Cingular patents :)

Let me know when this actually hurts "the little guy" and then we can talk. So far software patents have been used by no-name start ups to harass large corporations as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Let me know when this actually hurts "the little guy" and then we can talk. So far software patents have been used by no-name start ups to harass large corporations as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

So? Those that make it more ethical?

It hasn't been patented yet, it is at no more than the application stage.

Yes, but it wouldn't be surprising if it gets accepted.
They really should make a law that if you try to patent bullshit like that and it gets rejected, you get bitchslaped with a big fine.

Surely the filling fee being non-refundable even if the patent is rejected is enough of a slap?
I can't see this getting accepted by the patent office, there are bound to be countless examples of prior art. However, if it does get accepted then .... :P

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Let me know when this actually hurts "the little guy" and then we can talk. So far software patents have been used by no-name start ups to harass large corporations as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Heh. Tell that to RIM.

Quote:

Original post by ViLiO Surely the filling fee being non-refundable even if the patent is rejected is enough of a slap? I can't see this getting accepted by the patent office, there are bound to be countless examples of prior art. However, if it does get accepted then .... :P

The fee is like what? 300 USD? That's not even change for such a big company.
Like I said, more stupid patents were accepted, such as method on how to train a cat with a laser pointer, how to swing a swing sideways, single clicks, and many others.

Has anyone patented a giant space tube yet? Maybe you should get in on that action.

:(

Quote:

Original post by AnonymousPosterChild Has anyone patented a giant space tube yet? Maybe you should get in on that action.

Maybe you should patent your use-the-car-battery-to-electrolyse-water-into-hydrogen-and-oxygen-and-then-burn-it-in-an-internal-combustion-engine Rube Goldberg car. I've already thought of a snappy name.

Maybe kieren_j should patent his MP3 beating CAR compression.

Quote:

Original post by furby100 Quote: Original post by AnonymousPosterChild Has anyone patented a giant space tube yet? Maybe you should get in on that action. Maybe you should patent your use-the-car-battery-to-electrolyse-water-into-hydrogen-and-oxygen-and-then-burn-it-in-an-internal-combustion-engine Rube Goldberg car. I've already thought of a snappy name. Maybe kieren_j should patent his MP3 beating CAR compression.

my idea actually works, but not to any degree of efficiency.

Why not just punch a hole in the gas tank? It's easier to do.

is there not multiple cases of prior art in this patent?

Quote:

Original post by AnonymousPosterChild Quote: Original post by furby100 Quote: Original post by AnonymousPosterChild Has anyone patented a giant space tube yet? Maybe you should get in on that action. Maybe you should patent your use-the-car-battery-to-electrolyse-water-into-hydrogen-and-oxygen-and-then-burn-it-in-an-internal-combustion-engine Rube Goldberg car. I've already thought of a snappy name. Maybe kieren_j should patent his MP3 beating CAR compression. my idea actually works, but not to any degree of efficiency.

I'm not disputing that, but it is nevertheless a Rube Goldberg machine.

Quote:

Original post by furby100 Quote: Original post by AnonymousPosterChild Quote: Original post by furby100 Quote: Original post by AnonymousPosterChild Has anyone patented a giant space tube yet? Maybe you should get in on that action. Maybe you should patent your use-the-car-battery-to-electrolyse-water-into-hydrogen-and-oxygen-and-then-burn-it-in-an-internal-combustion-engine Rube Goldberg car. I've already thought of a snappy name. Maybe kieren_j should patent his MP3 beating CAR compression. my idea actually works, but not to any degree of efficiency. I'm not disputing that, but it is nevertheless a Rube Goldberg machine.

You want a Rube Goldberg machine, you should see my mySQL code for my sites.

The stupidest patent application I've seen is one for the Boolean "is not equal to" operator in a programming language. Thankfully that one was rejected [smile].

Since it's just at the application stage, it's probably just one of those things where they try to patent everything from the specific unique thing they do regarding emoticons all the way up to any form of expressing human emotion, just to see what they can get away with.

Current patent law (especially in the US) is completely fucked up, nothing new here. *shrug*

Filling a patent in the US costs $300. This extremely low price is both good (so that small companies or individuals are not discriminated against), and bad because it motivates large corporations to litterally file thousands of patents just to see "if we can get it through".

In most large technology corporations, it is actually common practice to file a patent on everything imaginable when a new project is developed. They get a fixed budget for patent applications, and are required to get the most out of it. In essence, its: "here you get $100k, now go and file 300+ patents on whatever you think might get through". The USPTO doesn't really have the resources nor the expertise to review each patent application into every detail. So eventually, the validity of most patents get decided in subsequent patent infringement lawsuits - which is an abuse of the courts.

It's really a shame that a law that was originally designed to protect innovation is currently being completely subverted and abused, effectively stalling innovation more than anything else. Patent law is in dire need of a major reform.

In fact, application fees should be proportional to a companies annual revenue. The current rate of $300 for an individual, something like $10000 for a small company (that's the price here in Europe), and up to $10 million and more for a multinational corporation. That will make them think twice about registering ridiculous patents. From the side of the USPTO, this additional money could be very well used to hire competent personel for patent review.

Quote:

Original post by Raduprv [...]So? Those that make it more ethical?

It is ethical until they use the patent for unethical purposes. Parent infringement doesn't matter until the owner decides to prosecute, so I don't see any problem with companies grabbing all the patents they think they can as long as they don't abuse them. In fact, were I one of the decision makers in a megacorp, I would do exactly the same thing to help ensure that other companies don't abuse their patents against me because then I would be able to do likewise.

Yes, software patents are stupid in their current form, but it should be apparent that nobody on capital hill understands concepts like 'logic' or 'sense'. As long as that is the case, patenting ridiculous things is the only way a company can defend itself from the system.

It is unethical to even have the patent, because you can't even know how they will abuse their 'right' and sue people around. Since there is a patent for every idiotic little thing, you can always get sued by god knows what company you might have not even heard of before.