

The best patent ever - btilly
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080270152%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080270152&RS=DN/20080270152

======
dctoedt
From the patent application's detailed description:

"[0012] The inventor and the assignee of this patent _[Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc.]_ have no intention of applying the techniques described herein
offensively but instead intend to use the patent defensively to discourage
patent trolls and the like from extortionist practices."

(Disclosure: The attorney of record is a friend of mine.)

~~~
ultrasaurus
I'm happy to see the word trolls embedded in a legal document.

But the claims remind me why patents tend to be useless to actual innovation
"The method of claim 63 where filing the claim with the patent office
includes:filing the claim with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
" -- not only is that obvious, but it's repeated several times. (I'm sure
these guys write better patents than I do, I just hate the metric that we use
for "better")

~~~
jbooth
Well, if you have years of effort put into something which can be copied
easily, as is the case with mechanical inventions, drugs, or
cryptography/compression algos (yes I think those actually make sense as
patentable), that's one thing. Most software is the opposite -- copying it and
applying to your business would often be more effort than inventing your own.
So the patent system is exactly backwards for us.

~~~
DennisP
Bruce Schneier has written that patents are useless for cryptography. You
can't trust an algorithm until a lot of cryptographers have beaten on it, and
they don't bother with patented algorithms. Patenting your algorithm just
dooms it to obscurity.

------
pierrefar
Let's not forget the patent application of patent trolling:

 _Generating royalty revenue using intellectual property_

<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0200399.html>

------
notmyname
Looking at the independent claims, it seems like this is a patent on reverse
engineering (with a computer!) something, then getting a patent on it, and
finally licensing that patent to the owner of the system that was reverse
engineered.

~~~
cwp
I wonder if this could be used as a Gödel patent. If you had a patent on
patent trolling, it could be a weapon for patent reform: go around suing
patent trolls. Either you win, in which case trolling ceases to be a viable
business model, or you lose, setting a precedent for the argument that patents
on business methods aren't valid. Either way, you tie up patent trolls in
unproductive litigation, force _them_ to argue against the current state of
the patent system, and put a spotlight on the ridiculousness of the status
quo.

~~~
jacquesm
> Gödel patent

I think you just coined a term.

~~~
SandB0x
Better copyright it!

~~~
blahedo
Trademark, really.

~~~
stretchwithme
Why not patent the trademarking of copyrights?

------
cadr
I always thought "Method of exercising a cat" was the best patent ever

[http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-5443036/method-of-
exerc...](http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-5443036/method-of-exercising-a-
cat/Page-2)

------
lizchanning
This situation is an example of why the USPTO is swamped.

It's not a granted patent -- it's an application; in fact, it's been rejected
twice. After each rejection, the attorneys have called and spoken with the
examiner, then requested a re-examination. The current state is that the
agents are awaiting a response to their last request for re-examination (click
Image File Wrapper):

[http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLL...](http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3h3cz9XEzcPIwMLvyALA08jF39LE2cjQwMLU6B8JG55dxNKdBuYEtAdDnItftvxyYPMB8kb4ACOBvp-
Hvm5qfqR-lHmCFPcff3dgKa4ebh5BxgZG7gb6UfmpKYnJlfqF-
SGRhhkBmQEOioqAgBVda8T/dl3/d3/L0lJSklna21DU1EhIS9JRGpBQU15QUJFUkNKRXFnLzRGR2dzbzBWdnphOUlBOW9JQSEhLzdfRzdORTRGSDIwR01PRjBJMkZIRktQMjMwRzIvNVpkTkExNzg4MDAzMi9zYS5nZXRCaWI!/)

------
kljensen
That is a patent application. It has not been granted.

~~~
sbov
How do you tell from the page if a patent has been granted?

~~~
uuoc
Listed midway down the page is a "Serial Number" field. In the case of this
application, it is 741429. At the top of the page is a "home" button. Click
the home button and then select "Advanced search" underneath "PATFT: Issued
Patents". In the "query" box, enter "apn/" and the serial number, i.e.,
"apn/741429". Click search. Five titles appear, none of which is anything
close to this patent, so it looks to not have been granted.

If you really want to be sure, go to the main homepage: "www.uspto.gov", and
pick "2 search" under "Patents". Then pick "Patent application information
retreiveal (PAIR)". Then pick "Public PAIR". Answer the capacha, and then put
the series and serial numbers into the lookup box (i.e. 11741429), leaving the
radio button set for "application number". Click search. If it had issued, on
the next screen under "Patent number" and "Issue Date of Patent" you would
find both the number and issue date. In this case, no values, so not issued.
If you want to know more you can pick the "Image file wrapper" tab and look
through the documents that make up the patent application. This one is still
being prosecuted, but has not issued as a patent.

~~~
damncabbage
Now that's a user-friendly website.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Try Espacenet or Google Patents instead. USPTO has been the worst of the
patent search sites for a long time.

Go to <http://ep.espacenet.com/> type in "us20080270152" click on the correct
number,
[http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&...](http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20081030&CC=US&NR=2008270152A1&KC=A1)
.

Note that A1 tells you it's a first publication. B patents are granted.

<http://www.google.com/patents> doesn't appear to have this application yet.

------
bitwize
The Slashdot joke "I patented the act of patent trolling" ceased to be funny a
decade ago.

Actually _trying_ it makes it funny again.

~~~
Vivtek
And _succeeding really_ makes it a thigh-slapper.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
You can apply for a patent on anything you can put into text. The barrier for
printing the application (A1 docs) is exceedingly low. Indeed for a time in
the UK you could apply for free IIRC, not anymore.

------
uuoc
That is a patent __application__, not a patent. The distinction is quite
critical.

------
DarrenMills
Can you even patent the process of fighting someone for patent infringement?

~~~
oiuytghyuj
Yes - IBM already did it

[http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2007/10/22/the-ibm-patent-
tro...](http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2007/10/22/the-ibm-patent-troll-
patent/)

------
Finster
By Halliburton even... LOL

~~~
afarrell
When did Halliburton become Richard Stallman?

~~~
elai
When a company is that big, people can push their own richard stallman mini
projects through like that.

------
mkramlich
summary: applying for a patent on patents

bonus points: assignee is Halliburton

------
sfall
where is the prior artwork?

------
napierzaza
Whoa, meta.

We should do a patent like this every day.

~~~
stcredzero
It's patents all the way down.

------
Rod
Interestingly I could not find this patent application at
<http://www.google.com/patents>

------
bugsy
Wow!

