4 ms·

Every patent application needs these three questions answered: 1. What's novel about this? 2. What's not obvious about this to an average professional

by chime 15y ago

Every patent application needs these three questions answered: 1. What's novel about this? 2. What's not obvious about this to an average professional in this field? 3. What is useful about this? In this case, 3 is a given but I can't seem to figure out 1 and 2.

funthree 15y ago
I think open sourcing this wouldnt take long. Basically a transaction-al email is sent based on data in a user system. The fact that the patent is for email communication that contains a "notification containing a portion of a da out of office notice. " ... is just ... ridiculous.
mrlase 15y ago
I'd go as far as to add a "Why should we give this to you?" question, because honestly, why should IBM get a patent over this?
- reitzensteinm 15y ago
  What kind of patent is novel, non obvious and useful, but should not be patentable?
  - fooandbarify 15y ago
    A software patent.
    - anamax 15y ago
      Why should an invention that is novel, non obvious and useful, be patentable if it's hardware but not if it's software?
      - fooandbarify 15y ago
        Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, no idea if you'll see it. One aspect to the answer (and I am not a patent expert by any means) has to do with the much longer time-to-market represented by hardware development--hardware innovation would not be economically viable without the protection that patents provide. The same is not generally true of software development, and many argue that software patents are instead an impediment to progress (because other programmers are unable to build on existing innovations). Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status.
        anamax 15y ago
        > One aspect to the answer (and I am not a patent expert by any means) has to do with the much longer time-to-market represented by hardware development--hardware innovation would not be economically viable without the protection that patents provide. I don't buy that. > Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status. Copyright just protects expression. Suppose I invent a new way to compute shortest paths through a graph. Why is that less deserving of a patent than a new way type of gearing. Why should "protection" be limited to "don't copy my bits"? Consider automatic transmission control. You're suggesting that it should be patentable if done mechanically but not if done via software. How does that make sense? Disclosure: I have both hardware and software patents. I don't see a big difference between them.
        fooandbarify 15y ago
        I readily concede that the situation is more nuanced than "software patents are bad". However, I think we are coming at it from two different perspectives. You seem to be suggesting that ideas are innately deserving of protection. I don't share that point of view. For fear of beating a dead horse, let me put it this way: (should I be made King) I would do away with patents altogether if that didn't mean removing all incentive for innovation. For physical inventions, patents foster innovation by ensuring that the inventor will have time to bring their invention to market before a competitor. (I mean no snark at all, but I believe the previous sentence to be generally true whether you buy it or not.) For software, the market does a great job of fostering innovation and so I don't see the advantage of software patents (and that is obviously where our views differ). If a person or a corporation believe that a certain software method offers them a particular advantage, they will retain it as a trade secret regardless.
IanDrake 15y ago
Right, but money has a way of figuring out 1 and 2. Seriously, if they get awarded this patent, I'm just going to go through everything I can think of and file patents for half. Apple patents "swipe", I'll patent the "half swipe". Microsoft patents "avoid Ghetto" GPS feature, I'll patent the "avoid areas near a Walmart" feature.
- eternalban 15y ago
  Has anyone ever tried starting a community effort, something like IP Commons? [edit: I just duck'd and fished this out patentcommons.org but the site is down.]
  - gtani 15y ago
    https://w2.eff.org/patent/ https://w2.eff.org/patent/
    - eternalban 15y ago
      Thanks for the link. I mean, why not start a non-profit "open source" patent organization and start filing patents and hold ownership in commons; GPL for IP. Two can play this game, right?
bmelton 15y ago
I wrote code for an employer in 2000 or 2001 that checked against a user's availability, which could be as precise as a half hour, and sent out of office notifications back to the sender of an email that "While so and so will be happy to answer your question, please be aware that they are not on shift until later this afternoon. If your concern is immediate, please call the help desk at blah blah blah." I wish I'd patented it then, cause I guess IBM would be infringing.
- acak 15y ago
  It may not be patentable now. But wouldn't it make IBM's patent prior art?
  - bmelton 15y ago
    Difficult to say. The implementation details are probably different enough that it wouldn't count, and it was for an intranet site that was never seen outside the walls of that employer.

by chime 15y ago

funthree 15y ago

I think open sourcing this wouldnt take long. Basically a transaction-al email is sent based on data in a user system. The fact that the patent is for email communication that contains a "notification containing a portion of a da out of office notice. " ... is just ... ridiculous.

mrlase 15y ago

I'd go as far as to add a "Why should we give this to you?" question, because honestly, why should IBM get a patent over this?

reitzensteinm 15y ago
What kind of patent is novel, non obvious and useful, but should not be patentable?
- fooandbarify 15y ago
  A software patent.
  - anamax 15y ago
    Why should an invention that is novel, non obvious and useful, be patentable if it's hardware but not if it's software?
    - fooandbarify 15y ago
      Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, no idea if you'll see it. One aspect to the answer (and I am not a patent expert by any means) has to do with the much longer time-to-market represented by hardware development--hardware innovation would not be economically viable without the protection that patents provide. The same is not generally true of software development, and many argue that software patents are instead an impediment to progress (because other programmers are unable to build on existing innovations). Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > One aspect to the answer (and I am not a patent expert by any means) has to do with the much longer time-to-market represented by hardware development--hardware innovation would not be economically viable without the protection that patents provide. I don't buy that. > Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status. Copyright just protects expression. Suppose I invent a new way to compute shortest paths through a graph. Why is that less deserving of a patent than a new way type of gearing. Why should "protection" be limited to "don't copy my bits"? Consider automatic transmission control. You're suggesting that it should be patentable if done mechanically but not if done via software. How does that make sense? Disclosure: I have both hardware and software patents. I don't see a big difference between them.
        fooandbarify 15y ago
        I readily concede that the situation is more nuanced than "software patents are bad". However, I think we are coming at it from two different perspectives. You seem to be suggesting that ideas are innately deserving of protection. I don't share that point of view. For fear of beating a dead horse, let me put it this way: (should I be made King) I would do away with patents altogether if that didn't mean removing all incentive for innovation. For physical inventions, patents foster innovation by ensuring that the inventor will have time to bring their invention to market before a competitor. (I mean no snark at all, but I believe the previous sentence to be generally true whether you buy it or not.) For software, the market does a great job of fostering innovation and so I don't see the advantage of software patents (and that is obviously where our views differ). If a person or a corporation believe that a certain software method offers them a particular advantage, they will retain it as a trade secret regardless.

IanDrake 15y ago

Right, but money has a way of figuring out 1 and 2. Seriously, if they get awarded this patent, I'm just going to go through everything I can think of and file patents for half. Apple patents "swipe", I'll patent the "half swipe". Microsoft patents "avoid Ghetto" GPS feature, I'll patent the "avoid areas near a Walmart" feature.

eternalban 15y ago
Has anyone ever tried starting a community effort, something like IP Commons? [edit: I just duck'd and fished this out patentcommons.org but the site is down.]
- gtani 15y ago
  https://w2.eff.org/patent/ https://w2.eff.org/patent/
  - eternalban 15y ago
    Thanks for the link. I mean, why not start a non-profit "open source" patent organization and start filing patents and hold ownership in commons; GPL for IP. Two can play this game, right?

bmelton 15y ago

I wrote code for an employer in 2000 or 2001 that checked against a user's availability, which could be as precise as a half hour, and sent out of office notifications back to the sender of an email that "While so and so will be happy to answer your question, please be aware that they are not on shift until later this afternoon. If your concern is immediate, please call the help desk at blah blah blah." I wish I'd patented it then, cause I guess IBM would be infringing.

acak 15y ago
It may not be patentable now. But wouldn't it make IBM's patent prior art?
- bmelton 15y ago
  Difficult to say. The implementation details are probably different enough that it wouldn't count, and it was for an intranet site that was never seen outside the walls of that employer.