4 ms·

IBM patent trolling patent application

109 points by revorad 15y ago

rsolari 15y ago
Halliburton applied for a similar patent (#20080270152) a few years ago. What's the purpose of these patents? Is it just satire or do they actually have legal value for counter suing patent trolls?
- dholowiski 15y ago
  Wouldnt that be cool, if IBM started going after patent trolls?
  - BonsaiDen 15y ago
    Fighting fire with fire hmmmm....
  - athom 15y ago
    Actually, the real win for whoever actually got such a patent would be the "no tagbacks" effect. Imagine for a moment that you were sued over a product or service another party claims infringes a patent of theirs. Then, you found out that some product they offer actually infringes one of your patents. Now, you're thinking you've got leverage to negotiate a settlement, but the other party refuses all your offers, until you're finally left with no choice to countersue. That's when you find out they actually have the patent on patent trolling! Not only can they sue anyone they like for the slightest whiff of possible infringement, but the defendant can't fight back without actually violating another patent! Quite the trump card, if you can get it.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  It's a lot of money to waste on satire. It would at least be an interesting court case if they got one of these patents issued and actually asserted it against a troll that was suing them.
- dotBen 15y ago
  What's the purpose of these patents? To stop other people doing it, would be my guess. If someone were to patent troll you (other than IBM, I guess) you could say that they were performing a practice that they didn't have the rights to practice. Essentially "hey, only IBM can patent troll me".
cube13 15y ago
IBM hasn't gotten the patent yet. It's been filed, but doesn't appear to have been awarded yet. I'm divided over this. On one hand, it's a bullshit patent that shouldn't be awarded to them, like all business process patents. So getting the patent would be a pretty bad thing. On the other hand, it would destroy the entire patent troll industry, especially if IBM used it offensively. That would be a great thing.
- powertower 15y ago
  I think the prior art would rule this one null and void.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    And yet, what does the data say about US patents and prior art? It says: We developers are #^¢&ed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
    - powertower 15y ago
      The 1-click was granted in 1999, which I can't remember anyone doing for shopping carts back then. 1999 was still the hay days of the internet and merchants weren’t really making the checkout/buy process easy. The 1-click is a good example of maybe an obvious method being patented rather than ignoring prior art.
jfb 15y ago
It's turtles all the way down.
- Splines 15y ago
  Indeed. I should create a patent that describes the use of a patent to block patent trolling.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    Just patent the patent-related patent.
    - Eliezer 15y ago
      I think what we really need is the patent on approving patents.
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        I wonder if they'll drop the ball on the prior art on that one?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
zem 15y ago
obligatory userfriendly strip: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030301 http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030301
monochromatic 15y ago
It's worth mentioning that the USPTO, which everyone here thinks will allow anything, recently issued its fifth rejection of this application.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- rbanffy 15y ago
  All this proves is that the USPTO will block a patent that could threaten the patent troll industry ;-)
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture If certain Monopolistic practices are directly illegal, what about more laws directed against Regulatory Capture?
    - anamax 15y ago
      > what about more laws directed against Regulatory Capture? Umm, regulatory capture applies to legislatures as well, not just regulatory agencies. Consider GE. Its $0 tax bill is not due to regulations, but to laws.
      - monochromatic 15y ago
        Any sensible income tax law will allow you to offset losses against gains. Otherwise it's just a revenue or cashflow tax, not an income tax.
        stcredzero 15y ago
        Why doesn't a revenue tax make sense? It may well take a lot more money to regulate an industry involving a great many transactions.
law 15y ago
Step 1: Go to http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair Step 2: Enter the captcha Step 3: Type 11/696,104 as the "Application Number" Step 4: Click the "Transaction History" tab To summarize, the PTO issued a non-final rejection of the patent on 02/07/2009. IBM responded to that on 05/11/2009, which yielded a final rejection on 08/31/2009. IBM then requested to withdraw their response to the non-final rejection (the 05/11/2009 response). On 07/01/2010, IBM filed a new response to the 02/10/2009 non-final rejection, and the PTO issued its second final rejection on 09/13/2010. IBM then made an amendment to their application, and requested a continued examination (read more about that at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/aipa/rcefaq.jsp http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/aipa/rcefaq.jsp). Then, they filed their appeal to the 09/13/2010 final rejection with the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference. The continued examination yielded the most recent non-final rejection, on 06/24/2011. IBM will likely respond in a few months, and there'll likely be another final rejection (the third) issued. Now, it's still in the hands of the BPAI, which will likely affirm the rejection. After that, IBM can appeal the Board's ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will most likely side with the PTO. It seems highly unlikely that IBM will be issued this patent, but if the final rejection is miraculously overturned, prosecution history estoppel will likely preclude IBM from doing anything meaningful with the patent, because as many of you have noted, there's plenty of prior art dated before April 2006.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  I believe the appeal is withdrawn when you file an RCE. Great explanation otherwise though.
  - law 15y ago
    Yes, you are correct. Filing the RCE after filing a notice of appeal with the BPAI is the same thing as withdrawing your appeal and filing the RCE.[1] More than likely, we can all look forward to a final rejection by the examiner sometime around October, at which point IBM will likely appeal to the BPAI once more. [1] 37 CFR 1.114(d).
    - 15y ago
teeray 15y ago
Yo dawg, so a heard you liek patent trolling...
raghava 15y ago
Then consider this list of such filed patents (just filed, not yet awarded) http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&OS=DN%2F20090288018&RS=DN%2F20090288018&TD=1&Srch1=%252220090288018%2522.PGNR.&StartNum=&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=an%2Finfosys-technologies%24 http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se... #20100082494 tops them all I guess.

109 points by revorad 15y ago

Halliburton applied for a similar patent (#20080270152) a few years ago. What's the purpose of these patents? Is it just satire or do they actually have legal value for counter suing patent trolls?

dholowiski 15y ago
Wouldnt that be cool, if IBM started going after patent trolls?
- BonsaiDen 15y ago
  Fighting fire with fire hmmmm....
- athom 15y ago
  Actually, the real win for whoever actually got such a patent would be the "no tagbacks" effect. Imagine for a moment that you were sued over a product or service another party claims infringes a patent of theirs. Then, you found out that some product they offer actually infringes one of your patents. Now, you're thinking you've got leverage to negotiate a settlement, but the other party refuses all your offers, until you're finally left with no choice to countersue. That's when you find out they actually have the patent on patent trolling! Not only can they sue anyone they like for the slightest whiff of possible infringement, but the defendant can't fight back without actually violating another patent! Quite the trump card, if you can get it.
monochromatic 15y ago
It's a lot of money to waste on satire. It would at least be an interesting court case if they got one of these patents issued and actually asserted it against a troll that was suing them.
dotBen 15y ago
What's the purpose of these patents? To stop other people doing it, would be my guess. If someone were to patent troll you (other than IBM, I guess) you could say that they were performing a practice that they didn't have the rights to practice. Essentially "hey, only IBM can patent troll me".

cube13 15y ago

IBM hasn't gotten the patent yet. It's been filed, but doesn't appear to have been awarded yet. I'm divided over this. On one hand, it's a bullshit patent that shouldn't be awarded to them, like all business process patents. So getting the patent would be a pretty bad thing. On the other hand, it would destroy the entire patent troll industry, especially if IBM used it offensively. That would be a great thing.

powertower 15y ago
I think the prior art would rule this one null and void.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  And yet, what does the data say about US patents and prior art? It says: We developers are #^¢&ed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
  - powertower 15y ago
    The 1-click was granted in 1999, which I can't remember anyone doing for shopping carts back then. 1999 was still the hay days of the internet and merchants weren’t really making the checkout/buy process easy. The 1-click is a good example of maybe an obvious method being patented rather than ignoring prior art.

jfb 15y ago

It's turtles all the way down.

Splines 15y ago
Indeed. I should create a patent that describes the use of a patent to block patent trolling.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  Just patent the patent-related patent.
  - Eliezer 15y ago
    I think what we really need is the patent on approving patents.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      I wonder if they'll drop the ball on the prior art on that one?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

zem 15y ago

obligatory userfriendly strip: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030301 http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030301

monochromatic 15y ago

It's worth mentioning that the USPTO, which everyone here thinks will allow anything, recently issued its fifth rejection of this application.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rbanffy 15y ago
All this proves is that the USPTO will block a patent that could threaten the patent troll industry ;-)
- stcredzero 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture If certain Monopolistic practices are directly illegal, what about more laws directed against Regulatory Capture?
  - anamax 15y ago
    > what about more laws directed against Regulatory Capture? Umm, regulatory capture applies to legislatures as well, not just regulatory agencies. Consider GE. Its $0 tax bill is not due to regulations, but to laws.
    - monochromatic 15y ago
      Any sensible income tax law will allow you to offset losses against gains. Otherwise it's just a revenue or cashflow tax, not an income tax.
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        Why doesn't a revenue tax make sense? It may well take a lot more money to regulate an industry involving a great many transactions.

law 15y ago

Step 1: Go to http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair Step 2: Enter the captcha Step 3: Type 11/696,104 as the "Application Number" Step 4: Click the "Transaction History" tab To summarize, the PTO issued a non-final rejection of the patent on 02/07/2009. IBM responded to that on 05/11/2009, which yielded a final rejection on 08/31/2009. IBM then requested to withdraw their response to the non-final rejection (the 05/11/2009 response). On 07/01/2010, IBM filed a new response to the 02/10/2009 non-final rejection, and the PTO issued its second final rejection on 09/13/2010. IBM then made an amendment to their application, and requested a continued examination (read more about that at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/aipa/rcefaq.jsp http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/aipa/rcefaq.jsp). Then, they filed their appeal to the 09/13/2010 final rejection with the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference. The continued examination yielded the most recent non-final rejection, on 06/24/2011. IBM will likely respond in a few months, and there'll likely be another final rejection (the third) issued. Now, it's still in the hands of the BPAI, which will likely affirm the rejection. After that, IBM can appeal the Board's ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will most likely side with the PTO. It seems highly unlikely that IBM will be issued this patent, but if the final rejection is miraculously overturned, prosecution history estoppel will likely preclude IBM from doing anything meaningful with the patent, because as many of you have noted, there's plenty of prior art dated before April 2006.

monochromatic 15y ago
I believe the appeal is withdrawn when you file an RCE. Great explanation otherwise though.
- law 15y ago
  Yes, you are correct. Filing the RCE after filing a notice of appeal with the BPAI is the same thing as withdrawing your appeal and filing the RCE.[1] More than likely, we can all look forward to a final rejection by the examiner sometime around October, at which point IBM will likely appeal to the BPAI once more. [1] 37 CFR 1.114(d).
  - 15y ago

teeray 15y ago

Yo dawg, so a heard you liek patent trolling...

raghava 15y ago

Then consider this list of such filed patents (just filed, not yet awarded) http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&OS=DN%2F20090288018&RS=DN%2F20090288018&TD=1&Srch1=%252220090288018%2522.PGNR.&StartNum=&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=an%2Finfosys-technologies%24 http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se... #20100082494 tops them all I guess.