Patent Office Says Another 'Worst Patent' Should Be Rejected As Obvious
from the now-they-tell-us dept
The latest news in the ongoing effort by the EFF to invalidate ten awful patents looks good, as the Patent Office has given an initial rejection of C2's VoIP patent, claiming that it qualifies as "obvious." The incredibly broad patent (6,243,373) basically covers all VoIP implementations. Of course, this is just the "first office action," which rarely means very much, since the company still has the ability to come back and beg and plead for the USPTO to keep the patent alive (which happens often enough).Still, it does make you wonder, since it certainly does seem like it was an abundantly obvious patent (yes, even back when it was filed -- someone should talk to Jeff Pulver for some prior art), why it's taken this long for the USPTO to begin to correct its error. While we continue to applaud the EFF for working to get these patents busted, as we mentioned recently, the real travesty is that it's been six years since the EFF began busting patents, and while there's progress on nearly all of the patents, it's an incredible slog -- and these are for the worst of the worst patents. Invalidating bad patents is a ridiculously difficult process. That's really bad, considering all the harm they can do in the meantime.
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: obviousness, patents, voip
Companies: eff
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It happens like this, if people start contesting a lot of the patents they will start making more difficult or even trying to get rid of those rules so people don't have a say about it.
Then people need to complain very loudly so they come around and do something, they will try everything to dodge that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read TechDirt pretty often; but one thing I may have missed, is some form of outline to fix the problems with the patent process (and I am not talking about the laws). Truth is, I am willing to bet 9/10 patent 'people' don't understand the patents they are rubber stamping - not really their fault.
How can we fix this? And is the idea to fix this patentable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disclaimer: of course I have no idea here, but it sounds like a reasonable motivating factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfectly Simple Fix
Just get rid of the part of the law which says patent infringement is illegal. Dispose of the concept. The former "patent infringement" is now called "patent use", which is encouraged as promoting competition and helping the economy. Bingo, patent trolls are out of business overnight, the junk patent problem goes away. Patents become a method for inventors to claim inventor status, not owner status. Anybody who wants to implement some technology can do it for themselves, if it really is obvious. If it genuinely is novel and non-obvious, then they check the patent, then hire the inventors to help. All lovely and friendly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal Traitorous Subversives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Reviewers
If a reviewer OKs a patent, it's done until someone else challenges it, and even then it's mostly someone else's problem. If they deny a patent there's a good chance theyy'll be repeatedly justifying their decision with the applicant and/or their lawyers and their boss(es) through a lengthy appeals process.
And oh, by the way, part of the reviewers' yearly performance review that determines promotions and pay increases hinges on their throughput - how many patents they reviewed.
Saying no is a bigger hassle than saying yes, so they usually say yes. Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop shilling
This will be news to you, but the PTO grants about 95% of reexam requests and routinely rejects all claims on a first action. An organ grinder's monkey (in this case EFF) could get the PTO to reject all claims. Just becasue this patent doesn't belong to you doesnt make it "awful". What objective reasoning do you use to call it such? Can you reason?
Wake me when when we land. zzzzzzzzzzzz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop shilling
Yes, virtually every reexam (do not know if this one is ex parte or inter parties) is granted, virtually every reexam results in an initial rejection of the claims complained about in a reexamination request, and only rarely is an entire patent adjudicated to be invalid under the reexamination process.
Seems to me that the EFF has too much time on its hands and nothing better to do than whine and complain about patent and copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stop shilling
Not surprising, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EFF patent busting
I would almost rather see IP outlawed (well, for copyright, not even "almost") than to see us on the "slippery slope" present law puts us on.
Of course, without campaign finance reform, Congress will block any real attempt to stop the abuses, since some of their most important campaign contributors are involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]