
Did someone just patent the process of patent trolling? USPTO: 0080270152 - chaostheory
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20080270152&OS=20080270152&RS=20080270152
======
billybob
OH NO THEY DIDN'T.

I already patented 'a method of subverting the patent system by patenting the
process of patent trolling."

I'm totally going to sue.

------
Dav3xor
The US Patent System has just been owned by Kurt Godel.

and Halliburton -- oh crap.

------
frederickcook
"[0012]The inventor and the assignee of this patent 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."

Whew, that could have been bad.

~~~
lotharbot
That's actually quite a brilliant hack. I wonder, has it ever been done?

X launches a patent-trolling suit to try to get in on Y's patent. These guys
launch a countersuit at X for using their patented technique, stalling the
original suit. The best part is, the evidence for the countersuit is already
known to the court...

~~~
stcredzero
Worth doing just as a protest.

------
zargon
Non-final rejection was on 2009-10-09. Response submitted on 2010-01-20. I
haven't read any of it but you can look up application number 11/741429 at
<http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair>.

~~~
cduan
Two bases for the rejections: one for lack of statutory subject matter (no
machine or transformation under Bilski) and one for obviousness (combining an
article about patent trolling with the PTO's prosecution manual makes the
claimed method obvious).

With regard to subject matter, the applicant makes two arguments: (1) patents
are like personal property, so they satisfy the "transformation of matter"
prong of Bilski; and (2) one of the steps involves computer research
(basically, Google searching), which involves a machine.

With regard to obviousness, the patent applicant argues that the prosecution
manual does not contain all the steps of the claimed method.

In my mind, the big issue is that the applicant most likely wrote the claims
up based on what other patent trolls have done before. Besides the fact that
this means that his claims are anticipated by prior use, it means that he is
not the original inventor of the claims, making them unpatentable.

------
GHFigs
This is a patent application, not a granted patent.

~~~
js3309
This is sad. This case has 100 claims. The Examiner on the case is writing 50
page actions, the attorney is writing 20 page responses.

Both their time and energy can be used on better things.

------
zaphar
From a cursory examination it looks like it's pretty close. Although this
patent seems to be broader than just patent trolling. It looks like it's a
patent on asserting patent rights in any situation predatory or non-predatory.

------
domfarr
perhaps someone should patent the process of patenting the process of
patenting. no one will beat that, surely.

~~~
stcredzero
why not? It's not like they take prior art into a account.

~~~
eru
Shouldn't this apply to patenting trolling, too?

~~~
stcredzero
How about patenting a method of getting a patent despite prior art?

------
harshpotatoes
After reading so many patents in the past week, I've learned a few things such
as: "the title is meaningless", and "patents are densely worded and difficult
to comprehend for somebody not versed in legalese"

So, are there any patent lawyers in our midst who can attest to the meaning of
this patent application? Is this actually what it appears to be?

------
NathanKP
Finally an effective way to end the patent troll:

 _You are using my patented method for patent trolling. I'm suing you!_

~~~
andyjdavis
Only if a patent on patent trolling was set up up so that it could be used by
everyone. I'm guessing its possible somehow to grant a license to use a patent
to every person, living or dead, now or in the future for an unlimited period
of time.

------
CoryMathews
link gives an error.

[Edit] Why the downvote?

~~~
glyphobet
Anyone have a working URL?

~~~
tkeller
Change appft1 to appft in the url

~~~
ramchip
Still doesn't work for me. Are we overloading it?..

~~~
cmars232
No, the USPTO is imploding.

~~~
technomancy
I wish. =\

------
GavinB
I think I'll patent "A method and process for mounting a legal defense against
patent lawsuits."

And next, "A method and process for preventing patent litigation through
acquiring patents and threatening to counter sue."

I'll be unstoppable!

------
marcusbooster
I'm sure you can find prior art on this one.

------
steveklabnik
Just? This was filed in 2007.

------
dotBen
Halliburton already tried this in 2008.

<http://techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0118162765.shtml> Yes, everyone's
favorite "Halliburton".

------
roundsquare
I suppose it could only have happened with the first (few) patent(s), but
someone should have patented "a method for filing a patent."

------
andyjdavis
The one patent to rule them all!!

------
kschua
This patent shouldn't be allowed. There are lots of prior art. Just ask any
patent troll

------
dkersten
Prior art, surely.

------
sabat
Self-reference has just waved the white flag and gone home.

