Boston Transit Authority Sued For Patent Infringement... For Letting You Know Your Train Is Running Late
from the your-patent-system-is-running-late dept
Brad Feld points us to the latest in a long line of ridiculous patent lawsuits. Apparently, two foreign companies that have filed "dozens" of similar lawsuits in the last few years are now suing the MBTA (Boston's transit service) for patent infringement for having a system that sends email/text alerts if a train is running late. The two patents in question (6,317,060 and 7,030,781) highlight why so many people think the patent system is screwed up. There is nothing in creating a system to alert users that their train is late that is all that complicated. If you took just about any group of semi-competent engineers and put them in a room and described the issue, they'd come up with similar solutions. There is no reason to justify giving a patent to such an "invention." All it serves to do is actively stifle the use of technology.
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
WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF
I'm pretty sure this is patented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea was obvious then and even if it wasn't I'd much rather we have a system that allows me the freedom to independently come up with the idea and implement it than to have a broken system that requires me to worry about who has a patent on what before implementing an idea I independently came up with.
and you are also assuming that the patent holder is the only one who could have possibly came up with such an idea at the time or shortly thereafter and that every idea requires a patent for someone to come up with at the time that the patent was issued and that just because no one has a patent on an idea it must mean that no one can come up with it or has come up with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and this is what's wrong with our patent system. Things are often easier said than done. It's usually easier to come up with an idea and draw it out than to actually implement it and so while the idea may have been obvious at the time the patent holder got a patent on it, it still takes a while for others to implement.
But what does the patent holder do? He simply talks about the idea, writes it down, and, tada, he has a monopoly. Those who actually spend the time to implement an idea, instead of wasting time getting a patent on it, get punished. Yes, someone may have gotten a patent before the idea was implemented by others but that's only because it takes longer to implement an idea than to simply think of the idea and patent on it, it's not because no one else simply thought of the idea before this patent holder did. But we have a system that rewards those who "say" and punishes those that actually "do".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviousness
There will generally be someone who is "first" even for obvious things, simply because they were the ones who encountered the problem that the solution solves first. However, for a lot of things in engineering, just defining the problem clearly enough will often let the solution fall into your lap.
For example, I found out this week that there is probably some kind of patent on storing a directed acyclic graph in an SQL database. I didn't read it because I don't really want to know, but the search where that URL came up was one I conducted *after* solving the problem just to check if I had missed anything obvious when it came to one specific issue that makes the solution rather untidy. This is a pretty heavily constrained problem due to the nature of SQL and the data structure being recorded, so unsurprisingly the articles I found all documented pretty much the same approach I had already taken. I'd be very surprised if the patent said anything different (although, as noted, I have no intention of reading it to find out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obviousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obviousness
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/database/Modeling_DAGs_on_SQL_DBs.aspx
(The "specific issue" I mentioned is exactly the one that article spends a lot of time talking about - SQL can't really handle recursive data structures so you need to do a procedural traversal of the graph either at lookup time or whenever the data is modified)
Googling "sql directed acyclic graph" brings up quite a few interesting hits (it's how I found the article above).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obviousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obviousness
What's obvious to you now, was likely obvious to the experts at the front line of their field 7-10 years ago. There are things that are obvious to them that you've never even heard of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obviousness
All of which is completely irrelevant in evaluating obviousness, even if we grant your hyperbole.
direct communication to users was not obvious or common
Really? Direct...communication...was not obvious?
And the patents describe a general system that is not remotely detailed: a mechanism for determining where trains are in their route, a mechanism for comparing this against the schedule, and a mechanism for notifying passengers that the train is behind schedule. That's it. That's as specific as it gets. And you say this was non-obvious in 2001? I don't recall society as a whole being mentally retarded at that time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obviousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obviousness
The telegraph was used to notify further stations that a train would be late this in the 1800's
The Romans had a cart that had an odometer in it so they could charge others LoL
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/ArchimedesGears.htm
A photo of a working roman cart can be seen here.
http://www.exo.net/~pauld/TomTits2000/sweden8.html
Dyonisious should be called the father of the machine gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obviousness
People have been alerting others and creating things to do that for a long time now, if that is not an obvious invention I don't know what qualifies then. Notifications systems are obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obviousness
Really? Direct...communication...was not obvious?"
Yeah, didn't ya hear? Back then, nobody talked to each other, they used like, the telegraph to call their children to dinner and stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obviousness
and this is the case for most patents. IP maximists try to claim, "but patents are useful, they give you a detailed analysis on everything" but they provide absolutely ZERO evidence to support their hypothesis. All of the evidence suggests the opposite and the incentive certainly is not to give detail but to be as general as possible so as to cover as many specific implementations of a general idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obviousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obviousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obviousness
What is the justification for the timeline? What is the justification for awarding a patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obviousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obviousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obviousness
The patent on the saw that stops upon coming into contact with human skin might be an example of a good patent, being that's it's a NEW solution to an OLD problem (though a legal system that requires saw makers to use it or face unnecessary risk and that doesn't place an reasonable upper limit on patent licensing fees is a system that encourages extortion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems Sensible to me
I'm thinking of patenting bum wiping, no-ones got that yet! - or perhaps nose picking with your index finger!.
Then I'm gonna sue everyone who has a dump! & get the registration number of the car with the nosepicker in it so I can sue him rotten.
Thank you very much patent office. If it wasn't for your stupidity none of this would be possible.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rediculous...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Office Employees
eg. I want to make a patent for a notification system for late trains. This patent request should get routed to a group of 3 employees that specialize in Computer Information Systems or something similar/related and a majority rule is used to give out the patent.
The amount of money paid to have groups of specialized people would cost tax payers less than the social cost of horrible patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Office Employees
But I ask: what benefit does society get from having awarded these patents? Where is the justification in tweaking the system rather than simply scrapping it?
A governmental authority body is established for some purpose. If that purpose is not being met, then consider tweaking it.
If there is no actual measurement of whether the purpose is being met (or worse, it has the opposite effect) then the body should be scrapped entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The system is not perfect because decisions can only be made on the evidence that is produced while an application is being considered. If a relevant piece of prior art (be it a written article, a description of work done by another that predates the effective filing date of an application, etc. remains undiscovered it is simply not possible to anticipate and apply an unknown piece or pieces of prior art. This does not reflect that the USPTO is corrupt, populated by examiners who are technically clueless, etc. It merely reflects that the methodology employed to identify relevant prior art is, like all human activities, imperfect. Simply put, better searches tend to yield better consideration of the patentability of the various presented claims. Improve searches and the system as a whole improves accordingly. Unfortunately, unlike what was used as search techniques pre the early 80's, far too much reliance is placed on keyword searches that can easily miss the most relevant prior art, and it is my view that the use of keyword searches is an important failing of the current search system. To some degree this failing is ameliorated by processes known as reissue and reexamination, but these processes kick in after a patent has issued. The processes do work, but how much nicer it would be if the art forming the basis for the kickoff of these processe had been brought to light and considered while the application was being processed. Improve the search process and the patent system improves accordingly.
A much more important problem as I see it is that in a few circles a small group of persons treat patents not as adjuncts to bringing a product to market, but as mere negotiable instruments resembiling little more than the transfer of such instruments to persons/groups building "business plans" around nothing more that purchasing paper and then asserting the paper. While perfectly legal, it serves to undercut the reason why patent law was created in the first instance and reinforce the notion that our laws are not functioning as originally intended.
Rather than crying "it's obvious" and, hence, the system is broken, the proper focus should be directed to means by which more prior art can be presented during prosecution of an application. Improve searching techniques and more relevant evidence is brought to light.
As for "lawsuit mills" a means to ameliorate what most within the law profession view as mere "ambulance chasing", one possible answer is to consider various amendments to current law. I am sure there are others, including, perhaps, judicial interpretations of existing law...and particularly in the area of damage awards. One positive step is the CAFC's recent decision to much more closely scrutinize the methods used by expert witnesses testifying at trial much more closely to mitigate "pie in the sky" methods that grossly overstate what is deemed to comprise a "reasonable royalty". Coupled with the recent decision to limit the grant of permanent injunctions a groundwork is being laid that holds the promise of making "ambulance chasing" suits much less financially attractive to those companies who do nothing more than sell/but "paper".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that a description was submitted and accepted does not show that society at large benefited from this system. The information being available does not mean that the information is useful or usable.
And the fact that the information is now patented means that there is less incentive for people to experiment in that particular field at this time. Better to work in other areas where advancements might not be barred or have licensing taxes placed on marketable outcomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
{1} An invention was conceived: Maybe if it was not copied from somewhere else. With the fact that the US Patent system (Ridiculously) is moving from first to invent to first to patent there is an actual incentive to patent the works of others.
{2} an application prepared describing the invention: Ok that one I will give you. An application was indeed prepared describing the invention but whether or not it is sufficiently detailed is a good question. Many patents are so broad and loosely described as to cover anything even vaguely similar.
{3} claims proffered: OK but are the claims being proffered Accurate? I have seen some whoppers on patent application before.
{4} a consideration of the prior art measured against the claims: Bullshit - I have seen patent applications that were patenting ideas that have been around for years. USPTO does not even bother to check.
{5} a determination that the invention as claimed was new, useful, and nonobvious: Ha, Ha, & Ha (See Point 4)
{6} a patent issued based upon the prior art considered during the processing of the application: Well I will giv you that a patent was issued but the rest of the sentence is bunk as noted above.
Please Grow a Brain and Try Again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(3) Apparently the USPTO, based upon the evidence before it, determined the claims were accurate.
(4), (5) and (6) Read second paragraph of original comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the infallible USPTO. No one should ever question its infallible nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to be clear about what "first to file" means
First to File actually makes it easier to invalidate bad patents, because prior art only needs to date from before when the patent was filed, not the earlier date of the claimed invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we are granting patents to foreign companies, why? Are they at least required to have a US presence? Do they pay taxes as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the hopes that foreign contries will agree to respect our patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent is WAY overly broad
"monitoring travel data associated with the vehicle; comparing planned timing of the vehicle ... contacting a user communications device before the vehicle reaches a vehicle stop ... and informing the user of the vehicle delay..."
So if I call my wife to tell her my plane is now scheduled to land at 7 instead of 6:20 I am infringing their patent - ridiculous. I think it won't be hard to find some "prior art" of people calling someone to tell them that their plane, train, bus is running late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@2
you work in said ofice don't you...admit it they hire people with IQ's under 100 and require you to be bribable
RIGHT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]