IBM Patents 'Paper Or Plastic'?

from the patent-examiners-apparently-don't-shop-much dept

Slashdot points us to the latest absurd patent to get approval from the USPTO. IBM has been granted a patent on the concept of storing your packaging preference information on your customer card. Yes, basically, the act of storing whether or not you like paper or plastic bags on your customer loyalty card is considered such an original idea that it deserves a monopoly.

We've been having some debates over the last few days in the comments on the question of "obviousness." This patent hopefully demonstrates the point that many of us are trying to make. The defenders of the patent system will claim that this is a perfectly reasonable patent because no one has done it before (where's the prior art, etc?). But that doesn't get into whether or not this is actually obvious. Customer cards store all sorts of information. Should we give someone a patent on each and every one? The implementation isn't hard at all. If you were to ask your average (or, even below average) techie, how they would go about storing and retrieving such information, they would do so in an instant. It simply makes no sense to award a long-term monopoly on adding just another bit of info to your customer card. And, yet, that's the system we have these days.

Filed Under: obviousness, paper, patents, plastic, point of sales
Companies: ibm

Lawyer Points Out That Simultaneous Invention Can Get Patents Tossed

from the well,-it's-a-start dept

For years, we've pointed out how ridiculous it is that our patent system doesn't include an independent invention defense. It seems rather against the concept of promoting innovation to say that someone who invented something entirely independently should be barred from using his own invention just because someone else invented the same thing slightly earlier. Considering just how many major discoveries are discovered independently by multiple people, this seems especially troublesome. In fact, various research papers have been written about why an independent invention defense makes a lot of sense.

However, beyond just a "defense" on patent claims, we've often pointed out that independent invention actually should represent pretty good evidence that an invention doesn't meet the criteria for "non-obviousness" to those skilled in the art that is required for a patent. After all, if multiple folks skilled in the art are all coming up with the same invention, it seems to be rather definitive proof that the concept was an "obvious" next step to those skilled in the art. Of course, whenever we bring this up, patent system defenders talk about what a ridiculous idea this is and how it would be a disaster in practice. Unfortunately for them, the actual research suggests it would actually be quite reasonable.

However, with so many patent attorneys insisting that it's ridiculous that simultaneous or independent invention would be used to prove obviousness, it's interesting to see a patent attorney over at Patently-O point out that it's perfectly reasonable to use simultaneous invention as proof of obviousness, even though he admits it's "seldom used." Hopefully, that's going to start changing. If the purpose of the patent system is only to protect "new and non-obvious" inventions -- it would seem like de facto evidence of obviousness that others are doing the same damn thing. If you have to keep the patent system at all, such a test for obviousness (rather than just in court cases, as is suggested here) would be a tremendously useful step in the right direction.

Filed Under: independent invention, obviousness, patents, simultaneous invention

Creating A List From A Database? Prepare For A Patent Infringement Suit

from the promoting-what-progress? dept

Thanks to the whole slew of folks who sent this in: TechCrunch has the details on Channel Intelligence, a company that owns a ridiculously broad and obvious patent on creating a list from a database and is now suing a whole bunch of small websites that offer things like wishlists. Read through the claims of the patent and see if you can explain how a single one is possibly new or non-obvious to those in the space. As TechCrunch notes, the lawsuits are all targeted against smaller websites, rather than the big players like eBay or Amazon. There are a variety of reasons why this might be. Channel Intelligence may have approached those companies and actually received a token payout (cheaper than a lawsuit for those companies). Or, perhaps more likely, it's using these smaller lawsuits to bring in some additional cash and to establish the myth that this patent is valid. That was common a few years back, before people started suing everyone at once for patent infringement. Patent holders would mostly target a few small companies, who wouldn't be able to launch a strong legal defense -- use those "victories" to build up a warchest while also claiming that it showed how the patents are "valid."

Filed Under: database, lists, obviousness, patents, wishlist
Companies: channel intelligence

Amazon Patents Catching Customers' Mistakes

from the everyone-else-must-leave-errors-alone dept

theodp writes "In a timely follow-up to the Did Amazon Cash In Big On Oprah Viewers' Confusion? item, the USPTO granted Amazon a patent Tuesday for Automatically Identifying Erroneous Orders, which means that trying to stop your customers from placing an incorrect order now constitutes patent infringement." Can someone please explain to me why this deserves a monopoly?

Filed Under: customer mistakes, obviousness, patents
Companies: amazon

Click Here To Reject Amazon's One-Click Patent

from the getting-there... dept

Amazon's "one-click patent" has been one of the rallying points for those who feel that software and business model patents are truly problematic. In 2001, the patent was challenged through BountyQuest, but that challenge was rejected by the patent office. In 2005, however, a guy in New Zealand began his own quest to invalidate the patent, successfully convincing the patent office to review the patent based on new prior art he had turned up. While there was a setback last month, when a 3-judge panel questioned an examiner's ruling that many of the claims should have been rejected as obvious, it appears that the prior art has now been found much more convincing. The patent office has now issued an initial rejection of 21 of 26 claims in the patent. Of course, while some are already celebrating this win, the case is far from over. As we've seen many times before, the early rejections from the patent office don't necessarily mean all that much, as the patent holder has a chance to respond and many things can happen before the validity of the patent is finally established. Still, it's certainly better than the patent office sticking by the original patent completely.

Filed Under: obviousness, one-click, patents, prior art
Companies: amazon

Patent Office Issues New Guidelines On Obviousness

from the how-obvious-of-them dept

Following the Supreme Court's April Teleflex v. KSR decision lowering the bar for what's considered "obvious" in granting a patent, the US Patent Office has finally gotten around to issuing new guidelines for how patent examiners are to determine whether or not the concept in the patent should be considered "obvious." As per the Supreme Court's ruling, patent examiners can now go beyond prior art "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM). Now, examiners can look at the prior art in the space and then the ordinary skill in the area and whether or not those of ordinary skill in the art would find the new offering obvious. This is definitely a step in the right direction (or, actually, a step back to where patents originally were supposed to be). Now let's see how well it's actually put into practice.

Filed Under: obviousness, patents
Companies: uspto