|
The Agenda for the USPTO Meeting on Feb. 16 |
|
Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 05:13 PM EST
|
The USPTO has posted the day's agenda for the February 16th meeting regarding the Open Source as Prior Art and Open Patent Review initiatives. It begins at 10 AM and runs until 2 PM. Directions. You can't just show up, though, and be sure of getting in. You must register by email to guarantee a seat. The Open Source as Prior Art segment begins at 10:15, so please don't be late. That is the one I am most interested in hearing about. One of the things listed for that segment is the following goal: "Identify interest and resources for ongoing effort." The Patent Review segment is at 11:15.
Since patents are the future battleground, from all we can discern, we might as well keep on adding to our armor and our knowledge. That is why I'm making myself read books on patents. Groan. Not my first choice of reading material. But you can't be effective unless you are equipped.
Here are two presentations from the December meeting with the USPTO that led to the decision to try to work together with the OS community to fix some of what's broken, at least the parts we don't need Congress for. The first presentation [PDF], Open Source as Prior Art, by Kees Cook of OSDL, addresses what is needed for a prior art database to count as prior art. It lists all the places that currently have databases, but it points out some problems. Kernel.org, for example, allows a publisher to change time stamps, and others don't stop a publisher from deleting a release. In other contexts, both might be all right, but in the context of wishing to prove something is prior art, both are a problem. See what I mean about knowledge? The second presentation [PDF] is by the USPTO, and it explains the basics of what qualifies as prior art and what would be useful to the USPTO for search purposes. Reading them both will help you to prepare for the February meeting. The agenda mentions that at 12:45, there will be a summing up of the identified patent quality initiatives, and at 1:15
there will be a segment for any other ideas you may have on improving patent quality. Deep sixing software patents isn't on the list for this particular day's discussion, so don't waste time bringing that up on the 16th but do save that idea for another forum, another day. This particular agenda is about trying to solve some of the worst problems in the current system, which neither I nor the USPTO can change by Wednesday. Only Congress can change the complete patent system. What can happen, if the USPTO is serious, is fixing the worst offenses, which are real and which are causing real pain. Unnecessary pain. So if you have ideas on that, February 16 is the day. And what I'd really like is if all of you who go, and I know of several already planning to attend, would give us at Groklaw feedback on your impressions. Finally, please remember that the USPTO is going to be experiencing a measure of culture shock. Please be polite and help them to make the transition to collaboration with the community as smooth as possible. And when you write up your reports, one thing I'd like to know personally is, does the USPTO seem to be serious in intent? What are your impressions? There is a lot at stake here, and we need to evaluate what can be achieved. Most of us are not patent experts, and it's my view that we need to become better educated on the subject, no matter what our ultimate solution to the patent problem might be. This meeting is, without a doubt, an opportunity to do that, to learn. Even if you say nothing at all at the meeting, you will learn more about the way things work, and that is always valuable. Even in warfare, the sides send out spies to spy out the land, do they not? Why do they do that? Because knowledge is power, and many eyeballs are the solution to lots of problems, so I'm looking forward to hearing from all of you who have the opportunity to go. Finally, I know a few of you are worried that if we do the database of prior art, it will enable bad actors to fine-tune their patents and be more effective in attacking FOSS. I thought about that a great deal and did some brainstorming. Here's the piece that is missing in that concern. They still would have to make the case that their invention
was not obvious. One way to reduce their ability to make that case is to
get published and make accessible as many inventions and ideas in the
computer software invention world as possible. The more we put out there, in a database set up to meet the requirements to qualify as prior art, the more broadly
disseminated an idea, the more likely that idea bumps into other ideas that
are related or could become related, and the more obvious and logical the
connections are between them.
|
|
Authored by: John Macdonald on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 06:35 PM EST |
most of us are not patent experts
The fact that a significant number
of people who are not patent experts are interested enough to show up and
participate could provide a powerful demonstration to the USPTO that significant
harm has not only happened, but it has been seen to have happened. "If no voter
complains about a government policy, could it have really been all that bad?"
It is much more powerful a demonstration if the people appear to be serious
sensible concerned individuals and not weirdo crackpots. ---
John Macdonald [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 06:41 PM EST |
You know the drill, clicky links if you got 'em
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ReactOS suspends development - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 07:22 PM EST
- FoxNews kind to Open Source? - Authored by: kozmcrae on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 07:40 PM EST
- Oh, Yes, Please Try Introducing Such A Bill In Congress - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 09:54 PM EST
- Gaming Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 01:32 AM EST
- OT Here, Please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 02:11 AM EST
- Halo 2 - Authored by: archonix on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 05:11 AM EST
- Halo 2 - Authored by: frk3 on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 10:01 AM EST
- Halo 2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 12:34 PM EST
- Halo 2 - Authored by: Wol on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 10:50 AM EST
- Yes. - Authored by: rcsteiner on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 11:32 AM EST
- Annoying Thunderbird quirk - accounts folders randomly collapsed - Authored by: cmc on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 08:05 AM EST
- OT Here, Please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 08:11 AM EST
- Get The Facts - the real ones - Authored by: DannyB on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 10:11 AM EST
- From the Denver Post 02/10/2006 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 11:10 AM EST
- Question: TSG Financial Reporting... Legal Mindfield? Can anyone help answer? - Authored by: sproggit on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 01:18 PM EST
- SunnComm Announcement - Authored by: joef on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 01:41 PM EST
- Ah... off on holiday - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 01:50 PM EST
- "RIM Announces Workaround Contingency for BlackBerry Customers" - Press Release - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 02:01 PM EST
- SCO's Discovery-Go-Round Keeps Spinning - Authored by: DannyB on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 02:10 PM EST
- queston. - Authored by: LocoYokel on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 05:01 PM EST
- answer - Authored by: DannyB on Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 10:20 AM EST
- Lost Sale - Authored by: TerryC on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 02:20 PM EST
- Lost Sale - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 02:54 PM EST
- linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 05:13 PM EST
- Lost Sale - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 06:55 PM EST
- I only run Linux (N/T) - Authored by: TerryC on Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 05:22 AM EST
- Lost Sale - Authored by: NetArch on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 03:25 PM EST
- Lost Sale--here too. - Authored by: Altair_IV on Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 06:23 AM EST
- iAUDIO - Authored by: TerryC on Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 07:35 AM EST
- Google Olympic Salute - Authored by: NetArch on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 04:00 PM EST
- AT&T and the Maffia - Authored by: yellowsnow314159 on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 04:43 PM EST
- Delay from another angle - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 10:36 PM EST
- "Microsoft Faces Complaints on Windows Vista, EU Says" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 11:09 PM EST
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 06:42 PM EST |
Keeping them centralized, for easy reference.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 07:30 PM EST |
This discussion is centered on the problems that FOSS is having with the patent
system. Why would FOSS problems be any different than the problems experienced
by proprietary software owners?
---------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 09 2006 @ 08:13 PM EST |
"And when you write up your reports, one thing I'd like to know personally
is, does the USPTO seem to be serious in intent?"
I wouldn't be surprised if the USPTO will send some junior stiff with no
decision-making authority. Let's not jump to any conclusions, based solely on
the junior stiff's earnestness and sincerity. It is not what the puppet says
that matters, but what the puppermaster thinks that matters.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 01:57 AM EST |
The Software Patent Institute is a
"nonprofit corporation formed to provide courses and prior art about software
technology to help improve the patent process". It was founded in 1992(!!!) by, among others, IBM.
Why will this
initiative work where the SPI clearly failed? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 04:37 AM EST |
The obviousness test is to all intents and purposes dead. The patent office
practically never rejects anything on the grounds of obviousness these days and
blithely hands out patents for complete trivialities. Similarly lawyers seem
extremely reluctant to challenge a patent on the grounds of obviousness because
it is unfortunately almost impossible to prove.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 07:37 AM EST |
For patent beginners, "Patent It Yourself" from Nolo Press is and
invaluable, if a little dated edition-by-edition resource for explaining the
basics of patent filing, prior art gathering and so on. Not a quick read, but
while reading it I could see what I would change about the current system.
For programmers, read it like a giant pseudocode explanation.
-John Le'Brecage[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jseigh on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 09:57 AM EST |
It's difficult enough to say what a patent's claims actually say. And almost by
definition, a patent troll's patents are going have vague and general claims.
So when a patent troll goes after you, you need to be able to show that your
code is based on prior art. Proving you haven't infringed a vague claims will
be futile, kind of like knowing whether you've "trangressed the unwritten
law".
Unless of course your open source project is innovative (i.e. no prior
art). Then you're in trouble. :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanzig on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 10:22 AM EST |
>Finally, I know a few of you are worried that if we do the
>database of prior art, it will enable bad actors to
>fine-tune their patents and be more effective in attacking
>FOSS.
This could happen sometimes. However, I think it will happen anyway, at least
to some extent. FOSS source code is easily available by definition, and for
someone wishing to target a specific project (e.g., Linux), it would be smart to
have a look at the code first. I am sure the Microsofts of the world have
learned that lesson by watching SCO.
At least with a database, FOSS has a better chance of fighting back. Basically,
I see this database as such a benefit to the overall situation that the addition
of a minor threat is negligible.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 10:37 AM EST |
Will congress change the patent system? Probably. Will congress fix the patent
system. Based on things like the Cann Spam act, I have serious doubts. It
seems to me that anytime they get their fingers into a law, they come up with a
worse mess than when they started out!!! Big Business always seems to control
things, even though they don't vote.
Gaaah!!!!!!!!!!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 12:43 PM EST |
Has anybody emailed for registration?
Has any registrations been granted?
Maybe you can tell us here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ninthwave on Friday, February 10 2006 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Why not have a clause where a prototype needs to be on file or held in escrow
and the prototype be used in comparision in court. This should stop patents
based on an idea with no implementation and kill off alot of submarine patents.
---
I was, I am, I will be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 01:35 AM EST |
The more well-defined the problems become.. in the patent system's own terms..
the more pressure proponents of patents will exert on legislators to remove
software patentability.
Your alternative business, economic, or political models are irrelevant,
probably anathema, to congress. They will move when software patents prove to
thwart their property models.
It is most useful to help them discover and describe their problems.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Deep-six - Authored by: chrism on Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 11:43 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 10:46 AM EST |
- Software patents cannot be categorised; there is no taxonomy
- FLOSS
types have better things to do than create 'prior art' databases. Writing
software, usually. Servicing it for money, too.
- The US can have whatever
laws they vote for.
- The question 'And just how does that patent support my
commercial clients in their businesses' will become important.
- Someone will
ask about the guarantee. And find that 'selling warranties' is good
business.
- You will get 'Pedigree Cats', with full lineage, and patent
licenses. And 'Mongrel Cats', with 'This space intentionally left blank' in the
line for 'Father' on the birth certificate, and questioning look if you ask
about patents. Both kinds can catch mice, and both kinds need servicing from
time to time. Just like software
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|