

IBM patent trolling patent application - revorad
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=%2220070244837%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070244837&RS=DN/20070244837

======
law
Step 1: Go to <http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair>

Step 2: Enter the captcha

Step 3: Type 11/696,104 as the "Application Number"

Step 4: Click the "Transaction History" tab

To summarize, the PTO issued a non-final rejection of the patent on
02/07/2009. IBM responded to that on 05/11/2009, which yielded a final
rejection on 08/31/2009. IBM then requested to withdraw their response to the
non-final rejection (the 05/11/2009 response). On 07/01/2010, IBM filed a new
response to the 02/10/2009 non-final rejection, and the PTO issued its second
final rejection on 09/13/2010.

IBM then made an amendment to their application, and requested a continued
examination (read more about that at
<http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/aipa/rcefaq.jsp>). Then, they filed their
appeal to the 09/13/2010 final rejection with the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interference. The continued examination yielded the most recent non-final
rejection, on 06/24/2011. IBM will likely respond in a few months, and
there'll likely be another final rejection (the third) issued.

Now, it's still in the hands of the BPAI, which will likely affirm the
rejection. After that, IBM can appeal the Board's ruling to the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will most likely side with the PTO.

It seems highly unlikely that IBM will be issued this patent, but if the final
rejection is miraculously overturned, prosecution history estoppel will likely
preclude IBM from doing anything meaningful with the patent, because as many
of you have noted, there's plenty of prior art dated before April 2006.

~~~
monochromatic
I believe the appeal is withdrawn when you file an RCE. Great explanation
otherwise though.

~~~
law
Yes, you are correct. Filing the RCE after filing a notice of appeal with the
BPAI is the same thing as withdrawing your appeal and filing the RCE.[1]

More than likely, we can all look forward to a final rejection by the examiner
sometime around October, at which point IBM will likely appeal to the BPAI
once more.

[1] 37 CFR 1.114(d).

~~~
monochromatic
It appears I have met a fellow patent nerd.

------
cube13
IBM hasn't gotten the patent yet. It's been filed, but doesn't appear to have
been awarded yet.

I'm divided over this. On one hand, it's a bullshit patent that shouldn't be
awarded to them, like all business process patents. So getting the patent
would be a pretty bad thing.

On the other hand, it would destroy the entire patent troll industry,
especially if IBM used it offensively. That would be a great thing.

~~~
powertower
I think the prior art would rule this one null and void.

~~~
stcredzero
And yet, what does the data say about US patents and prior art?

It says: We developers are #^¢&ed!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click>

~~~
powertower
The 1-click was granted in 1999, which I can't remember anyone doing for
shopping carts back then.

1999 was still the hay days of the internet and merchants weren’t really
making the checkout/buy process easy.

The 1-click is a good example of maybe an obvious method being patented rather
than ignoring prior art.

------
monochromatic
It's worth mentioning that the USPTO, which everyone here thinks will allow
anything, recently issued its _fifth_ rejection of this application.

~~~
rbanffy
All this proves is that the USPTO will block a patent that could threaten the
patent troll industry ;-)

~~~
stcredzero
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture>

If certain Monopolistic practices are directly illegal, what about more laws
directed against Regulatory Capture?

~~~
anamax
> what about more laws directed against Regulatory Capture?

Umm, regulatory capture applies to legislatures as well, not just regulatory
agencies.

Consider GE. Its $0 tax bill is not due to regulations, but to laws.

~~~
monochromatic
Any sensible income tax law will allow you to offset losses against gains.
Otherwise it's just a revenue or cashflow tax, not an income tax.

~~~
stcredzero
Why doesn't a revenue tax make sense? It may well take a lot more money to
regulate an industry involving a great many transactions.

~~~
nmcfarl
The main problem with a revenue tax is margins.

If you apply the same rate of taxes to all companies with the same revenue,
regardless of their margins you have your choice of putting all low margin
business out of business by assessing a tax higher than they can pay (to
collect reasonable revenues from the high margin businesses), or leaving a lot
of cash on the table in high margin industries (which as a tax authority you
probably don't like).

------
rsolari
Halliburton applied for a similar patent (#20080270152) a few years ago.

What's the purpose of these patents? Is it just satire or do they actually
have legal value for counter suing patent trolls?

~~~
dholowiski
Wouldnt that be cool, if IBM started going after patent trolls?

~~~
athom
Actually, the real win for whoever actually got such a patent would be the "no
tagbacks" effect.

Imagine for a moment that you were sued over a product or service another
party claims infringes a patent of theirs. Then, you found out that some
product they offer actually infringes one of _your_ patents. Now, you're
thinking you've got leverage to negotiate a settlement, but the other party
refuses all your offers, until you're finally left with no choice to
countersue. That's when you find out they actually have _the patent_ on patent
trolling! Not only can they sue anyone they like for the slightest whiff of
possible infringement, but the defendant _can't fight back_ without actually
violating another patent!

Quite the trump card, if you can get it.

------
zem
obligatory userfriendly strip:
<http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030301>

------
jfb
It's turtles all the way down.

~~~
Splines
Indeed. I should create a patent that describes the use of a patent to block
patent trolling.

~~~
stcredzero
Just patent the patent-related patent.

~~~
Eliezer
I think what we really need is the patent on approving patents.

~~~
stcredzero
I wonder if they'll drop the ball on the prior art on that one?

------
raghava
Then consider this list of such filed patents (just filed, not yet awarded)

[http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se...](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
adv.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&OS=DN%2F20090288018&RS=DN%2F20090288018&TD=1&Srch1=%252220090288018%2522.PGNR.&StartNum=&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=an%2Finfosys-
technologies%24)

#20100082494 tops them all I guess.

------
teeray
Yo dawg, so a heard you liek patent trolling...

