

Eclipse IP Casts a Shadow Over Innovation - tgbrter
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/stupid-patent-month-eclipse-ip-casts-shadow-over-innovation

======
vigile_
Example of the potential impact outside the US. 1\. "Normally", this kind of
patent would not have been validated in France. Which is a good thing. 2\.
But, as soon as this patent is validated in the US, the patent owner can ask
for internationalisation and then... (talala...), it starts to be applicable
in France. 3\. Finally, French laws should ask local consumers and enterprises
to respect this patent that would not have been validated in a first place...
Here, you have a "niche" market for patent trolls?

------
delinka
This is not about IP in the Eclipse IDE, like I was thinking.

~~~
thebouv
First thing I thought as well. Especially since you hear so little about
Eclipse these days.

------
coldcode
Why the Patent office continues to award patents of "apply computer to
otherwise not patentable ideas" is beyond me. In my last job we constantly
fought people who claimed that using a computer to do something with travel
required them to be massively paid off.

------
onion2k
The patent expressly states a "notification system". I'd question whether that
covers a bi-directional communication platform like SMS messaging. A
notification system should be in one direction only - sending notifications to
a user and nothing more (like a pager). The fact that you can use SMSs to
notify people is irrelevant. You can use _any_ communication system to notify
people. A patent that claimed innovation on "telling people changes in
quantity regardless of how they're communicated" would be far too broad to get
approval.

~~~
zaroth
Except that reading the claims... it _really is_ that broad. Stupid Patent of
the Month is going far too easy on this one.

The patent is rooted in a provisional dated 2003. Even in 1953 it would be a
stretch to call this novel. Filing a patent like this should be considered
defrauding the patent office and should carry criminal penalties.

~~~
hobarrera
> Filing a patent like this should be considered defrauding the patent office
> and should carry criminal penalties.

I couldn't agree more. I wonder if this doesn't fall into any existing
criminal charge already.

------
sologoub
From what I understand, the patent office essentially is not empowered to say
"no" to a patent request. The most they can do is keep sending it back for
revisions, but if you have enough money and lawyers, you get to basically wear
the examiner down or get a different examiner more willing to let it go.

An outright rejection process would go a long way to fixing some of this crap.

~~~
Afton
How would a rejection differ from sending it back for revisions? Are you
imagining a blackout period for that submitter?

~~~
sukilot
The first review can be binding, so a peer reviewer is forbidden from
overriding any findings of prior art. Appeals could require litigation
or.exponentially increasing fees .

~~~
Afton
Please answer these two questions:

1\. What is wrong with revising a patent based on Patent Office feedback?
"P.O.:This is objectionable for reasons x, y, z" , "Applicant: Ok, thanks,
I'll change x, y, z so as not to be objectionable". This seems like a
reasonable exchange on the face of it.

2\. How will you distinguish 'revisions' from 'new' patents that are
substantially similar to previous patent applications?

Remember that some companies (MSFT/Google/IBM) file for many, many patents
every year.

~~~
sologoub
Revisions can keep coming back. No one in the patent office can stop the
patent outright and prevent it from coming back. If someone file a patent for
something obvious, the examiner cannot completely reject it.

Ideally, the rejection should go in a searchable database/knowledgebase and
prevent from anyone else, including the original filer from filling again.

------
StevePerkins
Heh... I made it more than halfway through the article before I realized that
it has nothing to do with the Eclipse open source software foundation.

------
krylon
It is kind of shocking somebody actually got a patent for something that
obvious.

I thought one requirement for getting a patent is that the invention has to be
non-obvious. Is this the result of cleverly wording the patent application, or
did someone at the patent office neglect their job to actually review a patent
application before accepting it?

------
Roboprog
One can only hope that these assholes eventually try to squeeze the wrong
"legitimate businessmen" somewhere, and end up at the bottom of a river
somewhere.

Yeah, I know: they're really good at avoiding large enough companies that have
the resources to silence their bullshit.

