IBM Applies For A Patent On Finding Areas That Lack Patents

from the please-say-this-is-satire dept

Wed, Oct 1st 2008 8:42pm — Mike Masnick

Slashdot points us to the news that IBM has applied for a patent on a process for identifying markets where there isn't much patent coverage. Yes, think about the recursive silliness here. The application describes a process for looking for so-called "white spaces," where there doesn't appear to be many patents covering a topic in a patent database. Of course, you have to wonder if someone could make the argument that having such a process suggest areas in which to pursue patents would raise questions about whether or not those patents would pass the non-obvious test. Meanwhile, chalk another one up for IBM, which keeps claiming that it's trying to raise the bar on patent quality.

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

Filed Under: patents
Companies: ibm

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

nick, 1 Oct 2008 @ 9:29pm

Well...
If it's not patented yet then it must not be that obvious, cause then someone else would have already landed the patents which lay in this "white space". We should applaud IBM for this brilliant and creative idea. Think of all the good that will come of this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ian, 1 Oct 2008 @ 10:17pm

This, in itself, is a white space. Good job, IBM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 1 Oct 2008 @ 10:23pm

I swear they're coming up with these just so they can see what they can get away with now. Or maybe they had a particularly boozy working lunch and decided to see who could come up with the most outrageous patent imaginable, only someone from the legal department was listening and didn't realise they were kidding until it was too late.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Princess Simone, 1 Oct 2008 @ 10:40pm

Financial Domination
bizarre
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bubba Nicholson (profile), 1 Oct 2008 @ 11:33pm

Finding the edges is not easy sometimes.
Automation is a great idea for this. How many times have I designed something novel only to find that it's old hat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ajax 4Hire, 2 Oct 2008 @ 4:23am

Automate the patent creation process.
IBM does have a sense fo humor but it is a business.
And business is in the business to make money
not loose money to the endless parade of lawsuits on patent litigation, say SCO v. IBM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2008 @ 4:34am

Looks like...
IBM has been Ideating again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziOG_GHNVq0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 2 Oct 2008 @ 4:47am

Just what Thomas Jefferson Wanted...
Just one question: how is this NOT a gross misuse of the Patent System?

So if there's lack of discoveries, in let's say widgets, IBM can go and create patents around those obvious things?

Seems self defeating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2008 @ 5:45am

Re:
@ #3:

Yes. Yes they are. IBM surprisingly wants the patent system fixed. The way it currently exists is a liability to doing business. You almost HAVE to be a patent troll at this point just to keep the other patent trolls away.

What sucks? Thanks to the wonderful apathy of the citizenry and congress its going to take decades to correct what is wrong with this country, and only if we start working yesterday.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2008 @ 6:40am

So, if I were to apply for a patent that did not yet exist .....

would I be in violation of the IBM patent that should've found it before I did ?

would I have to prove I did not use their process ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
johnny, 2 Oct 2008 @ 6:45am

as a former IBM employeei was called on the carpet...
by my manager by writing software that didn't anticipate a recent invention
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2008 @ 8:06am

Are you kidding me? Hasn't anyone been listening? If you had, you'd know that this couldn't be better news! What do ridicuous patents do? Stifle innovation. If IBM has a patent on the process, they'll sue the pants off any patent hoarding firm that tries to use it. IBM's found a way to turn the patent system agent the firms that would try to abuse it. They're abusing the patent system for the sake of innovation. (Doesn't that sound odd?)
I realize that this is a bit idealistic. I'm sure that IBM isn't as altruistic as that, but the result is the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ben, 2 Oct 2008 @ 8:45am

props to ibm
This is the patent to end all patents, hopefully in a literal sense.

Sue us for infringement? You're admitting to violating our own patent!

It's like they're going to patent patenting. I truly hope this one gets granted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luther Woodrum, 3 Oct 2008 @ 10:50am

exploiting the system
Patent law was changed not long ago to grant a patent to the first filer, not to the first discoverer/implementer.

That means anyone can file a patent on something that has not already been patented. The fact that it is already in use is not a problem. Something already in use for a long time will
likely not have any prior art documented either, because it is too obvious.

Nevertheless, patents are granted anyway. For example, I have found patents that were granted that have the EXACT SAME CLAIMS, except for slight differences in the wording, as the claims in some of my patents, which were granted decades before the other patents were filed.
In this case the prior art was well documented, but it didn't make any difference. If there is an area with little or no documented prior art, then I have no reason to believe it would be a problem for a filer.
So all the process would have to do is identify areas with
little or no documentation.
It is particularly easy for art before 1970 or so, because that patent art is not available online, and is not indexed.
Apparently anything before 1970 is not considered art any more, until someone files another patent on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]