, a lack of ambition and an overwhelming masochistic desire to be caught
and severely punished. Unfortunately for us, the USPTO's massive patent granting
scheme or scam must be listed as another way to print money without actually
printing it.

Patents are a bad idea whose time should have never come. We should abolish the
USPTO de jure by Constitutional amendment, and de facto by simply starving it of
funds. The USPTO's irresponsible actions have pretty much put all computer
innovation in this country at risk. And their actions have been abetted by
spineless Federal judges who have meekly looked the other way rather than
enforce patent law in a way that promotes the public good, which is the
explicitly written intent of the Constitution. If Federal judges won't interpret
the Constitution, then what the hell are they good for?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 10:06 PM EDT
The USPTO claims that it fosters innovation. In fact, its patent granting
policies are intended to allow a class of beneficiaries to game the patent
granting system and stifle competition by creating monopolies that essentially
last for ever. The fact that so many of the patents granted are of dubious
quality simply underlies the improper, competition stifling nature of the patent
granting process and the contempt of the USPTO for anything that is in the
public domain - a public domain that the USPTO is doing its very best to shrink
to nothingness. The fact that there is no cost effective way to challenge and
appeal dubious patents - this fact underlines in a blatantly obvious way the
anti-democratic nature of the patent granting process.

So far as I am concerned, the USPTO is a corrupt, unresponsive rogue agency that
operates in bad faith and deserves to be annihiliated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 10:20 PM EDT
So they kinda, sorta, mighta, hava patent for XML. Another 1500 letters,
another round of lawsuits, more Latham Act violations, more SEC violations, more
puffery, more investors lose money, more lies......

PJ your Great-Grandchildren will be running your site long after you have left
this earth!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, here is an odd proposal
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 10:33 PM EDT
One way to limit the excesses of the patent office is for the patent office to
pay for the cost of the defense for any patent case that the defense
demonstrates that the patent is invalid due to prior art or lack of uniqueness.
Further, the individual patent examiners should be held financially responsible
for part of the costs.


It was their job to vet the patent for prior art and something that is novel.
They should pay when they make mistakes.


Actually the best approach to the patent problem is to eliminate patents.


Patents are legal monopolies. We have come to appreciate the negative impact on
society of monopolies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 10:36 PM EDT
The filing date for the first patent is Jan 28, 1997. The patent appears to be focused on a method to implement a database using flatfiles. The patent does not appear to describe a generic XML document, nor does it refer to using the flatfiles on the WWW, nor does it make reference to SGML. As for prior art (aside from the vast world of SGML), the first version of the XML standard was issued in late 1996. Regarding XML and databases, I have found one article here from Nov 17, 1996 that describes using XML to exchange information between different databases and references a workshop where example applications were developed. My impression is that there are two communities at work, one coming from the database end and the other from the document/WWW end, who arrived at common solutions to the same problem independently, and the one group who pursues patents hold an edge over the other group who pursues open standards. Once again, this raises the question of whether the patent system really works at promoting the useful arts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That is IT!!!
Authored by: Mecha on Saturday, October 22 2005 @ 11:29 PM EDT
I will never ever name any of my children any variation of Darrel(i.e. Darl and
Doyal). I don't want them to grow up to be CEOs of failing corporations who
turn to lawsuits to save thier own hind-quaters.

---
** This is my signature and I happen to like it **

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alternate Universes Collide
Authored by: tredman on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 12:42 AM EDT
With Scientigo and SCO, both companies brought on a new CEO right at the same
time the litigation bug began to bite. Also, compare the two names:

Darl McBride
Doyal Bryant

If this press release had been issued on April 1st, I'd be waiting for the
punchline right about now.

As it is now, I'm not laughing. There has to be some kind of standard on
mitigation of damages. I don't care if the patent changes hands a hundred times
since it's inception. If I were to buy a company, and any intellectual property
was included with that purchase, as a responsible CEO I'd make myself familiar
with that IP from the get-go. The fact that we're even bringing this up EIGHT
YEARS after the patent was conceived is beyond comprehension.

I'm not normally the tin-foil-hat type of person, but I can't help but believe
there's something going on here we're not seeing. Being a Microsoft Partner
alone just doesn't do it for me; there are thousands of those out there. There
has to be a single person or small group that bridges the gap here. There's
almost a contrivance in the way things are laid out.

---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • You forgot... - Authored by: Mecha on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 03:11 AM EDT
  • Alternate Universes Collide - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 07:14 AM EDT
    • Genetics? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 08:27 AM EDT
      • Genetics? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 24 2005 @ 12:14 AM EDT
Scientigo XML Patent #z
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 12:51 AM EDT

Scientigo owns two patents: No. 5,842,213 November 24, 1998 and No. 6,393,426 May 21, 2002.

Method for modeling, storing and transferring data in neutral form

Abstract:
The present invention simplifies the data modeling process and enables its full dynamic versioning by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information. This is achieved by expressing data modeling, storage and transfer in a particular non-hierarchical, non-integrated neutral form. The neutral form of the present invention enables complete parallel processing of both data storage and data transfer operations. It also enables the direct integration of separate but related data models and their data without remodeling or reloading. Finally, the present invention enables direct transfer of neutral form information in a manner that includes all of the properties required to independently understand and interpret each transferred data value.

Listed inventors (for both patents): Odom; Paul S. (Houston, TX); Massey; Michael J. (Houston, TX)

--

[ Reply to This | # ]

How many links to Microsoft can we find???
Authored by: Mecha on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 01:10 AM EDT
Scientigo Advisory Board member Bill Ide is a partner with McKenna, Long & Aldrich. They recently hired a woman by the name of Meredith Spence who used to be a lobbyist for Microsoft.

Ms. Spences profile

This is no smoking gun.

Microsoft and McKenna, Long & Aldrich are members of the Information Technology Associtation of America (ITAA)

ITAA member page

No smoking gun here either.

So there are links, but no smoking gun from board member Bill Ide.

Advisory Board Member Craig Mento is CEO of CustomerLinx who bought pieces of Scietigo.

Scientigo Completes Sale of its eCommerce Division

No smoking gun, but it is a little like Canopy's creative accounting if you ask me.

Nothing on new COO Cynthia White

---
** This is my signature and I happen to like it **

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo spam factory?
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 01:16 AM EDT
SourceWare(TM) is a powerful next-generation search engine application that captures, integrates, cleanses and organizes back office and customer data for data mining. . .

Sounds like an email address scraper to me.

Probably it's worse than that.

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: rm6990 on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 01:47 AM EDT
For all of the people trying to find links to Microsoft, I don't think they are
behind this. I think this is just a greedy failing corporation trying to make
some money off of some sketchy patents covering a widely used technology.

[ Reply to This | # ]

$cientigo dream$ So $0,000,000,000 big
Authored by: webster on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 04:17 AM EDT
I was hoping this would make it from the sidebar into an article. Well they
have met with 47 people. They probably told them all they won the lottery and
locked the doors. There are now almost 47 people ready to join forces against
them and split the legal fees.

Like SCO they obviously expect to have big legal guns if necessary. They have
trained some experts who articulately see things their way. They have a war
chest or a sugar daddy in waiting, and like SCO they have nothing to lose.
Someone has invested in this scheme. They are obviously not worried about
losing the money, but they won't mind scoring a few million if it works. Maybe
they will at least retard the uptake of Open Office.org.

If these folks are just after money, then they will quit with a M$ license. But
M$ won't want them to quit without taking on OO.o and Google and Amazon and
potential competitors. So they will have to collude in this project. They must
be already since they wouldn't have started if they knew they would be against
M$.

$cientigo was hoping to make a splash so that everyone would be eager to reward
them for their innovation. They may have made some miscalculations coming after
SCO. They may have just inspired and unified their opposition. They are so
happy to have been featured on GL. It's about time their invention was
appreciated. Their financing is going in for some strict appreciation also.
They are most appreciative that GL has already gone to the trouble of clearing
up some prior art for them. They can begin the long and expensive process now.
They can also count on the State of Massachusetts helping them to get the
granting of their patents reviewed quickly by the USPTO.

This may also help inspire patent reform since this tempest may put us further
behind the rest of the world in the uptake of alternatives to M$.

<?>How's this for neutral data transmission</>? <?>Is
punctuation prior art,</?>

---
webster
>>>>>>> LN 3.0 >>>>>>>>>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sue the UPTO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 04:51 AM EDT

If a patent is found to be invalid due to prior art, surely the victor can sue
the UPTO for damages?

I am sure that if the (let's face it not-bright-enough-to-get-a-real-job) patent
examiners were actually held accountable for their incompetence, the world would
be a nicer place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The EUropean situation
Authored by: MathFox on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 06:30 AM EDT
I have been wondering why we don't see that many Patent Trolls in the European Union. Off course the EU knows patent protection according to WTO rules, but there are a few differences in the details. Let's first look at the official arguments why trolls don't exist here:
  • The EPO does a better examination of the claims.
    They may do a better job than the USPTO, but they granted enough bad patents that it shouldn't be a problem to get a few of your own approved.
  • Software patents and business method patents are not allowed.
    But they do get granted if you formulate them smart enough.
  • Litigation has to take place in each individual country.
    Which means that a patent has to be ruled invalid in each country individually.
They just don't cut it. I'ld like to do a few suggestions made upon private study of Dutch Law:
  • Most (all) countries don't do "triple damages"
  • Many (all?) countries only allow the collection of damages starting (one month) after a formal notification of the alleged infringer
I think that especially the last point makes a lot of difference for patent trolls. Every year they sit on a patent means a permanent loss of potential revenue, they don't have the opportunity fo come with multi-million claims in court.

Is it surprising that in the new proposals for a "Community patent" they propose to change the rules for claiming damages to "from the day of publication of the application"? Not at all! The FFII allready knows of this, be prepared for another battle in the EU software patent war.

---
When people start to comment on the form of a message, it is a sign that they have problems to accept the truth of the message.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should we call them SCGONEMAD?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 06:47 AM EDT
As they are up to the same trick as good old SCO and their name includes these
wonderful letter in the same order I was wondering if we should develop a
suitable acronym for them whenever thay get a mention on Groklaw.
Some suitable candidates:-
SCO2
SCGONE
SCGONEMAD

I'm sure there are lots of others.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SC6O - Authored by: Teus on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 07:57 AM EDT
Amazon?
Authored by: Cyberdog on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 07:49 AM EDT
This is the most amazing part of it all:

A multimillion-dollar annual royalty from Amazon.com, for example, would
not be onerous to Amazon and yet would help revitalize Scientigo, Bryant
said.

Since when has Amazon become a charity? By what RIGHT does Scientigo
think that Amazon would like to give money to them? By what RIGHT does
Scientigo get to be revitalised? This is wrong on so many levels.

It sounds very much the defence against so-called victimless crimes like
insurance fraud 'they can afford it'.

It would be more honest to stand out in the street with a tin cup and sign
reading 'CEO and four VP to support. Please Give Generously'.

Unless this is someone's idea of a joke on Amazon for the One-Click patent?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 08:15 AM EDT
From Wikipaedia:

### XML is derived from SGML ###. XML is a profile — a specific subset of SGML,
designed to be simpler to parse and process than full SGML. Another markup
language originally created as an application of SGML is DocBook, designed for
authoring technical documentation. DocBook is now also available as an XML
application.

and

The Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) is a metalanguage in which one
can define markup languages for documents. ### SGML is a descendant of IBM's
Generalized Markup Language (GML), developed in the 1960s ### by Charles
Goldfarb, Edward Mosher and Raymond Lorie (whose surname initials also happen to
be GML).

=====

So, XML itself is not a new invention - it's just a subset of something invented
(and maybe patented?) at IBM in the 60's.

Scientigo's "patents" were filed in 1997 and 1999 - so doesn't an
attempt to say that those patents refer to a system that works in the same way
as XML blow them out of the water due to prior art?

Seems, on the face of it, that their patents would be more valid if they
described something different to XML/SGML.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe now you'll agree with me that patents are evil.
Authored by: cybervegan on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 08:28 AM EDT
Not just software patents, but patents per se.

They only serve as a landgrab - like the planting of the US and Soviet flags on
the moon. They are the corporate equivalent of a cat marking it's territory...
or a military despot planting mines in a cornfield.

Patents give companies the legal ability to mug people for their own ideas:
because of the obscure language used to describe them (i.e. unintelligible to
the layman) and the ludicrous court rulings sanctioning these muggings, the only
way to safely avoid patent litigation is to not have ideas in the first place.

Patents do not, and never have fostered innovation; they have merely
strait-jacketed inventors. How many good and useful inventions have never seen
the light of day because the inventor found out that an expensive patent stood
in the way of commercial production of his invention?

Here's an example: I had a little idea, about how to sift Henna powder (some of
you will already know I'm also a Henna Artist) to remove the chaff - the Henna
Artist's biggest universal problem. It involved blowing the henna through a
series of compartments, using the eddy effect to settle out the smaller
particles, while the chaff would continue on through the compartments. Turns
out this is covered by a patented method called a "Zig-Zag Sorter"...
Patented in both the EU and the US (plus other jurisdictions, if I remember
correctly). I'd never heard of the patent until I started trying to find out
about the eddy effect on Google; lucky I did though, because if I had published
any of my ideas, I could have been held responsible for patent infringement -
even though I was only going to experiment with it. I'm not in the US, but I'm
worried enough about the reach of the long arm of US law that I stopped thinking
about the design. Maybe it would have come to nothing, maybe not.

The eddy effect has been known in physics for a *long* time. Maybe my idea
wouldn't have infringed... but I couldn't risk the cost of finding out.

I'm no "inventor" but who knows? I would probably have released my
design to the public domain anyway, but could have borne the brunt of patent
litigation simply for thinking "I bet you could use the eddy effect to
clear the chaff out of Henna". I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that in
the US you can be prevented from using a patent infringing method even if you
aren't selling the machine that uses it; even if it's only for your own use.

Zig-zag sorters cost tens of thousands of dollars - way out of the price-range
of any Henna Artist I know. All us Henna Artists will have to continue with the
arcane process of shaking our Henna through a 50 micron gauze sock stuffed
inside a 30 section of soil pipe with both ends capped and a marble inside.
Makes your arms ache, and it's really messy when you open it up, and you risk
re-contaminating the clean powder with the chaff if you twitch just a bit.

"Cute".

How many other ideas like this have been dropped because of patents?

-cybervegan


---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Laches!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 09:12 AM EDT
Last month, in Symbol technologies v Lemelson, the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Fed Circuit) upheld the defense of prosecution laches against patent claims. [fun article on Symbol v Lemelson and Lemelson himself.] For those who don't speak lawyerese, this means that you have a valid defense against a claim of infringement if you can show an "unreasonable and unexplained delay" in the prosecution of a patent. In this ruling the CAFC is making a very clear statement that at least this form of gaming the system is not to be tolerated. Patents have to be prosecuted when there is first indication of infringement, not when expected profits are highest.

I don't think one has to go out on a limb to say that we'll see more prosecution laches defenses in patent litigation in the near future. The question is whether it would apply here. Can our pals at Scientigo explain why they did not immediately start prosecuting their patent seven years ago, when XML was already in public use at many dot coms? There may be valid reasons we don't know about, but if it really is just the 'when the standard really takes off, expected revenue is highest' story, then the CAFC has pretty clearly said that Scientigo has no case.

--BK

[ Reply to This | # ]

Europe thanks the United States of America
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 09:20 AM EDT

Thank you the United States of America, from Europe. This demonstration of what happens when you can patent software, ideas and standards, show us how patents would destroy our economy too.

Though we have supporters of big business here, that are trying to copy you, and make us a dumbed down consumer society; we hope to be able to avoid your excesses.

Hopefully, here in Europe, we will be allowed to innovate, compete, and invent, without the dictatorial control of bad laws.

And do rest assured that you will always be able to buy high technology goods from Europe, that you are not allowed to produce yourselves, as long as you have the money to pay for them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I guess China like what they hear
Authored by: Neurophys on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 09:24 AM EDT
Almost every day US companies are fighting each other with weapons that don't
excist in China and India - namely software patents.

The chinese are laughing all the way to the bank.

Pål

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art or overlap?
Authored by: leopardi on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 09:36 AM EDT
Hi, could someone please check against 'Electronic data interchange system for managing non-standard data', United States Patent 5,557,780 ? This patent was published 1996-09-17. It claims a system which "does not require any previously agreed upon exchange format or data template in order to receive, store, maintain, and retransmit EDI structured-data."

Patent 5,557,780 itself may be prior art, not to mention all of the inventions referred to in the filing, eg. ANSI X12, UN/EDIFACT, etc. At the very least, this patent and 5,842,213 seem to me to suffer a significant overlap, since they both relate to the encoding and decoding of structured data in some agreed format.

Also 5,842,213 does not mention XML or SGML anywhere, and neither does it mention 5,557,780 or ANSI X12 or UN/EDIFACT. Yet is does mention SQL, ISO STEP and EXPRESS. See 'How STEP/SGML and XML/EDI Initiatives Will Impact Future Development of IETMs' for a discussion of how STEP, SGML, XML, X12 and EDIFACT may relate to each other in the realm of interactive technical manuals.

Also, this newgroup item, 'Standard Data Interchange Format,' dated 1994-03-07, gives you a small glimps of the state of the art at that time. Note especially bento. For a history of Hytime, including sbento, see 'A Brief History of the Development of SMDL and HyTime', dated 1994-06-28.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't understand the patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 10:28 AM EDT
If I transmit data in a neutral format, that means that both I and the receiver
have agreed on a data format (the neutral one). So, as I understand it, this is
yet another data format. Using a format to transmit data is hardly new. The
idea that you will send me a dxf file from your Mac that I can open in AutoCad
on my wintel box isn't exactly earthshaking.

Can someone please explain what I am missing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

transfer of "data in neutral forms"
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 12:24 PM EDT

Clearly we're safe from patents on such things, because if any format is patented (such that using it requires paying tax/toll/license-fee/danegeld/whatever) then the format is clearly not neutral. And thus not subject to the patent on "neutral" formats. QED!

I just love seeing things vanish in puffs of illogic. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 03:17 PM EDT
We should "fix" the USPTO the way we "fix" dogs and cats,
starting with: "Away with their funding!" Whatever we do to the USPTO
and its supporters, let's make it simple, let's make it effective, and let's
make it hurt like hell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Welcome to the new way to make "bussiness"
Authored by: ikocher on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 08:26 PM EDT
Again, they "patent it", wait for someone to build it, then sue...
great law...

I think having an idea is not the hard part, the hard part is to make it work,
build it.

Remember the patent on the time machine?


Ivan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 09:39 PM EDT
The free flow of capital that is the cornerstone of a powerful, effective and
efficient economy. Likewise, it is the free flow of knowledge that made the
Computer Revolution a reality and transformed this economy to some degree into
an entrepreneurial economy.

Patents are fundamentally flawed, because they are designed to impede and
restrict the flow of knowledge to the general public, and channelize the flow of
knowledge to a paying few. Thus, the claim of the USPTO that patents, especially
the patents it grants, foster innovation - that claim is a slap in the face to
logic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One way of dealing with these things
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 23 2005 @ 10:21 PM EDT
Ban patents on standards. If something is created as a standard eg XML, HTML,
colours, signs, specifications then it should not be possible to patent them.
However, allow patents on derived products eg colour sampler or fuel additive to
achieve the standard fuel rating. These derivatives would need to be policed so
as not to be over broad eg any method of displaying samples of colour standards,
any fuel addative to achieve standard compliance. I may not have expressed
myself too clearly so go easy on me, I am not feeling too good today.

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

New idea for patent reform
Authored by: Maciarc on Monday, October 24 2005 @ 12:46 AM EDT
From what I've learned here on Groklaw (thanks for the lessons PJ), the purpose of the patent system is to assure a reasonable return on the investment an inventor has tied up in an invention.

Why not have as part of the patent application, a disclosure of how much has been invested in the invention? Then we could base the duration of the patent on a resonable return based on the actual amount invested by the inventor.

Also, as a requirement to keep the patent from expiring, the inventor would be required to report whatever profits they have made with the patent. If you don't make a profit, you're not using it (or not using it right), thus, you don't deserve to hold the patent and prevent mankind from using it.

I realize that it would be difficult to keep track of who has made money off of which patents, but it would help in two ways. One, if you invested nothing, the patent is granted, then immediately expires ($0 investment = $0 return) and cannot be applied for again (since it has already been invented). Second, if someone has to defend against patent infringement, one possible defense would be to show the inventor has achieved their monetary reward already, thus proving the patent has expired.


---
IANAL and I don't play one on TV, this is just an "anti-SCO Philippic."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Using linux is a reason for targeting Amazon?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 24 2005 @ 07:17 AM EDT
From the article:

<i>There must be a reason why they are mentioning Amazon as being a likely
target of their licensing efforts, aside from the fact that Amazon uses
Linux.</i>

What's with the 'aside from the fact that Amazon uses Linux'? What's that got to
do with anything?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent reform?
Authored by: mtew on Monday, October 24 2005 @ 08:30 AM EDT
I am NOT an expert on the Law and have never field a patent, but even I can see
that there is something broken with the current US patent procedures.

At least in theory, patents should benifit the public by making new techniques
available. The maximum public benifit occurs when the new technique is revealed
but no patent is granted, however if patents were never granted there would be
no incentive to reveal new techniques and the inventors of new techniques would
keep them secret. That means just enough patents should be granted to make the
risks reasonable for an inventor to apply for a patent. In other words the
patentability guiedlines are a reasonable subject for an economic analysis and
economic theory would make a reasonable foundation for setting the various rules
for granting patents.

However, the current rules are not established to maximize public benifit, and
it is instructive to see who does benifit most from the current rules. Note
that it is exceptional for a patent dispute to end up in the court system, so
the courts are not the controling source of patent rules. Nor does the
legislature provide detailed procedures on which patents to grant and which to
reject. The legislature only specifies broad policy, administrative procedures
and budgeting. It is the US Patents and Trademark Office that sets the rules
and of course they will set the rules to benifit themselves the most.

What will benifit the Patent Office the most?

1. Personal power for the senior officials.
2. Good saleries for all the Patent Office personal.
3. Good 'retirement' prospects.

Item 3. looks like it could be the biggest factor in encouraging the the PO to
grant more patents, but because it is so obvious, it is watched fairly carefully
by public interest groups. I do not have personal information on this topic but
I believe that there are enough well informed people who read the blog that we
would have been and will be informed of any major problems.

Item 2 is pretty neutral in its effect on granting patents. While the
legislature set pay levels and budgets, it does so in response to the amount of
work an agency has to perform. There is some pressure by special intrest groups
to have more patents granted but there is also a general counter pressure to
keep taxes down. This is the area where most of the public debate occurs.

Item 1 is a characteristic of any beauracracy. The main idea is that the more
work the Patent Office has to do, the more power the top people will have. The
bugeting process mentioned in item 2 limits this tendency some, but is not as
focused as the beaurocratic desire for growth. This means they want as many
patents filed as possible. More patents will be filed if the prospects of
getting a patent are good and if the benifits of getting a patent are increased.
It is precisely this process that acts against the public interest and it here
that change is most needed.

Something has to be done to encourage the Patent Office to not GRANT patents
while keeping put the number of patent applications being filed. A few things
might help:

A. Make the Patent Office responsible for assuring that all applications REALLY
describe usable techniques and that those techniques are available to the public
once the patent has expired OR been rejected. That is make them do the WHOLE
job rather than just the part that the inventors want done.

B. Make the Patent Office resonsible for assuring that patent searches give
definitive results. (This will probably end up as a private sector contract,
but the Patent Office will have to check the quality of the results.) If an
official search on a technique or procedure comes out as prior art, that should
be an absolute bar to getting taken to court for violating someones patent.
Again this is intended to finish the information disemination part of the patent
process.

C. Have an independent audit of the effect of the various rules on the public.
The GAO or what used to be Standards Office or both should probably have a piece
of this.

[PJ: could you add a spell check to the submit options? I'm an attrocious
speller and could really use the help.]


---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't understand...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 24 2005 @ 12:29 PM EDT

...why we didn't internalize the lesson that patents are bad for innovation as far back as the days of Wil liam Fox Talbot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scientigo Claims Patents on XML
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 25 2005 @ 07:40 AM EDT
Make me wonder how many other Microsoft's certified partners have patents just
waiting to come out of the bushes.

this patent is a fraud - just like Microsoft's fat patent.

this software patent stuff is just insane. how can you have such general
patents. reading the patent and not trying to get a big headache to me it could
cover a lot of software.

I would like to thank Steve Ballmer and Billy Gates for the patent IP crazines
they started just because Linux is a better product. Boy you guys are really
innovative.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )