" 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.)
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")
Why do that? Well if there's prior art that knock out the antecedent claims but doesn't include this specificity then you still get a patent. Also for infringement purposes I think more damages can be extracted for things which are specifically claimed as opposed to generally claimed (depends on jurisdiction). Finally it helps prevent someone else from getting an addon to your invention patented - "our invention is the anti-patent invention but with the innovation of doing this before the USPTO, were awesome like that".
I don't see how claim structure like this has any bearing on innovation?
Generating royalty revenue using intellectual property
I think you just coined a term.
Funny you should say that. Elsewhere in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1608556
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):
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.
Go to http://ep.espacenet.com/ type in "us20080270152" click on the correct number, http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&... .
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.
Actually trying it makes it funny again.
We should do a patent like this every day.
bonus points: assignee is Halliburton