IBM And Amazon Also Dueling With Nearly Identical Patent Applications
from the well,-look-at-that dept
While there's been a ton of attention pointed at the patent infringement lawsuit IBM filed against Amazon for a bunch of excessively broad patents, someone who prefers to remain anonymous has pointed out an interesting quirk s/he discovered while doing some patent searches. It's likely to be totally unrelated to the lawsuit, but both IBM and Amazon apparently filed applications for extraordinarily similar patents on the same day (perhaps within minutes of each other, as the application numbers are only one apart). IBM's describes a system for for distributing and billing for third party web services, while Amazon's more succinct version is for a marketplace for web services. They're essentially describing the same thing, neither of which was a particularly unique idea. The anonymous submitter wonders if it's just a coincidence that the two firms filed such similar patents on the same day, or if, perhaps, there's something more going on behind the scenes. Either way, it would seem that even beyond the question of general obviousness, the fact that two companies in the space filed for very similar patents at almost the exact same time should be reason enough to deny both applications. The patent system is only supposed to grant patents for ideas that are non-obvious to those who are skilled in the art. If multiple parties who are skilled in the art are submitting the same thing to be patented at the same time, then it would seem to fail that very basic test. It is, clearly, an idea that was seen as an obvious next step to multiple people skilled in the art.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And it never occured to you ... ?
Maybe it is rare, but does it imply that no-one gets a patent? Although I agree with you that the test for obviousness is a huge hole in the patent system.
What I don't understand is why does not some company like RIM sue the hell out of the USPTO for all the mess that it creates?
Well in any case, I cannot possibly imagine a scheme for the obviousness test. Can you Mr. Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it never occured to you ... ?
It's possible. Absolutely. Which is why we say that it could be a coincidence.
Well in any case, I cannot possibly imagine a scheme for the obviousness test. Can you Mr. Mike?
Well, it can be a multi-part test, starting with the simple fact that if multiple people apply for the same basic thing within a short period of time, you've failed the test.
Other ideas that people have suggested include some sort of "peer review" that can advise the patent examiner on obviousness. There's also the idea of looking at the general trends in the industry to see if this is the next obvious step. There are lots of ways to develop a test. Recognize, that tests in the legal sense don't have to be quantitative. In courts there are tests like "reasonable doubt" "average person" etc. So why isn't there the same thing in the patent office for "person skilled in the art." There should be. The patent law suggests that's it's a part of the law. But it's not being done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History
None of this bears on the actual merit of the patent, natch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: History
Yup. And neither should have gotten the patent. Because Bell got it, it kept competition out of the telephone market for years.
It can happen, and the fact is *not* enough to rule the thing non-obvious - it just means it was possible for two people to figure it out. Now if 10,000 people submitted the application, that might be different.
It does not need to be 10,000. It's not about it being obvious to the masses or to the average person, but to those "skilled in the art" which is likely to be a small number. In this case, if two of the biggest firms employing many of the people who are "skilled in the art" come up with the same thing at the same time, it's a pretty damn good case in the making for obviousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ordinary practioner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sound like a 10 year old person
It is obvious NOW , because of the R&D invested in it by others , like IBM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You sound like a 10 year old person
Sure it was. Not sure where you were in 1992, but there was plenty of talk about how the internet could become a great big virtual mall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]