2 ms·

> (It boils my blood that the patent system rewards the people who essentially “call dibs” on ideas like this, instead of the people who build things.) To me t

> (It boils my blood that the patent system rewards the people who essentially “call dibs” on ideas like this, instead of the people who build things.) To me that's a really bad take, obsessing on builders, do you see how much additional wasted energy and mindshare that requires? "woah hey there, I don't respect you because what I wanted you to do was build the security apparatus and tray system yourself and find the product market fit yourself, despite the TSA monopoly on all the checkpoints, don't worry about that part its about how much I respect you, not the higher capital requirements, time requirements and worthlessness of attempting any of this!"

mindslight 5y ago
You've got a valid general point about the scapegoating of NPEs. But it isn't applicable here, where the lack of building being referenced is the seeming impossibility of doing anything novel and non-obvious with plastic bins. If you click through to the patent filing (linked elsewhere in this thread), the claims are quite easy to read. If someone notices something novel in the claims that I've missed, I'd love to be wrong and learn about some fantastic new invention for plastic bins. But all indications are that this is yet another utterly bullshit patent that should never have been granted.
- paulgb 5y ago
  Yes, exactly, you put it better than I could have.
- vmception 5y ago
  Right, I actually disagree still, not because of the genericness of the patent itself but because it was a good finesse. And also because we are looking at it from 2021's eyes and not 2001's eyes. We need to rewind to 2001 and 2002 here, where the priority date of this patent begins. TSA was created as part of a series of kneejerk reactions to the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in November 2001. Congress was merely a tool here as there was almost zero original bills passed, just pet projects that enterprisers and war hawks had already written as bills, forwarded to their favorite committees when it was convenient. Within 8 months this person has their provisional patent filed that predicts how these checkpoints will be structured and how they could further function. July 2002. Here, I agree that it was patentable because this level of security really was not in use anywhere back then. There was no need for an efficient baggage binning system back then. Just a few government buildings had scanners for just a couple people at a time. The TSA did not implement this until after this patent holder presented the proposal to them. The TSA also had a choice of not doing these obvious things. The patent system allows for infinite permutations to be patented, as well as patents to cover many of those permutations. The TSA did a very specific one, this isn't really that ambiguous. I agree with the patent examiner, I agree with the judge. Also thank you for validating my point about how non-practicing entities get scapegoated way too much, I appreciate that. Hope my perspective still offers more insight others can agree with.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I'd say the shape of our disagreement here follows a fundamental problem with the patent system. It's impossible to directly refute the argument that it only seems obvious in retrospect, short of finding some people who became isolated/frozen/etc in Y2K and asking them to judge. Which is why we look to prior art. But that forms a much weaker argument - while we've seen stackable bins and bin aggregation carts for decades, we hadn't seen them in use at high volume invasive security checkpoints, as such checkpoints didn't exist before. Does applying a longstanding technology to a newly needed purpose constitute invention? The patent system asserts that this answer is undecidable, and thus defaults to issuing a patent. Whereas to everyone else looking at the constructive behavior of this system, it looks an awful lot like lawyers getting paid a bunch of money to generate paperwork that divvies up ownership of the intellectual commons.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >"Does applying a longstanding technology to a newly needed purpose constitute invention?" Yes, if the technology is new in that 'field'.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        Sure if you're just describing the patent office's current policy. But based on the number of people who criticize patents for "X with computers" "X over a network" "X with advertising" etc, I'd say most people disagree that's how it should be. Granting monopolies on straightforward implementations of straightforward concepts for simply being the first to register does not drive innovation, it kills it.

mindslight 5y ago

You've got a valid general point about the scapegoating of NPEs. But it isn't applicable here, where the lack of building being referenced is the seeming impossibility of doing anything novel and non-obvious with plastic bins. If you click through to the patent filing (linked elsewhere in this thread), the claims are quite easy to read. If someone notices something novel in the claims that I've missed, I'd love to be wrong and learn about some fantastic new invention for plastic bins. But all indications are that this is yet another utterly bullshit patent that should never have been granted.

paulgb 5y ago
Yes, exactly, you put it better than I could have.
vmception 5y ago
Right, I actually disagree still, not because of the genericness of the patent itself but because it was a good finesse. And also because we are looking at it from 2021's eyes and not 2001's eyes. We need to rewind to 2001 and 2002 here, where the priority date of this patent begins. TSA was created as part of a series of kneejerk reactions to the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks in November 2001. Congress was merely a tool here as there was almost zero original bills passed, just pet projects that enterprisers and war hawks had already written as bills, forwarded to their favorite committees when it was convenient. Within 8 months this person has their provisional patent filed that predicts how these checkpoints will be structured and how they could further function. July 2002. Here, I agree that it was patentable because this level of security really was not in use anywhere back then. There was no need for an efficient baggage binning system back then. Just a few government buildings had scanners for just a couple people at a time. The TSA did not implement this until after this patent holder presented the proposal to them. The TSA also had a choice of not doing these obvious things. The patent system allows for infinite permutations to be patented, as well as patents to cover many of those permutations. The TSA did a very specific one, this isn't really that ambiguous. I agree with the patent examiner, I agree with the judge. Also thank you for validating my point about how non-practicing entities get scapegoated way too much, I appreciate that. Hope my perspective still offers more insight others can agree with.
- mindslight 5y ago
  I'd say the shape of our disagreement here follows a fundamental problem with the patent system. It's impossible to directly refute the argument that it only seems obvious in retrospect, short of finding some people who became isolated/frozen/etc in Y2K and asking them to judge. Which is why we look to prior art. But that forms a much weaker argument - while we've seen stackable bins and bin aggregation carts for decades, we hadn't seen them in use at high volume invasive security checkpoints, as such checkpoints didn't exist before. Does applying a longstanding technology to a newly needed purpose constitute invention? The patent system asserts that this answer is undecidable, and thus defaults to issuing a patent. Whereas to everyone else looking at the constructive behavior of this system, it looks an awful lot like lawyers getting paid a bunch of money to generate paperwork that divvies up ownership of the intellectual commons.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"Does applying a longstanding technology to a newly needed purpose constitute invention?" Yes, if the technology is new in that 'field'.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      Sure if you're just describing the patent office's current policy. But based on the number of people who criticize patents for "X with computers" "X over a network" "X with advertising" etc, I'd say most people disagree that's how it should be. Granting monopolies on straightforward implementations of straightforward concepts for simply being the first to register does not drive innovation, it kills it.