Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

White House Takes Steps Against Patent Trolls

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the patents-under-the-bridge dept.

Patents 97

itwbennett writes "The Obama administration on Thursday launched a website with information to assist people and businesses targeted in patent lawsuits or receiving patent demand letters. The White House also announced that it would launch a new crowdsourcing initiative focused on identifying prior art (evidence of existing inventions) that the USPTO can use to reject bad patent claims and will expand a USPTO patent examiner technical training program by allowing outside technologists to help with the training."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior art! (5, Informative)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 9 months ago | (#46300441)

You mean something like patents.stackexchange.com [stackexchange.com] ?

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300539)

How dare you take away Obama's slush fund project!

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (3, Informative)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 9 months ago | (#46300619)

Ask Patents was created at the behest of the USPTO. Presumably they get some financial support in exchange but the USPTO is self-funded so no slush fund adventures are needed.

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300765)

What it is about is placating all of the ironically-mustached hipster-faggots and fat chicks with pink hair and thick-rimmed glasses who think they're coders because they wrote 5 lines in Ruby, who are starting to feel a bit disenfranchised by their votes for Grand Dictator Baraq Hussein Sotero.
 
 

" Legalize marijuana? Ha! Fuck you! Clemency for Snowden? Ha! Fuck you! Oh, fine, I'll give you one...something about patents because your pirated music video was taken down from YouTube on the prompt of a DMCA request, and hoping to patent is the only chance in hell your fantasies have at getting you rich since there are no real jobs for you all living in your parents' basements. "

Did you see that last paragraph above? Grand Dictator-for-life Baraq Hussein Sotero really, really said that after the cameras stopped rolling and the mics were shut off, but you all are too stupid and thick-skulled to read behind the lines.

--Ethanol "fuck beta -Fueled

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301323)

and right wing trolls continue to try and poison people against the democratic party

no lie is too outrageous for a desperate gop

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (-1, Troll)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#46302893)

It's not just right wing trolls. Moms, Dads, the Postman, the old lady down the block, everyone hates the Democrats. Don't feel bad though, they hate the Republicans and don't trust the Libertarians and righteously so. These are all people who claim to want to serve the country, but wind up serving themselves from the sweat of our labor, kind of like we are livestock. Meanwhile, a media, hungry for exclusives (or just not wanting to be left out for competition reasons) will relate any bullshit the politicos want to fool us back into being peaceful livestock.
So YES, EVERYONE HATES THE DEMOCRATS (except for the most foolish swine).
DUH!

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (1)

jythie (914043) | about 9 months ago | (#46303319)

It is a pity voting (in our system especially, damn math!) results in 'who do I hate the least?' decision making.

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#46313867)

A vote for M.Mouse, Bozo T. Clown (who incidentally got the most votes of all in the 70s/80s) J.R.Bob Dobbs and others is a vote your conscience will give you a beer for later.

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about 9 months ago | (#46304159)

It's not just right wing trolls. Moms, Dads, the Postman, the old lady down the block, everyone hates the Democrats. Don't feel bad though, they hate the Republicans and don't trust the Libertarians and righteously so.

Where the hell do you live, that your family and neighbors are all so keenly aware? Everywhere I've been, you have one big group of drooling idiots who treat their party like a friggin' sports team and never put any thought beyond what some PR drone tells them to think. I want to live where you live.

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#46313875)

Oh, just get in your car and drive where houses are only one or two stories and don't look alike. The rest are just Hollywood sets for Movies and Nightly News programs.

Re: A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46312341)

I don't dislike the democrats. With Republicans, the number of forclosures would have been 20 times worse. Republicans would have let the car industry die, then let the employee. benefits be wiped out,and then purchase the remains at ten cents on the dollar.
Its too bad that the Republicans blocked most of the best legislation in Congress.
It is too bad that lobbyists representing big financial interests sway the lawmakers to vote partially.

Re: A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior a (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#46313847)

Yeah but together they've driven us to the brink of shit over the last century. Who did what is kinda irrelevant, because what one doesn't the other will given a far too short amount of time . So therefore their assumptions about foreign policy, economy, Nat'l debt mean shit as well. Everyone who isn't focusing on their shoelaces and can see past the horseshit fed us,is waiting for the levy to break.So what can I say kind about either? Not a fucking thing. Maybe I hope they get leprous syphilitic sores on their internal hemorrhoids. But, I'm a humanitarian.

Steve Jobbs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302561)

I find it ironic that you're calling people stupid for not falling in line lock in step with corporate culture because they've been brainwashed by the media owned by that corporate culture.

Here's the thing about that word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46303305)

I don't think you know the meaning of the word "really". It implies a fact. When your post is a hate-fueled diatribe of gloating over some self declared win that only you can perceive, it really takes any chance of doing anything other than alienating people whom, I'm guessing you'd like to see your point of view, and flushes it away. Perhaps...and this is just a thought, you may not want to insult those with whom your opinions differ, tone down your rhetoric so you at least appear to not be a sociopath and troll, and actually add something to the conversation instead of typical right wing propaganda. Spelling the name of the person with whom you politically disagree is plainly childish and makes you seem like you are too stupid and thick skulled to read.

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 9 months ago | (#46300551)

Nope. Maybe you should take a look before opening your yap?

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (4, Informative)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 9 months ago | (#46300601)

Why "nope"? Stackexchange seems like a great (crowdsourced) medium for exactly this. Already a patent application has been struck down thanks to prior art discovered via that site [joelonsoftware.com] .

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300907)

Why "nope"? Stackexchange seems like a great (crowdsourced) medium for exactly this.

Maybe he was implying that a web site from the Obama administration would be more like healthcare.gov, not exactly great or useful.

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#46301475)

Nope. Maybe you should take a look before opening your yap?

Kindly put down your ideological/political biases for a moment... as sibling mentioned, the site is a perfect analog for what Obama is proposing.

From what I see, I find it strange that the President would have his staff put out a website, instead of, you know, trying to talk to the Senate about putting something forward to rectify the patent mess. After all, his party does dominate the Senate side of Congress, and I bet it wouldn't be that hard to get folks from among the opposition to join in. What, you ask? Glad you asked: For instance, there was once a rule that you had to present a working physical model of your idea to the USPTO before it could be patented... so why not reinstate that?

Hell - he doesn't even need to involve Congress: Why not issue an executive order to have the USPTO define a patentable idea as something with a physical basis as a critical portion of the proposed patent. Why not have the USPTO put an automatic 18-24 month hold on all inbound software patents? Lots of options open to him... but a website that someone else has already implemented to do the same thing? Makes no sense, and has a danger of diluting the whole reason for having such a website in the first place.

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (0)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#46302913)

I see your point, but I gotta agree with others, given the success of the Healthcare website or the pockmark of the petition website, I don't hold out much hope for a government organized anything. The man has been in office 5+ years, if he is successful in this, it will only be the second thing he has EVER done that makes a desireable difference for the people. Getting off the ridiculous Marijuana mantra would be the first. At least we can start keeping dangerous offenders IN prison instead of putting them on probation to make bed-space for potheads. This has taken HOW MANY YEARS, since it was made illegal to satisfy the paper and cotton industries of the early 20th century?
Two things in 5 years and I'm still can't my breath on either.

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#46302923)

hold, hold my breath...

Re:A new crowdsourcing initiative to find prior ar (3, Informative)

slew (2918) | about 9 months ago | (#46300835)

Of course the USPTO is aware of this as mentioned in their 2012 press release [uspto.gov] ...

Here's an excerpt from the WH press release...

Today, the USPTO is announcing that it is exploring a series of measures to make it easier for the public to provide information about relevant prior art in patent applications, including by refining its third-party submission program, exploring other ways for the public to submit prior art to the agency, and updating its guidance and training to empower examiners to more effectively use crowd-sourced prior art.

The mere collection of this information, although important, is not what is being addressed here. The USPTO has a complex procedure in place to insert 3rd party information into a patent file for consideration by the examiner. Basically you can only submit other patents or papers (no explanations, analysis, comments, instructions, protest or wild-ass-diatribes allowed). There is also a time window, specific forms and a submission fee and a requirement that the submission be directed at a specific pending patent and limited to 10 items.

Of course the examiner is somewhat free to consider third party resources (like AskPatents), but they are often leery of doing so as third-party participation in the examining process is strictly regulated by statute. AFAIK, this is because examiners aren't supposed to consider pre-publication protests or other opposition in determining the validity of a patent application, only technical information, not opinions of others (like competitor companies or people with axes to grind).

Hopefully, this initiative will streamline the process of getting them relevant technical information w/o the inevitable chaff that tends to go along with crowdsourcing sites. Just because a document gets uploaded to a crowdsourcing site doesn't mean it's a legitimate document. Some people have an agenda, ya know...

The white house breeds superheros too (0)

ynoref (3297285) | about 9 months ago | (#46300501)

I heard that the White House is also full of the world's top geneticists and they are breeding superheros.
 

Chickens...roost (-1, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 9 months ago | (#46300555)

I guess the President's corporate sponsors have figured out that patent trolls are an expensive nuisance.

So Obama's going to go after patent trolls while pushing for international trade agreements that will allow the biggest corporations to use IP laws to further crush competition and keep regular people poor. Typical.

I'm furious with myself for ever having supported that guy.

Re:Chickens...roost (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 9 months ago | (#46300593)

S he does good things, and the you bitch?

And then you wrap it up with what is clearly a lack of understanding about the trade agreements.

It's not him, it's you. You are stupid, and you are just looking fore excuses.
The fact that nearly every thing people complain about him is false tells me he must be doing something right.

Re:Chickens...roost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300711)

Even Mao did something right from time to time.

Re:Chickens...roost (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300991)

Everything is false?

4 people didn't get killed in Bengazi and the only one punished was a filmmaker in California, not even attempting to go after murderers.
Snowden isn't exiled by him for whistleblowing on the NSA, who is continueing on their illegal wiretapping.
Obamacare didn't cause twice as many people to lose health insurance as got it from the bill, meanwhile increasing the cost for the rest of us.
He didn't campaign on the executive abusing power by going around Congress and then just announce he is going around Congress.
200 people are not dead in Mexico from a gun running operaion gone wrong where the only ones fired were the whistelblowers.
He didn't send Clapper to Congress to outright lie about what the NSA is doing.

I think you are stupid if you think ANY of those are false.

Oh FFS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46303399)

If you're going to spew garbage at least make it hard to disprove.

Benghazi is a sovereign country, and it's rather hard to investigate there. On top of that we know the group that incited the violence and that they did indeed use the video to get more people to join.

NSA point is dead on

Obamacare screwed up the launch, prices were going to rise anyways, in fact rate of rise went down.

He's issued fewer executive orders than his predecessors and Congress themselves declared that they weren't going to do anything to work with him. In fact Congress was the least productive Congress ever. To get anything done, he HAS to go around them.

People in Mexico are dead from cartel violence and a botched operation. Yup it was a screw up. Sometimes that happens. No the whistleblowers shouldn't have been punished. Blame the cartels for the violence and the death, blame the administration for the failed operation.

Do you really think someone legally obliged to keep secrets can, in open session, tell the truth? Of course he was going to lie. He would go to jail otherwise.

I don't have to think you're stupid. I know it.

Re:Chickens...roost (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46301157)

He does good things, and the you bitch?

Obama could buy everyone in America free donuts and this site would find a way to complain about it.

isn't Michelle outlawing those? (-1, Troll)

raymorris (2726007) | about 9 months ago | (#46301345)

That would be rather inconsistent. Isn't the first lady's big thing getting sweets banned?

Re:isn't Michelle outlawing those? (2, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46301643)

Isn't the first lady's big thing getting sweets banned?

No. That would be the Rush Limbaugh version of what she's been doing. In reality, she promotes exercise for kids.

Was kidding, but no. "Actionable federal govt food (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 9 months ago | (#46301995)

I was joking obviously, but no, that's simply incorrect. She outlines her agenda in a document about 20 pages long entitled "summary of recommendations". You'll notice the word "food" appears four times as often as the word "exercise". In fact, she mentions "screen time" as often as she mentions exercise.

Her agenda items include "the federal government should pursue actionable items [to create] food boards ... set food policy". Whether you agree with her or not, her stated mission is to have the federal government decide what you eat and what you don't, see to it that you eat healthly food. Maybe that's what Washington should be doing, maybe it's not. It's absolutely what Mrs. Obama is seeking to have Washington do. Go read her web site.

Re:Was kidding, but no. "Actionable federal govt f (4, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46302075)

"the federal government should pursue actionable items [to create] food boards ... set food policy"

That means things like "Public schools shouldn't serve pizza and french fries every day". Mine did. It does not mean "Pizza should be banned from existence".

that, and FCC control of food advertising, etc (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 9 months ago | (#46304497)

School lunches are a big part, yes. Also her proposals include things like having the FCC limit advertising of foods that the government considers to be suboptimal choices. There's a lot of food related stuff, more food related than exercise related.

Personally , I think the local school should serve healthy food. I'm glad that decades ago the FDA started putting out guidance, suggestions, that assist local school districts with healthy menu planning. I don't see any need for local citizens to pay $10,000 in taxes to Washington, who takes their cut before sending $7,000 to the state, who takes their cut before sending $5,000 back to the local area. Federal bureaucracy to buy lunch is just silly.

It's also the local dieticians who are best able to work with local needs and tastes. Here in Texas, kids will eat burritos, they won't eat fish and chips. I bet in Massachusetts it's the other way around. Federal bureaucrats making more menu decisions for local schools isn't going to work too well, I don't think.

Re:that, and FCC control of food advertising, etc (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46307137)

. I don't see any need for local citizens to pay $10,000 in taxes to Washington, who takes their cut before sending $7,000 to the state, who takes their cut before sending $5,000 back to the local area.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Texas get $57B more in federal spending than it sends to Washington in taxes. Your lavish lifestyles are being subsidized by New York, California, and Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

willful blindness makes it hard to see, huh? (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 9 months ago | (#46307373)

> You have no idea what you're talking about.

Then you're trying so hard to defend stupid that you've made yourself dense.
According to your link, US citizens send $2.9 trillion to Washington, who sends $500 billion to states, who send $100 billion back to the same localities it came from.

If that seems like a good idea to you, I've got something you'll love. I'm sure you'll get excited about this. You send me$1,000 and I'll send $250 of it to my wife, who will send $100 to you! Yay, you get $100! I'll pm my address to you.

Re:willful blindness makes it hard to see, huh? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46309225)

Are you looking at the right page?

The Federal government collects $2.5T in taxes and spends $2.9T.

Re:isn't Michelle outlawing those? (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 9 months ago | (#46302179)

First, props to the uber cool username. I like it! And you musta had style even back in the 1990s with that Slashdot id.

That being said, you don't remember Michelle Obama trying to make sure kids aren't fattying up with cookies, potato chips and french fries at lunch?

And fruck you for not saying "Gee -- yeah she did that because kids should eat a healthy lunch" --- instead you puss out and deny it -- instead of doing the right thing and defend it.

Weak.

Re:isn't Michelle outlawing those? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46302249)

Michelle Obama trying to make sure kids aren't fattying up with cookies, potato chips and french fries at lunch?

The lunch served at public schools with federal money. You think that's equivalent to "getting sweets banned"?

Re:Chickens...roost (5, Funny)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 9 months ago | (#46301881)

Yes it would be a diabolical communistic liberal plot to give every god fearing red blooded American diabetes to make them dependent on the government and make government larger.

That's all Obama ever does, that is make government bigger. Obama is responsible for the massive increase in Federal spending, even under the Bush years. He's especially responsible for the financial meltdown started during the second Bush term that was triggered by financial deregulation passed by a veto proof margin of a completely republican controlled congress during the Clinton years.And he's liberal, and we all know Liberal is bad bad bad. And he's so liberal he's just one step from being Karl Marx himself. And the lead singer of Korn told me he single handily wrote legislation that gives him the power to kill any american he wants and no republican was involved in the passage of that bill. And before I forget, he created (and only he created) the TSA to make sure he can personally fondle grannies and little kids and he plans to use the TSA to seize permanent control of the US!

Re:Chickens...roost (0)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46301907)

Obama is responsible for the massive increase in Federal spending, even under the Bush years.

The President has no authority over Federal spending. Congress does. The President submits a budget proposal. Congress throws that in the garbage and creates an actual budget. Once passed by both houses, the President cannot realistically veto it.

Re:Chickens...roost (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 9 months ago | (#46301913)

Apparently GP forgot the <SARCASM> tags.

Re:Chickens...roost (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 9 months ago | (#46301949)

Obama is responsible for the massive increase in Federal spending, even under the Bush years.

The President has no authority over Federal spending....

Man, that's the loudest WHOOOSH I've heard in a while.

Re:Chickens...roost (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46302077)

Doh. I didn't read past the sentence I quoted- which I see spouted in earnest every day on this site. I thought they meant to write "even more than under the Bush years" and fucked it up because they're stupid.

Oh well.

Re:Chickens...roost (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 9 months ago | (#46302185)

Okay so you crapped your pants but no one said you needed to do it in public.

Get some respect, man.

Re:Chickens...roost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301951)

You know who else "focused on identifying prior art"? Hitler.

This is just more of Obama's Communism, as he tries to destroy America because he hates everyone but himself. Or something. I think it has to do with making Kenya better by comparison, but I'm waiting for Fox News to update me on this.

Re:Chickens...roost (1, Redundant)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 9 months ago | (#46302165)

"Obama could buy everyone in America free donuts"

With 10% of the USA on food stamps, you are jackass for not thinking Obama ISN'T buying everyone donuts.

He IS buying everyone DONUTS!

Re:Chickens...roost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46304995)

> Obama could buy everyone in America free donuts and this site would find a way to complain about it.

He could also close Gitmo, but there's no way he'll do either of those things.

obliged... (1)

slew (2918) | about 9 months ago | (#46305121)

He does good things, and the you bitch?

Obama could buy everyone in America free donuts and this site would find a way to complain about it.

Obama could buy everyone in America free donuts and this site would find a way to complain about it.

Free donuts may cause weight problems and increase health care costs.
Also how will dunkn donuts compete with free donuts being handed out by the government, think of the job loss.
Perhaps we need price supports for the oat farmers to compensate for lost revenue.
Who gets to decided what type of donut? Do beignets count?
Are there going to be no-bid contracts awarded for the making of donuts?
Unionize the workers, or make companies involved with donuts implement new federal contract minimum wage of $10.10/hr.
Need a have USDA work on a standard grading scheme for donuts (analogous to catsup [usda.gov] ).
Must appropriate money to revise the recently revised USDA "competitive food standards" disallowing most donuts provided to school children (even if free).
Are GM ingredients being used?
What type of fat? Corn-oil? Lard?
Are they Kosher? Are they Halal? How do we respect all religions? Are "noodlie" appendage donuts allowed?
What about gluten free? Are we discriminating against these people?
Can't use red sprinkles, they are made from bug parts (think of the vegetarians and vegans).
How about the sugar, is it real sucrose, or HFCS, or *gasp* one of the artificial sweeteners that cause cancer!
Government contract should specify the used oil be recycled for alternative fuel vehicles.
1000 page bill needs to be passed w/o reading followed by 12M words of regulations need to be generated by the executive branch...
How to reconcile this policy with Michelle's Let's Move initiative?
Maybe the 1% should pay for their own damn donuts...

Yeah, these are a few reasons why the government shouldn't get involved with give-aways (donuts or otherwise).
Sometimes the government should just do less...

Re:Chickens...roost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46311593)

Obama could buy everyone in America free donuts and this site would find a way to complain about it.

The USA has an obesity epidemic, and you want the government handing out highly caloric food with little or no nutritional value?

Re:Chickens...roost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301269)

Thank you for the incredibly literate, well thought out response. Indeed, it is pithy comments like this that have led to me not bothering to log into slashdot anymore.

Re:Chickens...roost (1, Troll)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#46301523)

You are stupid, and you are just looking fore excuses.
The fact that nearly every thing people complain about him is false tells me he must be doing something right.

1) How the frig did this ever get modded "Insightful"?

2) define "nearly every thing".

  • -- His administration botched the healthcare.gov rollout - big-time.
  • -- The ACA itself is unwieldy and unworkable, as attested to by his own delays of the enforced mandate on businesses, the demands by its political supporters for exemptions from it, and the demonstrable *increase* in medical/insurance costs for the vast majority of people in the middle class who are forced to use it.
  • -- He completely mis-handled the whole Benghazi attacks - first withholding nearby military help, then blaming a YouTube video(!?) as the cause after quite a few unnecessary deaths.
  • -- Loudly threatening to attack Syria when the rest of the US was screaming at him to shut the hell up, costing the nation a lot of prestige as Vladimir Putin had to come in and put a stop to the threats.
  • -- His strident partisan rhetoric and unwillingness to even think of working with the opposition is bald-faced and public. The opposition aren't angels either, but damn - at least Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter... all of them worked with Congress to get things done. Why can't Obama? It's not as if Congress was some sort of angelic, tame creature in previous administrations...
  • -- We have yet to see a proposed annual budget from this administration, period.
  • -- Preaching about income equality while his wife wears a dress that costs more than the average annual wage at poverty level? Really? I know this isn't a policy complaint, but damn that's just crass.

There's many more, but seriously, put the koolaid down. The man isn't a demon, but he certainly isn't a messiah.

Re:Chickens...roost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301653)

He's done a lot about the NSA, hasn't he.

Re:Chickens...roost (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 9 months ago | (#46301953)

And you seem unable to connect the dots. I'm with His Holiness on this one.

Re:Chickens...roost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302015)

S he does good things, and the you bitch?

What the fuck does that even mean?

Re:Chickens...roost (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 9 months ago | (#46302153)

Typos. Bad grammars. Calling someone stupid. What's not to love?

But -- hey -- let's mod a political screed up because it responds to another political screed. Protip: A true artisan can pants a political screed without gutter diving and name calling.

Re:Chickens...roost (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 9 months ago | (#46303081)

You are stupid, and you are just looking fore excuses.

Kind of ironic you should be calling other people stupid when you can't spell "for"....

Re:Chickens...roost (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300783)

I'm furious with myself for ever having supported that guy.

And you should be.... He did even worse to health care... Just remember, "we told you so" (the Tea Party).

Bureaucratic solution is not a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300569)

this is Bureaucratic solution, and it is is not a solution

Re:Bureaucratic solution is not a solution (4, Funny)

guises (2423402) | about 9 months ago | (#46300655)

It's a bureaucratic problem. What are you suggesting, a military solution?

Re:Bureaucratic solution is not a solution (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 9 months ago | (#46300755)

Ohhh, could we launch an ICBM at the next patent troll? Pretty please? *puppyeyes*

Shock and awe might actually work for a change.

Re:Bureaucratic solution is not a solution (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 9 months ago | (#46300793)

It's a bureaucratic problem. What are you suggesting, a military solution?

Naw... How about un-red taping the red tape?

Re:Bureaucratic solution is not a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301003)

All this does is talk about the problem, it doesn't do anything to solve it. But we should be used to that kind of Hope and Change from the speech reader.

True. solve problems with same level of thinking? (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 9 months ago | (#46301375)

I can't decide if that's a great point or off the mark.

The patent office bureaucracy has approved a bunch of bad patents.Improving
  that bureaucratic process may well improve the results. On the other hand:

We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.
Albert Einstein

Perhaps a bold, strong new leader at the patent office who did a lot of new things, including soliciting public comment, could make a big difference. Someone like Robert Gates, for example, could probably greatly improve things without any fundamental changes to the underlying law. Just ACTUALLY deny patents where there is prior art, etc.

Fix the Patent Office (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300589)

He could start by telling the Patent Office to stop rewarding examiners based on issuing patents and more on the quality of decisions.

Obama hasn't been paying attention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300599)

Prior Art is now irrelevant, because we've switched from "first to invent" to "first to file."

It doesn't matter who invents it first anymore, and therefore prior art is irrelevant.

Re:Obama hasn't been paying attention (1, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 9 months ago | (#46301241)

I'm sorry, did you fall off the short yellow bus?
first to file has nothing to do with prior art.
The rest of the world has been doing it that way for a long time.

Re:Obama hasn't been paying attention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302205)

You don't know what you are talking about. An invention, if made public before patenting, is prior art. It doesn't matter who publishes the invention, if people outside the circle of those doing the "inventing" or patenting knows about the invention, it's public.

I Don't See The Problem Is... (3, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about 9 months ago | (#46300607)

On the one hand we have patent trolls, and on the other we have a large fleet of drones armed with hellfire missiles. Seems like somewhere in the middle should be a solution!

Re:I Don't See The Problem Is... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 9 months ago | (#46300653)

What's wrong with Drones?

Re:I Don't See The Problem Is... (0)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#46301165)

They do the exact same things that manned aircraft have been doing for 60 years, but because the pilot doesn't sit inside it's a big outrage for some reason.

Re:I Don't See The Problem Is... (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#46301539)

On the one hand we have patent trolls, and on the other we have a large fleet of drones armed with hellfire missiles. Seems like somewhere in the middle should be a solution!

I'm kind of hoping that a certain courthouse in East Texas is located in that middle ground... and that the missles are nuclear-tipped.

Or we could just go back to the Constitution (5, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 9 months ago | (#46300623)

Originally patents were for 13 years with one renewal by the original Person that applies and copyright was for 17 years with one renewal by the original Person that applies.

Go back to that and all the problems disappear.

Re:Or we could just go back to the Constitution (0)

bobbied (2522392) | about 9 months ago | (#46300801)

Originally patents were for 13 years with one renewal by the original Person that applies and copyright was for 17 years with one renewal by the original Person that applies.

Go back to that and all the problems disappear.

Along with most of the patents in the world... But that's your point right?

Re:Or we could just go back to the Constitution (1)

bjwest (14070) | about 9 months ago | (#46304653)

Originally patents were for 13 years with one renewal by the original Person that applies and copyright was for 17 years with one renewal by the original Person that applies.

Go back to that and all the problems disappear.

Along with most of the patents in the world... But that's your point right?

And what's your problem with that? Patents and copyrights weren't intended for the perpetual siphoning of money to the corporations and descendants of the inventor/creator. If you can't make back your investment in 13 years with plenty of profit to spare, oh well. If someone else comes along after that, finds a market, and makes a profit - well sucks to be you, you blew it.. If you're living off the royalties of your grandfathers, or even fathers work, then get off your lazy ass and do something yourself.

Re:Or we could just go back to the Constitution (1)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about 9 months ago | (#46300813)

This sounds like common sense. Where did we go wrong? Oh yeah, government officials, lobbyists, and money!!!

Re:Or we could just go back to the Constitution (4, Informative)

hey! (33014) | about 9 months ago | (#46300963)

Originally patents were for 13 years with one renewal by the original Person that applies and copyright was for 17 years with one renewal by the original Person that applies.

Sure, but none of that is actually in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to secure exculsive rights to inventors "for limited Times[sic]", without stipulating any actual limit. For practical purposes this enables Congress to extend patents and copyrights indefinitely.

The framers were men of remarkable vision to understand that patents were needed all the way back in 1787, but they weren't supermen or fortune tellers. They did not foresee the rise of corporations to become the dominant force in American society, or the uses they would dream up for the patent system. I doubt they ever imagined anything like a business methods patent, or a design patent, or the notion of Federal trademark law.

Re:Or we could just go back to the Constitution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301921)

The lived in a time that mega companies like the VoC existed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

The VoC had 50,000 employees and a private army of 10,000. This company was allowed to wage and start wars in name of the Netherlands, including deciding with whom to go to war with.

Now big companies like IBM has 400,000 employees, but don't forget that the world population has also grown from 1 bil to 6 bil. Which makes the size of IBM in the same order of magnitude of the size of the VoC.

Re:Or we could just go back to the Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46307329)

By extending patents and copyrights indefinitely, Congress is ignoring the 'limited Times' clause.

I think it's pretty obvious that a 'limited Time' was meant to be disclosed up front.

I also think the USPTO should be held liable for any patent struck down due to prior art or overly broad. If that means they would be terrified to issue patents, so be it.

Re:Or we could just go back to the Constitution (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 9 months ago | (#46302865)

Patents are only 20 years now -- if the renewal used to be another 13 years for 26 total, does that mean patent terms have been shortened?

Great...now just take care of the 2 biggest! (1)

John Nemesh (3244653) | about 9 months ago | (#46300659)

They need to do something about Apple and Microsoft...while not "trolls" in the strict definition of the word (since they do actually make things), they are still 2 of the biggest abusers of the system!

This seems problematic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300743)

From TFA:

"Even if a patent is expired, the patent owner has six years from the expiration date to file a lawsuit in order to collect monetary damages for past infringement before the expiration date. . . Also, note that the claims of a patent can be invalidated by federal courts and/or the USPTO prior to their expiration, but not afterwards.

My new business plan:
1. File completely bogus patents
2. Wait for them to expire
3. Sue everyone!

BRB, patenting this business model...

They take steps against everyone (-1, Troll)

amightywind (691887) | about 9 months ago | (#46300759)

Increasingly lawless and corrupt, the Obama regime is taking steps against everyone whether they have the authority or no.

Re:They take steps against everyone (-1, Troll)

bobbied (2522392) | about 9 months ago | (#46300831)

What's "having authority" got to do with it... He's got his pen and he's not afraid to use it. Constitution or no...

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

Re:They take steps against everyone (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 9 months ago | (#46301075)

Are still carrying that incompetent's water? You people are the enemies of America. You will submit to turbo-capitalism.

How about the REAL link? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46300781)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/patents

Yet... (1)

edibobb (113989) | about 9 months ago | (#46301371)

...no ban on intuitively obvious software patents? No ban on trivial business process patents? No legal fees to victims winning lawsuits against patent trolls? Sounds like more political theater to me.

Intelectual property hurting business (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 9 months ago | (#46301745)

and stagnating innovaton, say it aint so...

Legislation against patent trolls (1)

gwstuff (2067112) | about 9 months ago | (#46301793)

It's unfortunate that the USPTO's new director and the White House are not taking aim at patent trolls specifically, but rather trying to deal with them by revamping the criteria for patentability in general. Patent trolls are bad enough that they ought to be treated as a first class problem. Even if it became next to impossible to patent prior art, trolls would still end up getting such patents and prevent companies from building things until they pay up. Maybe something like "You can't file a patent lawsuit unless you have a legitimate product based on the inventions described in the patent."

Hrm.. corporate sponsorship? (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 9 months ago | (#46302105)

You know, a few years ago it was kinda "unheard" of that the major corps would go at each other for patent issues, due to a sort of weird MAD scenario. Everyone would cross-license and be done with it. But with the latest rounds of patent cases, you'd think the companies would start hiring small armies of researchers to not only investigate entire portfolios of their competition, but also their competitions' applications for new patents.

10 steps to improve the patent system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302419)

http://blog.prevalent.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/10-steps-to-improve-the-patent-system.pdf

Waste of time (0)

Chas (5144) | about 9 months ago | (#46302421)

So they basically went for a "feel good" solution with ZERO teeth that's only purpose is to duplicate functionality in the patent challenge space already fulfilled by other, better run sites that DON'T have to deal with government bullshit and won't fold the second a sufficiently large donation is made?

Yup. That's pretty much OhBlahBlah's entire presidency in microcosm there.

10 steps to improve the patent system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302427)

1. Technically qualified personal should review patents for technical things

2. Lawyers should review patents for legal things

3. More than a single person should review scientific parts

4. Don’t ignore any source of prior art

5. Force common vocabulary where possible

6. Make clear where the invention starts and ends

7. Pay attention whether the invention really is technical

8. Same money for applied and denied patents for the patent office

9. Make the patent office liable for bad prior art research

10. How many steps of concatenation make up a ‘new invention’?

You can download the complete paper here: http://blog.prevalent.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/10-steps-to-improve-the-patent-system.pdf

Re:10 steps to improve the patent system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302509)

You forgot to include the most important step:

X. Make sure that a person 'skilled in the craft' can create the thing being patented by using the information in the patent application.

Wasn't ensuring the spread of knowledge the whole point of patents (at least in the beginning).

Public, do the work of the patent office (1)

Kirth (183) | about 9 months ago | (#46302947)

They have the temerity to ask the public to combat the effects of a completely rampant patent system they created themselves?

In effect, they're telling you "please do the work the patent office should have done in the first place". Real nice.

Just like WH Petitions! (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 9 months ago | (#46303149)

Hey, so they want to make another site just like https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ [whitehouse.gov] with the same level of support, feedback, and quality of response, correct? /sarcasm>

a bit one-sided (1)

stevejf (2724307) | about 9 months ago | (#46306219)

The USPTO does not provide a single link for inventors or companies who have developed and patented technology to defend their rights. Not one. These types of entities deserve some sort of guidance as well.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?