Article:		O'Reilly Awards $10,000 1-Click Bounty to Three "Runners Up"
Subject:		The Good Fight
Date:		2001-03-19 11:46:17
From:		bstackpo
Response to: Patent must be non-obvious
Mr. O'Reilly, I just read the March 15 article, Close Is Good Enough for Amazon Bounty in The Standard, and was pleased to hear someone is fighting the good fight against business-method patents. In my day job as a Senior Technology Consultant and Technical Trainer, I review and use proprietary business methodologies that amount to nothing more than common sense in a respectable font. I’m all for protecting one’s invention, or published work, but it seems all is needed to patent anything these days is a healthy dose of khutzpa, and a good lawyer. I have a personal reason to dislike business-method patents; I’m a part-time game designer, with gaming ideas that are restricted by US Patent 5,662,332, Trading Card Game Method of Play, awarded to Wizards of the Coast in 1997. The patent restricts is use of game play mechanics for collectable card games, such as Wizard’s top-selling ccg, Magic The Gathering. Rather than become entangled in a legal briar patch of royalty contracts, or worse, patent infringement, I’ve resigned to develop only non-collectable card and board games. The U. S. Patent Office opened its doors to inventors over 200 years ago, and, at first, required a working model of the invention. The World Wide Web and e-commerce aren’t even drinking age, but provide a wonderful opportunity for individuals and businesses alike to market their goods and services on a global scale, with no tangible invention model needed. In an effort to keep pace with an ever-evolving technology like the Internet, the Patent Office has apparently expanded their definition of “intellectual property” to include business methods. Even the criteria for patents is contradictory, stating that patent law protects “protects new, useful, and "nonobvious" inventions and processes”. While business opportunities abound in this technological arena, it’s unlikely the World Wide Web will remain static for long, forcing business and government to redefine the meaning of “patent”. In the meantime, I think I’ll patent the unique way I cut my lawn, before my neighbor beats me to it. William Stackpole Hilliard, Ohio

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

• The Good Fight
  2006-11-01 03:09:36  AndrewHS [Reply | View]
  
  
  William Stackpole and Tim O'Reilly
  
  Thanks for your serious attempt, in 2001-3, to help BountyQuest challenge bad patents.
  
  I'm actively studying the patent conflicts connected with a silicon sensor which we [a small development team] wish to market. My present drudgery job is re-reading all the claims in existing patents in this area. Stackpole's statement ... "it seems all is needed to patent anything these days is a healthy dose of khutzpa, and a good lawyer. " ... is ringing VERY true in my ears today. Although my product is an electronic device not a business method, we have in common a huge frustration with patent examiners who let through many commonsense but not original techniques as patentable inventions when they are not.
  
  There have been some serious debates between electrical engineers [see e.g. IEEE Spectrum "Patent Absurdity" August2002 pp48-9] and people like you,O'Reilly and Bounty Quest . Has that had any influence on courts or the attitude of patent lawyers as of 2006 ?
  
  The answer to that question will influence what I do next with one brain-child. So I look forward to an update and airing on O'Reilly and elsewhere.
  
  Andrew Holmes-Siedle, Oxford UK
• The Good Fight
  2006-11-01 07:36:50  Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think we successfully raised some awareness of the problem at the patent office, but no real change. Ultimately, the pro-patent lobbies are still in there every day. That's what I learned about Washington. It spits out concerned citizens. They don't pay the same kind of attention to you, because they know you won't be back, like the paid lobbyists will.
  
  And frankly, as long as they say to themselves "if this is a bad patent, it will be discovered in court," they aren't really going to improve things.
  
  There are a lot of smart, knowledgeable patent lawyers who do get it, though.
  
  FWIW, a lot of people don't do what you do-- read the existing patent claims. "Don't ask, Don't Tell." is the mantra. If they read them, they couldn't file their own stupid patent.
  
  Best of luck.