Wal-Mart, Target Trying To Block Redbox From Purchasing DVDs?

USPTO Rejects Submission Because It Was Faxed 'Upside Down'

from the these-people-guard-our-innovation? dept

Thu, Feb 4th 2010 12:34pm — Mike Masnick

It's no secret that the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has outdated technology. But did you know it was so bad they can't even figure out how to rotate a fax? Erik Sherman alerts us to a story he's written about the USPTO rejecting a faxed submission, because it was "received upside down." Seriously.

Your request to record a document in the United States Patent and Trademark Office was received via electronic fax on [date and time in 2010 omitted].

The faxed submission was received upside down. We are unable to continue processing these images.

Please resubmit your document.

My guess? Perhaps the "technology" to rotate a document was patented, and the USPTO didn't want to pay the licensing fee.

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: fax, patents, technology, uspto
Companies: uspto

41 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

lavi d (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:37pm

Alternative Transmission
...was received via electronic fax...

As opposed to what? Mechanical fax? Organic fax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- a-dub (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: Alternative Transmission
  As opposed to what? Mechanical fax? Organic fax?
  
  Actually yes. There is such a thing as a mechanical facsimile. But I see your point, there's really no need to clarify a fax as being electronic. Maybe this is yet another indication of how dated their systems are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - kyle clements (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Alternative Transmission
    Reminds me of the American tendency to say "tuna fish" rather than just "tuna"
    
    you have to make sure you differentiate it from tuna chicken and tuna pork.
    
    Seriously though, if these people are unable to rotate a piece of paper, how can the be trusted to determine if an invention is patent worthy of not?
    
    How long until:
    Can you rotate paper 180 degrees
    _ yes
    _ no
    
    becomes a standard part of job applications?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SureW (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Alternative Transmission
      Reminds me of the American tendency to say "tuna fish" rather than just "tuna"
      
      To be fair "Tuna" could also refer to Bill Parcells and I wouldnt want it implied that I ate him with some mayo for lunch.
      
      Besides, you guys have the metric system up there and don't have the "180 degree rotate" vs "upside down" issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - pferland, 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Alternative Transmission
      or maybe, they are trying to weed out the incompetent lawyers from people that have a real patent..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Werner Van Belle (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re: Alternative Transmission
  Smoke Signals ?
  Pigeon ?
  Dead Pigeon ? -> could not be processed. Was tasty though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re: Alternative Transmission
  >> ...was received via electronic fax...
  > As opposed to what? Mechanical fax? Organic fax?
  
  Commonly known as fax-to-email or fax-to-PDF.
  
  Yes, pressing "rotate" button in PDF reader was really hard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBT, 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:38pm

Or it could have meant "upside down" along the other axis, meaning the front side of the paper was not scanned and instead the blank back side of the paper was. Meaning the USPTO got a blank piece of paper. Now, if you had the technology to magically figure out what was supposed to have been printed on a blank sheet of paper, that would be patent-worthy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  Or it could have meant "upside down" along the other axis, meaning the front side of the paper was not scanned and instead the blank back side of the paper was. Meaning the USPTO got a blank piece of paper. Now, if you had the technology to magically figure out what was supposed to have been printed on a blank sheet of paper, that would be patent-worthy!
  
  Then wouldn't they have just said the page received was blank?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There was a lot of discussion on Slashdot about this exact issue. The conclusion that I like best was that yes, someone patented the technology to flip those pages (interns), but it should be kicked out for prior art due to the existence of slave labor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BBT, 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Then wouldn't they have just said the page received was blank?"
    
    That would have worked too.
    
    I suppose the explanation that the employee is so stupid he can't put his pants on in the morning, yet somehow got the job...is possible. I'm just not finding it particularly likely. It requires the guy to be dumb enough to not think to flip the page, yet somehow smart enough to remember which way the page "should" be. That the guy happened to use a semantically equivalent phrase that you don't prefer is much more likely than your explanation. Yours makes for a good joke, though, so it's cool.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JB, 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "That the guy happened to use a semantically equivalent phrase that you don't prefer is much more likely than your explanation."
      
      BBT,
      
      That is not a semantically equivalent phrase. If someone were to receive blank pieces of paper through a fax machine, or even through e-mail from a fax, that person could not jump to the conclusion that the papers were put into the scanner/fax facing the wrong direction.
      
      Such a conclusion could only be reached if there were reversed, ghosted letters on the page/image due to the presence/absence of back-scattered light transmitted through the fibrous page, off the guide and back into the imager.
      
      Since this is technically possible, you could be correct. But, due to the wording of the response and the small possibility that ghosted letters were visible enough to recognize their incorrect direction, it is more likely that the USPTO clerk was either incapable of rotating a page or image, or was following some defunct rule of the patent office.
      
      ~JB
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alan Gerow (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re:
  Generally "upside down" means the page was rotated 180 degrees. What you are describing is generally referred to as "face down".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:38pm

Cue my misquoting troll... 3 2 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re:
  Hey! That's my line!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Anti-Mike (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Did you patent it? Did ya? ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re:
  Sanity Rejects The Anti-Mike Because He's "Upside Down"
  
  Something like that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:45pm

People still send faxes? You've got to be kidding me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nate (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:46pm

My guess is that they print this stuff on 3-hole punched paper and when a document comes in upside down they can't turn the page because of the holes are on the other side. I'm not sure if they're required to keep a paper copy (I guess yes), and if so they just keep them in binders.

//Not trying to say that the Patent Office is not strange for taking the time to tell the guy 'poor submission' rather than fixing it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alan Gerow (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re:
  Think of how much less time it would have taken to photocopy the submission with the correct orientation than to draft and send an e-mail (even using templates) asking for a resubmission. Isn't the filing fee supposed to cover costs associated to things like this?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- !Saygin, 5 Feb 2010 @ 6:28am
  
  Re:
  I don't believe that the USPTO requires paper copies internally. Fujitsu has a new Patent Office in Virginia that is entirely paperless. The Fujitsu office uses a third party vendor to store the electronic documents remotely and facilitate some communications with the USPTO; but basically, it's an entirely cyber relationship with the USPTO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SureW (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 12:57pm

If only someone could define "up" for us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re: Up
  I patented the concept of up already. They can't use it unless they're willing and ready to pay!
  
  Mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sirpa Aggarwal (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:00pm

I have 10 years of experience communicating with the USPTO, and thought I've heard and read it all by now. But apparently not. This was quite funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
senshikaze (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:09pm

i work in medical, and if i could tell idiots who can't fax documents to just stop, I would do it in a heart beat.(our faxes go into a fax server and turn into PDF's automatically, so they come to your mailbox upside down, and the only way to easily rotate them is to have the shitty Adobe suite.)

favorite kind of person? Have a non-duplex fax scanner (OOOOLD) and they constantly scan the documents wrong side up. So we get a nice blank page, and then angry calls five hours later wondering why we didn't do whatever the hell was on the document.

hate. people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re:
  "(our faxes go into a fax server and turn into PDF's automatically, so they come to your mailbox upside down, and the only way to easily rotate them is to have the shitty Adobe suite.)"
  
  This seems to be the only sensible explanation to this otherwise silly rejection....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - senshikaze (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    hell, i just assumed that was what they were doing. I can't imagine any large org using real fax machines if they have any kind of load.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xyro TR1 (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:17pm

Unbelievable
Flip the damn page over! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angus, 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:29pm

Maybe...
Maybe they have a requirement that the header and footer line that the fax machine adds HAS to be of the same orientation as the message. This is the gov't after all. Or the machine printed arrival date stamp has to be in the proper quadrant of the document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Royce, 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:31pm

Good for them
I say, good for them. With the number of junk patents streaming in to the USPTO, doing a considerable amount of harm in the marketplace, if a submitter can't be bothered to look at the page orientation label on the fax machine that will transport his or her oh-so-precious IP, then perhaps it's not so precious after all and the USPTO really shouldn't bother with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:50pm

Couldn't it just be that the USPTO makes more money by rejecting patents and making people refile. Therefore, employee "X" recieves patent submission, opens case file, determines fax submission is upside down, takes the time to fill out form to send rejection, puts case file on hold, and than charges some rediculous amount of hours on their time card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emo the Libertarian (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:51pm

Course it could just be the bloated red tape that all of our Government works by now. I would bet that some where there is a rule (you know how they love those) that says if a fax is recieved as A (picture of a fax flipped) then we must ask for a resubmission, and no reason given. I am even willing to bet the poor government bee felt like a jackass for even sending the message...

OR it could be that the worker bee is seriously pissed off at 1) the Government or 2) the people that are applying for patents for overwork... so they are looking for ways to screw with people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hosermage (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 1:53pm

Do you mean...
All we have to do to stop this crazy patent process is to somehow disrupt the fax line? Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:27pm

Why not?
If the USPO arbitrarily approves very bad patents, I don't see why they can't reject them for reasons that are just as arbitrary and unfathomable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lux (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 6:36pm
  
  Re: Why not?
  And you nailed it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 9:28pm

Ambiguous language in the communication , which could mean a couple of things. Why are so many immediately assuming that these are fax images rotated 180 degrees?

Jeez, at least try and resolve the ambiguity before making fun of a communication from the PTO that may perhaps even turn out to be a fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
step back, 5 Feb 2010 @ 3:09am

Masnick,

If you were half truthful --which often you are not-- you would have clued your minions to the fact that the 'fax' was sent to the "Assignment" branch of the US Patent Office. Probably it was not a fax and some USPTO clerk just put down the wrong phrase. They probably meant an electronically submitted PDF file.

The Assignment Branch records as PDF files, electronic copies of contracts controlling ownership of a patent. No patent was "rejected" here. Probably what the USPTO meant was that some pages were upside down inside an electronically filed PDF file. They are merely asking the submitter to resubmit. No big deal. No one is having their patent "rejected". Nice try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Feb 2010 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re:
  If you were half truthful --which often you are not-- you would have clued your minions to the fact that the 'fax' was sent to the "Assignment" branch of the US Patent Office. Probably it was not a fax and some USPTO clerk just put down the wrong phrase. They probably meant an electronically submitted PDF file.
  
  I see, so the "truth" is we should assume a mistake was made, rather than what was accurately said? Really?
  
  The Assignment Branch records as PDF files, electronic copies of contracts controlling ownership of a patent. No patent was "rejected" here. Probably what the USPTO meant was that some pages were upside down inside an electronically filed PDF file. They are merely asking the submitter to resubmit. No big deal. No one is having their patent "rejected". Nice try.
  
  Can you point to where I said a patent was rejected? I never did. For someone trying to call me out for not being truthful, that's really rather stunning. You should probably stop making stuff up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2010 @ 7:23am

Yes, I think you're correct here. Probably it was not a fax. Probably it was a cabbage. Somebody mailed a cabbage, probably, and they just said 'electronic fax', probably by mistake. He probably meant to say cabbage, but he was looking (probably) at the fax machine at the time.

And you're right again, probably they did probably mean upside down in a pdf file. It was also inside out, probably, but you probably don't hear them complaining about that do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 5 Feb 2010 @ 8:27am

Faxes may be converted directly to PDF
If incoming FAXes are converted directly into PDF, then upside down pages may interrupt the USPTO's normal workflow.

Considering the enormous speed at which the USPTO rubber stamps patents to get them quickly into the hands of anxious patent trolls, it is unlikely that they can spare the time to rotate a PDF page to make it viewable, even if the "examiner" knew how.

USPTO would not want to infringe a patent on rotating upside down PDF pages to make them viewable. The examiner simply doesn't have time to check if the rotate command is patented.

Taking time to do so may cause the ink on their rubber stamp to dry. Patent examiners just hate it when that happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter Pappas, 5 Feb 2010 @ 8:41am

Upside Down Fax
This error, which affects a fraction of documents filed by fax, is due to antiquated software that is scheduled to be replaced next month. Our current software cannot read pages that are faxed in the wrong direction and consequently generates an automatic error message. The vast majority of filings are received electronically and are unaffected by this problem. We apologize for the inconvenience caused to fax filers and urge them to ensure that faxed pages are correctly oriented as we work to resolve this problem.

Peter Pappas
Chief Communications Officer
USPTO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]